Over 2 years After President Obama’s Cairo Speech…

Loading

A souvenir shop's owner displays a recently made metal plaque reading 'Obama, New Tutankhamun of the World' in Cairo, June 1, 2009. REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh

Then:

“My dear sir, President Obama… We all hated America before you came, but now… an olive branch and a… ‘Hamama’ [dove]!”Abbas Chechan, Iraqi poet

And now:

“When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”Arab proverb

Wasn’t our standing in the world supposed to improve in the Age of Obama? Weren’t we “hated” due to 8 years of oppressing Muslims under the evil, warmongering Bush Regime?

A recent Zogby analysis- Arab Attitudes, 2011– finds that President Obama’s charm offensive Apology Tour, his bowing and bombing campaigns, his “support” for Libyan rebels and non-support for Iranian democracy, distancing and abandonment of traditional allies (Israel & Mubarak), his broken promise to close Gitmo, his perpetuation of Bush-era wars (and in some ways, expansion) in spite of the name-changes and the makeovers, have all resulted in a worsening of America’s standing in the Arab world:

Executive Summary
• After improving with the election of Barack Obama in 2008, U.S. favorable ratings across the Arab world have plummeted. In most countries they are lower than at the end of the Bush Administration, and lower than Iran’s favorable ratings (except in Saudi
Arabia).

• The continuing occupation of Palestinian lands and U.S. interference in the Arab world are held to be the greatest obstacles to peace and stability in the Middle East.

• While many Arabs were hopeful that the election of Barack Obama would improve U.S.-Arab relations, that hope has evaporated. Today, President Obama’s favorable ratings across the Arab World are 10% or less.

• Obama’s performance ratings are lowest on the two issues to which he has devoted the most energy: Palestine and engagement with the Muslim world.

• The U.S. role in establishing a no-fly zone over Libya receives a positive rating only in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, but, as an issue, it is the lowest priority.

• The killing of bin Laden only worsened attitudes toward the U.S.

• A plurality says it is too early to tell whether the Arab Spring will have a positive impact on the region. In Egypt, the mood is mixed. Only in the Gulf States are optimism and satisfaction levels high.

Expectations ran high in the Arab world that President Obama might bring about change they could believe in. But like many Americans, they’ve grown disillusioned with this President, bringing approval ratings lower in 2011 than in 2008 (the last year of President Bush’s 2nd term). Anti-Americanism in the Muslim world has not been quelled by this president:

C. Substantial majorities of Arabs in almost every country view both the U.S. and Iran as not “contributing to peace and stability in the Arab World.” The U.S.’ contribution to the region is viewed less positively than Iran in every country except Saudi Arabia.

Lebanon is the only Arab country that sees Iran contributing to peace and stability in the region.

The roles of Turkey and Saudi Arabia are appreciated by strong majorities in every country.

D. Overall, Arabs view the two greatest threats to the region’s peace and stability to be “the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands” and “U.S. interference in the Arab world.” Only in Saudi Arabia does the concern with “Iran’s interference in Arab affairs” rank as a top concern.

President Obama’s foreign policy ranks below that of Erdogen, Sarkozy, Ahmadinejad, and Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz.

Turkish demonstrators step on a poster of President Barack Obama during a protest in Istanbul April 7, 2009. REUTERS/Gurcan Ozturk

It is noteworthy that the two issues on which the Administration has invested considerable energy—”the Palestinian issue” and “engagement with the Muslim world”—receive the lowest approval ratings – less than 9% across the board.

Apparently the Israel-Palestinian issue remains a hot-button topic in the Middle East and how it affects U.S. relations with the Muslim world there.

Neither did the killing of Osama bin Laden do anything to improve our favorable ratings in the countries surveyed (which apparently did not include Pakistan….but we already know how most Pakistanis feel about having their sovereignty violated).

A plurality in Egypt say they are worse off now than they were before the Arab Spring but remain optimistic for the future.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
102 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I imagine Obama’s popularity is quite low among dictators and surviving terrorist leaders, too. I’m quite concerned. Maybe someone should take a poll.

It appears we’ll soon be rid of a dictator known to have been a sponsor of international terrorism, who has been responsible for the deaths of at least 180 U.S. nationals. Thousands of our troops have not died to achieve this result. There’s reason to believe the rebels might appreciate the support we did provide, and will likely value their freedom all the more because they won it.

So far I have few complaints about how Obama has handled the Libyan situation. There are several other other hostile regimes that it would be good to see go down in a similar fashion.

