Aa
The Middle East is in flames -- and Obama's making it worse
(CNN) U.S. President Barack Obama's recent explanation of how his administration will engage with the Middle East is far from reassuring to the region.
In his interview with Tom Friedman from the New York Times on April 4, Obama explained U.S. foreign policy moves on Iran and Cuba, which Friedman described as the "Obama doctrine." He stated that "We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities." By capabilities, the President must mean the tools, whether diplomatic, economic or military, to protect and defend U.S. interests.
The doctrine is significant because it provides greater clarity about the U.S. policy under the rest of Obama's presidency. Instead of the "new beginning" that the President outlined in his much discussed Cairo speech in 2009, U.S. policy in the Middle East remains mired in a contradiction between principles and action on the ground.
For example, the President asserted in the interview that "the U.S.'s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial ... Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements aren't taking place."
Yet, at the very moment that the President was offering this assessment, U.S. allies, such as the Arab Gulf states, Jordan, Lebanon and the legitimate government in Yemen, found themselves under serious threat and attack; the Syrian regime was continuing to relentlessly bomb its own citizens; and the Middle East was faced with the biggest refugee crisis in its history.
Implementing the core U.S. interests outlined by Obama in the interview is clearly not working.
There exist grave doubts about whether the current U.S. administration is indeed ready to deploy the above-mentioned "capabilities." It seems that the U.S. will only use them when its national security is at stake.
And those core interests are limited to dealing with terrorism and nuclear proliferation only and not the broader aspects mentioned by the President.
The use of drone technology across the region, the military strikes being conducted against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the framework agreement between Iran and six world powers on the Iranian nuclear programs are cases in point.
Establishing a region "living in peace" is clearly not an instance where those capabilities will be deployed and is not part of the so-called Obama doctrine.
In the same vein, the majority of the Arab world and the entire Gulf region look at the recently announced Iran nuclear deal with a sense of suspicion and trepidation.
Having directly experienced the problematic interventionist Iranian policies for decades, the Arab world is simply not ready to give Tehran the benefit of doubt on any regional issue.
But neither is it ready to trust U.S. assurances that outside a nuclear agreement, the U.S. will indeed put forward a concerted strategy to contain Iranian influence throughout the region or to defend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states against any Iranian threat.
Instead, the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats. Here, actions speak louder than words and unfortunately one sees only the latter coming from Washington.
At a time when the region is faced with unprecedented turmoil and transition, the President even shifted the blame and directed his criticism toward the Arab world. When he referred to "our Sunni Arab allies" the President gave an exaggerated picture by saying "populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances."
What Obama failed to do is to highlight that this statement is in fact also applicable to Iran. In his interview, he never questioned Iran's appalling record on human rights, treatment of the political opposition, and minorities' rights, among other disturbing issues.
Moreover the reference to Saudi Arabia being one of the "Sunni Arab allies" ignores the fact that there are non-Sunnis living in the Arab Gulf and adds to the existing destructive sectarian tensions as well as the sensitivity of the non-Sunni Arabs.
Equally, the assertion that "the biggest threats that they (the Arab states) face may not be coming from Iran invading. It's going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries ..." is another example of the detachment from reality. Based on a Gulf Research Center study, when there are 48 militia groups supported by Iran operating in Iraq and tearing apart the very social fabric of that country, it is simply naive to suggest there is no Iranian threat.
The bottom line here is that U.S. and Arab national security interests are no longer on the same page. Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, those interests have increasingly diverged to the point that the Arab world is tired of false promises. The ongoing operation of ten mostly Arab coalition countries to protect the legitimate government of Yemen is simply the latest move that underlines the determination of Arab countries to take matters in their own hands.
The GCC states may accept the invitation by the U.S. President to come to Camp David, his Maryland country retreat, and have an honest discussion with him about the situation in the region. But they question the value of being invited for purposes of being reassured when they are already being informed beforehand of what is wrong with them.
The truth of the matter is that "the region is (not) working" and that misguided U.S. leadership and policies are among the reasons for the enduring tragedy in this region. Unfortunately, the "Obama doctrine" does little to change this and may in fact make matters worse.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/barack-obama-mideast-sager/index.html
In his interview with Tom Friedman from the New York Times on April 4, Obama explained U.S. foreign policy moves on Iran and Cuba, which Friedman described as the "Obama doctrine." He stated that "We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities." By capabilities, the President must mean the tools, whether diplomatic, economic or military, to protect and defend U.S. interests.