Greg: I imagine Obama’s popularity is quite low among dictators and surviving terrorist leaders, too. I’m quite concerned. Maybe someone should take a poll.

Also Greg: So far at least, I have few complaints about how Obama has handled the Libyan situation. There are several other other hostile regimes that it would be good to see go down in a similar fashion.

’tis amazing how that perceived halo still blinds the o’faithful years after his campaign. Let’s see…

1: Libya/Gaddafi got rid of their WMD program when the US deposed Saddam in 2003, and was a US aid in intel since then. The Obie Zero Kenobi regime demands his resignation from the onset. I might also mention that the other Arab tyants in the region hate Gaddafi, and are immensely pleased to have NATO do their bidding. They played them for fools… talking them into gettng engaged, then criticized their collateral damage. Perfect scene. Obama allowed himself to be dragged into this, “leading from behind”, and made the iconic patsy.

2: Egypt’s Mubarak was another US aid in intel, and the centerpiece for keeping peace in that region with Israel… and that includes tunnels that would be feeding arms and cash to Hamas in Gaza. Obie Zero Kenobi demands his resignation from the onset.

3: Yemen… another nation that was cooperating with the US on intel…. and another leader that Obie demanded step down

4: Pakistan? Woof… let’s up the predator bombing and collateral damage, publicly tell them Obie would have no hesitation to invade their sovereign territory without their permission to get UBL…. then actually does invade their sovereign territory. After which he says we did so because we don’t “trust” them. With friends like Obie, who needs enemies?

5: Honduras uses their Constitution to oust a President seeking kingship, and the Obie WH insists that the wannabe King be returned to power.

6: Obie Zero Kenobi regime snubs Israel and the UK with regularity… even the US Congress gives BiBi a more cordial and respectful reception. Additionally, Obie etal make public demands that Israel has already attempted in the past during the Clinton years… to no avail. Here’s hoping that the US will actually take a firm stand with Israel as their hostilities with Hamas steadily increase, as was predicted prior to their self declaration of statehood to the UN in September. Me? I’m not so sure this joke of a CiC will not take the same route he did with Libya… first pass it off to the “girls”… then vote present. This man is embarrassing as the leader of the free world. Most especially because he doesn’t lead, and when he does, it’s around by his nose.

7: Iran? Zip, nada, nothing. Even the token lip service has disappeared. Heard anything from Obama about the two hikers sentenced in Iran? Oh yes… can’t be bothered. He’s with his family in Martha’s Vineyard.

8: Somalia? What Somalia? Where’s Somalia? Who cares about Somalia? Wasn’t that the place where Clinton royally screwed up and so many of our warriors died? My guess is Obie ain’t going there… no matter how bad the conditions or famine.

9: Darfur? Obie Zero Kenobi did lots of lip service during the campaign. Off the radar since he sauntered into the WH.

10: Syria? Months and months of actual body counts, and not a word from the WH until about a week ago…. and only under UNSC co-op cover. Sort of a feeble finger wagging at that….

11: Afghanistan? Half hearted efforts and help. Less troops than commanders requested, and a preordained bug out… perfect for the patient terrorists.

12: Iraq? Remains to be seen if Obama will honor the Bush/Iraq SOFA that states if Iraq needs troops to stay longer, the US will do so. Since their violence is predictably increasing (Zawahiri did promise that they’d move in as the US troops leave two years ago…), will Obama risk elongating that war and providing troops when he’s fighting for his job?

Lesson that dictators and terrorist rebels around the world, and we in the US who are actually astute, have learned, Greg? It sure don’t pay to be a friend of the US under Obie Zero Kenobi.

But if you’re a dictator, he’ll be tiptoeing around you for sure. They have no respect and never did for who ever the latest “Great Satan” was. Now they also have no fear…. and you can thank this CiC for that. Additionally, other nations have learned that befriending the US results in the knife in the back when the going get’s tough.

You’d like to see hostile regimes go down. Guess I have to wonder just what you classify as a hostile regime within real perspectives of a region that will never love the US. The most we could ever hope for was tacit aid, and public tut tut’s… much as Musharraf did. At least that CIC… the evil Dubya… didn’t publicly get involved in that nation’s affairs, and demand the resignation of a US ally. When it comes to foreign policy, I sure miss Dubya. And considering Obama’s domestic policies, Bush looks like Ebenezer Scrooge.

But here’s your ponder moment for the night…. if you think that we’ve improved our relationship with Pakistan, or that Egypt, Yemen, Libya or Syria would end up an Arab democracy resembling Iraq, you really are Pollyanna.

Supporting iron-fisted dictatorships because they are helpful to the USA has been a blot on our history and does us more harm than good. This has been true from Iran to Chile. In any event, it’s a strategy which should now be consigned to the dustbin of history. The genie is out of the bottle. In the era of mobile phone cameras and social media (of all types), it’s not going back in the bottle. The consequences of trying to shore up Mubarek (much less Gaddafi) would have been very unfortunate, from the US point of view. Among a great many other things, we’d have been at odds with our closest and most important Western allies.

Regarding Libya, “leading from behind” ended up pretty well, despite the derision.

The notion that the US should either intervene to protect all civilians, at all times, or not intervene to protect civilians, at all times, is sophistry. We should do what we can, when we can, at a cost we can afford, utilizing strategies with the most favorable benefit:risk ratios. Libya qualifies on all accounts.

Maybe this will become known as the Obama Doctrine. Do what you can, from a humanitarian point of view, when you can, at an affordable price, using a good benefit:risk plan. Not sexy, but sensible.

And — dare I say — conservative.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry, Libya has not “ended up” anything… just as Egypt has not “ended up” anything to crow about. Egypt’s elections are in September. Your gushing and praise is premature… if not wishful. At this time, the unholy alliance of the MB and radical party factions is strong, and what may emerge is not desirable for US security.

The US need not have “shored up” anyone. What the US should have done is the same thing that we did during Musharraf’s political battles…. stay the heck out of it, and note that this leader has been an ally. It is that nation’s affair. Obie’s nose is too long.

The notion that the US should either intervene to protect all civilians, at all times, or not intervene to protect civilians, at all times, is sophistry. We should do what we can, when we can, at a cost we can afford, utilizing strategies with the most favorable benefit:risk ratios. Libya qualifies on all accounts.

Egypt did not qualify. Libya did not qualify. Syria does not qualify. They are civil wars where the US should refrain from becoming involved, or expressing public opinions. But you still, in your naivety, ignore the pattern of interfering with those who have cooperated with the US, while having a hands off policy for the more vicious regimes who did not.

You call that “conservative”. I say you are ill equipped to evaluate what is, and is not, conservative.

According to a British indy journalist on the ground in Tripoli, it seems the imminent fall of both Gaddafi and Tripoli are a media fabrication. Only time will tell

Lying in bed, tapping on my phone; so I’ll be brief.

What was John McCain’s attitude re Libya?

Re: conservative.

Good night & good luck. – L

John McCain? Conservative?

Thanks for the oxymoron, Larry. Sleep well. And thanks for proving you are ill equipped to determine what is, and what isn’t, conservative.

There are time that the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know. This has proven the case with Egypt, as the Muslim Brotherhood are posing themselves to take over the September elections, and this will be the case in Libya. Murbarak, and Gadaffi , were the devils we knew.

Now Egypt is talking about breaking the peace accords with Israel. The Arab Spring is rapidly turning into the Muslim Spawn. But Larry thinks this is a good thing, I suppose.

Does anyone remember Cuba? Yeah, that Cuba. The one where our press hailed the rebels even though the press knew that Castro was being funded by Russia and that Che’ was nothing more than a psychotic murderer. Read the old press reviews of how these “rebels” were taking their country back for the good of the Cuban people and that the evil dictator had to be removed. How has that worked out? Anyone remember Iran? Carter’s refusal to back the Shah? Anyone remember videos of Iran when the Shah was in power? Women attending universities, without burkas or hijabs, becoming doctors, lawyers, scientists? Women dressed in Nancy Sinatra boots and mini skirts? But it was better to have the Ayatollah return when we turned our back on the Shah, right? And what happened? How many days did our people remain captive? That again, worked out well, didn’t it?

The Middle East is just about to turn into Cuba. It is going to be an even bigger thorn in our side for a long, LONG time. And that is what we can thank Obama for.

Obama is creating one huge block of Fundamentalist Islamic States.

Greg #1,#4 Larry #6 OUTSTANDING

Mata#8 C’mon Lizzie and Mata Open your eyes. The jig is up. It’s about time.