The doctrine is significant because it provides greater clarity about the U.S. policy under the rest of Obama's presidency. Instead of the "new beginning" that the President outlined in his much discussed Cairo speech in 2009, U.S. policy in the Middle East remains mired in a contradiction between principles and action on the ground.
For example, the President asserted in the interview that "the U.S.'s core interests in the region are not oil, are not territorial ... Our core interests are that everybody is living in peace, that it is orderly, that our allies are not being attacked, that children are not having barrel bombs dropped on them, that massive displacements aren't taking place."
Yet, at the very moment that the President was offering this assessment, U.S. allies, such as the Arab Gulf states, Jordan, Lebanon and the legitimate government in Yemen, found themselves under serious threat and attack; the Syrian regime was continuing to relentlessly bomb its own citizens; and the Middle East was faced with the biggest refugee crisis in its history.
Implementing the core U.S. interests outlined by Obama in the interview is clearly not working.
There exist grave doubts about whether the current U.S. administration is indeed ready to deploy the above-mentioned "capabilities." It seems that the U.S. will only use them when its national security is at stake.
And those core interests are limited to dealing with terrorism and nuclear proliferation only and not the broader aspects mentioned by the President.
The use of drone technology across the region, the military strikes being conducted against ISIS in Iraq and Syria and the framework agreement between Iran and six world powers on the Iranian nuclear programs are cases in point.
Establishing a region "living in peace" is clearly not an instance where those capabilities will be deployed and is not part of the so-called Obama doctrine.
In the same vein, the majority of the Arab world and the entire Gulf region look at the recently announced Iran nuclear deal with a sense of suspicion and trepidation.
Having directly experienced the problematic interventionist Iranian policies for decades, the Arab world is simply not ready to give Tehran the benefit of doubt on any regional issue.
But neither is it ready to trust U.S. assurances that outside a nuclear agreement, the U.S. will indeed put forward a concerted strategy to contain Iranian influence throughout the region or to defend the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states against any Iranian threat.
Instead, the fear is that as long as Iran abides by any agreement that might come into force later this year, the U.S. will negate, downplay, or simply ignore those Iranian actions that the Arab world considers as direct threats. Here, actions speak louder than words and unfortunately one sees only the latter coming from Washington.
At a time when the region is faced with unprecedented turmoil and transition, the President even shifted the blame and directed his criticism toward the Arab world. When he referred to "our Sunni Arab allies" the President gave an exaggerated picture by saying "populations that, in some cases, are alienated, youth that are underemployed, an ideology that is destructive and nihilistic, and in some cases, just a belief that there are no legitimate political outlets for grievances."
What Obama failed to do is to highlight that this statement is in fact also applicable to Iran. In his interview, he never questioned Iran's appalling record on human rights, treatment of the political opposition, and minorities' rights, among other disturbing issues.
Moreover the reference to Saudi Arabia being one of the "Sunni Arab allies" ignores the fact that there are non-Sunnis living in the Arab Gulf and adds to the existing destructive sectarian tensions as well as the sensitivity of the non-Sunni Arabs.
Equally, the assertion that "the biggest threats that they (the Arab states) face may not be coming from Iran invading. It's going to be from dissatisfaction inside their own countries ..." is another example of the detachment from reality. Based on a Gulf Research Center study, when there are 48 militia groups supported by Iran operating in Iraq and tearing apart the very social fabric of that country, it is simply naive to suggest there is no Iranian threat.
The bottom line here is that U.S. and Arab national security interests are no longer on the same page. Ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, those interests have increasingly diverged to the point that the Arab world is tired of false promises. The ongoing operation of ten mostly Arab coalition countries to protect the legitimate government of Yemen is simply the latest move that underlines the determination of Arab countries to take matters in their own hands.
The GCC states may accept the invitation by the U.S. President to come to Camp David, his Maryland country retreat, and have an honest discussion with him about the situation in the region. But they question the value of being invited for purposes of being reassured when they are already being informed beforehand of what is wrong with them.
The truth of the matter is that "the region is (not) working" and that misguided U.S. leadership and policies are among the reasons for the enduring tragedy in this region. Unfortunately, the "Obama doctrine" does little to change this and may in fact make matters worse.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/20/opinions/barack-obama-mideast-sager/index.html
A lot of Democrats are equally disappointed in Obama.