Dr J. Where you been? Sorry about your buddy the “Mad Colonel”
5th request, What is your occupation?

rich wheeler, I don’t know what is happening in Libya, but I spent the wee early hours watching CNN play the same only clips they had of the “celebration”… none of which included a group of people more than 15 or so in number, and virtually empty streets in the dark. I listened to the rhetoric, watched the same three to four clips played over and over, and nothing matched this celebratory huge battle. Even going to the Live Libya blog to see some morning photos and news, the numbers are still small and photos are taken in extreme close ups in order to avoid the vacant streets behind them.

CNN’s World Business News was only speaking with rebels and NATO, getting only that half of the story. The blog states the power has now been cut to the city, and telecommunications interrupted. Rebels say they have seized it, but the AFP says their claims cannot be verified.

I’d say my eyes were open because pictures and glowing rebel successes are not matching up. Nor do you see Tripoli residents in the streets “celebrating”…. just a few guys with guns and flags. Since my eyes are open, you. might want to consider cleaning out your ears – :0) – and waiting to find out if this is media propaganda as part of NATO’s plan in other to bolster the rebels.

Quite frankly, from what I’ve seen of the rebels’ actions and treatment of citizens, I don’t find them any more inviting than the mad colonel himself. As retire05 says, sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t… especially when they are cooperating with intel. But hey… their country. Their business. NATO and the US will be bearing the responsibility and repercussions of what they have wrought, interceding in a civil war for unknown reasons. It certainly wasn’t humanitarian since they did so because they say Gaddafi may “threats” to the rebels, while they simultaneously ignore Syria who has killed thousands. Now what may the difference be, you should as yourself….

However I had a great big belly laugh when Larry defines conservative as exemplified by John McCain…. Like I said, Larry wouldn’t recognize conservative. He simply thinks an “R” party affiliation, or military service, means conservative.

We in the USA have inflicted a world of hurt on ourselves by pursuing a strategy of supporting US-friendly dictators. Worst of all have been when we’ve intervened to install such dictators.

We were the ones who put the Shah of Iran into power. Short term, we derived some benefit. Long term we sowed mistrust and instability. We ended up with the Islamic Revolution, which we were powerless to prevent. Iran was paralyzed by crippling strikes. There was nothing we could have done to prop up the Shah. Had we just left Iran alone, back in mid-20th century, we’d have been vastly better off today.

Then we abrogated the Geneva accords and prevented the Vietnam reunification elections. We thought that Ho Chi Minh was a Sino-Soviet puppet. We were completely wrong. He was a nationalist. Our intervention led to literally millions of deaths, including those who are memorialized on the Mall in D.C. Today, the biggest conflict we have with Vietnam is a catfish trade war between Mississippi fish farms and their Vietnamese competitors. Vietnam was NEVER under Chinese or Soviet influence. Ever.

There is nothing that the US could have done differently (or better) in Egypt or Libya. As it was, Obama was criticized for offering only belated, tepid support for the Egyptian uprising, which came long after the outcome was in any doubt. Mata says that the US should have just left things alone. That’s basically what he did. His timing was actually impeccable. He said or did nothing which had any influence on the outcome. He said just enough, and at just the right time, to deflect the suggestion that the US was supporting Mubarek against the popular uprising.

In Libya, Gaddafi was sending tanks towards Benghazi and promising brutal retaliation. Our true friends in the world (Britain and France and Italy) were begging us to help. Britain stood by us in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other places, in many times. We had to answer the call. Obama did it through “leading from behind.” He was excoriated by McCain and others for not taking the lead. There was talk of a multi-year quagmire. But, had it happened, it would have been THEIR (other Nato allies) quagmire and not another money and troop sucking quagmire for the USA. And Obama’s strategy and tactics couldn’t have worked out any better.

As for Cuba, the Cuban Revolution took place on the watch of the US General who won World War II. It’s kind of hard to blame this on the Democrats.

With respect to the definition of “Conservative;” the word speaks for itself.

I was raised in a Republican household in the late 50s and early 60s. Back then, there were discussions in my house about the Democrats being “The Party of War.” Democrats were the cheerleaders for US involvement in WWI and WWII and Korea. Eisenhower was elected, in part, because he was going to be the one to end the Korean War. The Republicans were dragged kicking and screaming into both World Wars. This makes all the sense in the world. It’s conservative to mind your own business and not get involved in other people’s affairs. This is the position of the most conservative politician in America today — Ron Paul.

Obama’s Libyan actions were very conservative. He did just enough to satisfy our allies and prevent a human slaughter at the hands of Gaddafi. But he minimized US risk and expense.

Well done, Mr. President. With respect to both Egypt and Libya.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Well done, Mr. President. With respect to both Egypt and Libya.

I believe, Larry, that time will tell whether Obama’s decisions regarding those two countries are, indeed, well done. As well, the outlook on those decisions will need to be tempered with the occasions happening in other countries where he made no decisions. I’ll hold my judgment of the results of all until much later.

Obama does, however, deserve the criticism rendered unto him for his earlier words on presidents and military action, and his own actions in this instance. There is no way possible of looking at it without coming to the conclusion that he was a hypocrite.

Mata Agree Mac is no Conserv.Imminent annihilation of Benghazi brought Nato in.Correct humanitarian decision.Assad should keep an eye to the skies.

Suggest to hang with any “devil you know” is a very risky choice.

What Rich, Larry W, and Greg personify is the liberal love of fantasy over reality.
The fantasy is that “the people” are rising up and throwing off the yoke of oppressive dictators and will be free. In truth, it is more likely that they are simply getting rid of a dictator they don’t like in order to install one they do. To make things worse, they will be hostile to America and especially Israel. Some of us weren’t around or have simply forgotten the turmoil war with Israel created.

I should also note per Larry W, they support the Arab Spring in order to eliminate the “blot” on their egos. They say “America”, but some of us are learned in liberal speak. In their minds if America isn’t 110% pure, they are ashamed or embarrassed.

Hi Hard Right (#18):

Where do you get the idea that I’m “supporting” the “Arab Spring?” Or that Obama was “supporting” the “Arab Spring?”

Truth be told, both Obama and I would have been OK with both Gaddafi and Mubarek staying in power. The problem was, the “Arab Spring” took on a life of its own, that we were powerless to prevent, much as the Iranian Revolution took on a life of its own, beyond our control.

So, in the case of Egypt and Libya, we had “situations” which had to be managed. As I wrote, Obama handled both adroitly — the best way both could have possibly been managed, given events beyond our control.

Tell me, Hard Right, what should Obama have done differently? In both cases.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Americans who want and need for everything a President of the United States is involved in to turn out badly probably shouldn’t be trusted.

@Greg:

Just one question, Greg: Did you adhere to that philosophy when Bush was President?

If you did, then kudos, however, that, then, would beg the question of why you supported Obama and the liberal/progressives in 2008 since you said yourself that such people shouldn’t be trusted. Just a thought.

Where do you get the idea …… that Obama was “supporting” the “Arab Spring?” @openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Well, Larry W.
Had you read, listened to or do you recall Obama’s May 19th, 2011 speech on the Arab world?
I have a transcript here if you need to refresh your memory.

In that speech, as well as in other contemporaneous words, Obama appears to have reached three conclusions about the Arab Spring:

1. It represented a genuine and liberal democratic rising that might replace regimes.

2. American opposition to these risings might result in the emergence of anti-American regimes in these countries.

3. The United States must embrace the general idea of the Arab risings but be selective in specific cases; thus, it should support the rising in Egypt, but not necessarily in Bahrain.

Hi Nan: The “Arab Spring” started December 18, 2010, in Tunisia. Obama’s speech came, as you wrote, May 19th. All winter and spring he was being criticized for sitting on the fence (that’s the way he does things, if you haven’t noticed. He is, by nature, very conservative, with respect to considering things for a long time, before he makes up his mind. Don’t you remember “dithering” about Afghanistan, and the like?).

Mata wrote that we should have just kept our noses out of Libya and Egypt. I wrote that this is basically what Obama did. In the case of Egypt, by the time he was publicly supporting the uprising, the end result was a foregone conclusion. He said just enough, and just in time, to avoid the impression that the US was supporting a dictator against a broad based, popular uprising of the Egyptian people. In the case of Libya, he did just enough to satisfy our allies and prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, without taking the lead in what could have turned out to be a quagmire.

I’ll ask you the same question I asked Hard Right.

What would YOU have done differently?

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

If we haven’t yet learned to VET our so-called allies in the Middle East, we should.

I recall when we liked a certain group led by one man in Afghanistan.
But he was killed well before we went into Afghanistan.
So, what did we do?
Basically, we allied ourselves with men who MIGHT have been his killers!
Brilliant….NOT!

I also recall our taking the word of ex-pat Iraqis about what (WMDs) Saddam had and where.
They expanded the threat of Saddam so they could walk in and be the new leaders, they hoped.
Well, that didn’t work out for ANY of us, did it?