I would say that most who have thrown their hat into the ring are just busy doing that and have not expressed their plans yet in detail. So, I couldn't say that no one has 'nothing' as things are just getting started.
I would say that most who have thrown their hat into the ring are just busy doing that and have not expressed their plans yet in detail. So, I couldn't say that no one has 'nothing' as things are just getting started.
Like he said Barb, "Why? They got nothing else. "
Wow, 8 years into Obama's Presidency, we're still blaming the mess the Republicans left...
There's one thing I have to agree with you on "no potential candidate is focusing on the economy or Obamacare" - that includes Hillary, from what I've seen so far, but on the off chance that you might want to stop insulting people, maybe we could start working on this election together instead of concentrating on being adversaries.
There's one thing I have to agree with you on "no potential candidate is focusing on the economy or Obamacare" - that includes Hillary, from what I've seen so far, but on the off chance that you might want to stop insulting people, maybe we could start working on this election together instead of concentrating on being adversaries.
Just like the economy:: Repubicans left a terrible mess and they're upset because Obama couldn't fix it fast enough.
But, no potential candidate is focussing on the economy or Obamacare but the Middle East is a mess so they'll talk about that......in the rare moments when they're not talking about Hillary. Why? They got nothing else. All these right wing candidates have nothing positive to say. They have no ideas at all. But they know how to hate and create fear.
But, no potential candidate is focussing on the economy or Obamacare but the Middle East is a mess so they'll talk about that......in the rare moments when they're not talking about Hillary. Why? They got nothing else. All these right wing candidates have nothing positive to say. They have no ideas at all. But they know how to hate and create fear.
If someone would take the telephone and ink pen away from our current administration, maybe there wouldn't be so many domestic issues to be resisted, and the President "could" concentrate on Foreign Policy, it might be better. But we might not!! And we'll never know...
It's a 2-way street and the administration hasn't been anymore willing to work with Congress than they have been to work with him. Shame on all of them.
It's a 2-way street and the administration hasn't been anymore willing to work with Congress than they have been to work with him. Shame on all of them.
Tee hee hee.
Democrats either pretend nothing is wrong with any of the broken issues or they say that they and only they have the solution to all of our ills, and still don't do anything.
Its beautiful really. Say anything you want in order to get some votes.
Democrats either pretend nothing is wrong with any of the broken issues or they say that they and only they have the solution to all of our ills, and still don't do anything.
Its beautiful really. Say anything you want in order to get some votes.
At this point, the complaints regarding Obama are so numerous that what ISN'T a disappointment?
Blah, blah, blah. More editorial page whining with no alternative offered, just like Health Care. You think the idiots that write these things would come up with a shadow of a comprehensive substitute plan before they chose to attack.
What would Lindsey do? Or Ted? Or Jeb? If our current administration didn't have it's hands full dealing with childish resistance to domestic issues, we might have better Foreign Policy.
Or then again, we might not. I guess we'll never know now.
What would Lindsey do? Or Ted? Or Jeb? If our current administration didn't have it's hands full dealing with childish resistance to domestic issues, we might have better Foreign Policy.
Or then again, we might not. I guess we'll never know now.
Is anyone surprised by this? (ie: Obama's stance/action on the middle-east). He is as antisemitic as hitler was and hates every single thing that America stands for.
He spent 20yrs in a church that advocated the hatred of Jews and America from Rev.Wright. We tried to warn you, but you believed his lies and thought it was more important to have a black president than to have one that put the U.S. & it's interests first.
I hope you're are happy with the moronic choice you made.
The sad part, is that there are some great black politicians that would have been a MUCH better choice for president, but in the rush to WIN AT ANY COST, you selected this incompetent idiot.
WW3 is around the corner, and YOU are at fault. This guy will be the end of us all.
Melodramatic? Maybe. Realistic. Absolutely.
He spent 20yrs in a church that advocated the hatred of Jews and America from Rev.Wright. We tried to warn you, but you believed his lies and thought it was more important to have a black president than to have one that put the U.S. & it's interests first.
I hope you're are happy with the moronic choice you made.
The sad part, is that there are some great black politicians that would have been a MUCH better choice for president, but in the rush to WIN AT ANY COST, you selected this incompetent idiot.
WW3 is around the corner, and YOU are at fault. This guy will be the end of us all.
Melodramatic? Maybe. Realistic. Absolutely.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