But when Iran began to blow up nothing was done to help.
And, frankly, those Iranians who want to overthrow the Ayatollahs are just as Muslim/Islamic as the Ayatollahs are.
Maybe the lead sled dog would change, but for everyone not in the lead, the view would remain the same.
So, perhaps we did the right thing there.

So, what about Hamas and Fatah and the people of West Bank/Gaza?
They have shown absolutely no interest in any peace….as long as Israel is in existence.
Yet they get money and we are expressing lines in the sand, against our ally Israel, in their behalf.
WHY?

Yemen?
Before the ”Arab Spring” there was a nasty campaign to oust all of the Jews who had lived in that area for thousands of years.
Both ”sides” in Yemen ousted these natives from their land.
Both sides tried to make those homes and farms and businesses their own.
Which side would we prefer?
Neither.

Egypt?
We and Israel and a 25-plus year holding peace treaty with Mubarak.
If ”we the [Egyptian] people” decided to take over Egypt from Mubarak, it should have had nothing to do with us.
We should see if the ”new” Egypt will respect treaties with the USA and/or Israel before sharing one thin dime with them.
We didn’t wait.
WHY?

But, Obama is in charge, not me.
And I’m sure he is getting briefings from sources I have no access to.
So, maybe other considerations are in play….or it is just politics.
And, as we see how the Arabs and the Muslims see him, Obama appears to be a weak horse to them.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Then we abrogated the Geneva accords and prevented the Vietnam reunification elections. We thought that Ho Chi Minh was a Sino-Soviet puppet. We were completely wrong. He was a nationalist. Our intervention led to literally millions of deaths, including those who are memorialized on the Mall in D.C. Today, the biggest conflict we have with Vietnam is a catfish trade war between Mississippi fish farms and their Vietnamese competitors. Vietnam was NEVER under Chinese or Soviet influence. Ever.

1. The elections were scheduled for 1956. South Vietnam became formally independent on 21 July 1954, was recognized by more than 30 countries, and had been endorsed for membership in the U.N by the General Assembly. Why should they have participated in elections with another country? The Geneva Agreements were not only not endorsed by the U.S. , they were not endorsed by any other country involved in the war- N. Vietnam, S. Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia. As for how “free” those elections would have been in the North, when they finally did hold elections in1976, 99% voted for communist candidates. In the 50’s one million people fled to the South while only one tenth of that many fled to the North. After the fall of Saigon, two million more fled.

2. Ho was a member of the French Communist Party, the Chinese Communist Party, and Communist International (COMINTERN), which were Soviet agents, starting in the ’30’s. He continually sought advice and approval from Stalin and Mao. He received military and economic support from them in the 50’s against the French. Two former Red Army journalists, General Oleg Sarin and Colonel Lev Dvorestsky wrote in “In the Far East”: “China, North Korea, and North Vietnam became Stalin’s firm allies. In the latter two, Kim Il Jung and Ho Chi Minh were dictators with immense power and who towed the Kremlin’s line and who in turn were heavily supported with Soviet arms, goods, and services. Stalin gave them both a great deal of thought and attention constantly mulling over plans for unifying these two countries under the red banner and thus creating new opportunities for spreading Soviet Communism further into Asia.” (Lind, Michael. “Vietnam: The Necessary War”. New York: Touchstone, p.8). In addition to the arms and munitions the Soviets and Chinese supplied Ho, it is estimated that at its peak, Chinese military personnel in North Vietnam numbered 170,000 and that China told Ho that if the U.S. invaded NV, the Chinese would enter the war. It is estimated that the Chinese suffered 1,100 KIA and 4,200 WIA by the time they withdrew in 1973. (Lind, p. 86). Ho killed an estimated 50,000-100,000 of his own people in the 50’s, more than that in the 60’s when he implemented collectivization reminiscent of Mao, and then even more were slaughtered after the fall of SV. The fact that he was on our side during WWII and therefore our friend is like saying that Stalin was our friend because he was on our side during WWII. Hardly the resume of a nationalist. More like the resume of a brutal Communist dictator.

You may want to get the book I referenced. It has dialogs between Mao and Ho and Stalin and Ho. Lots of information has come out in recent years that contradicts the VN anti-war crowd. Lind references all of it in his bibliography. Even lefty Dan Rather called it “a necessary book” although I don’t agree with Lind’s seemingly apologist attitude toward Johnson while criticizing all of the other presidents from Truman to Ford.

What was the result of us not winning in VN? Soviet power peaked in the 70’s as a result. There was a realignment of sorts. The Soviets gained supporters in the U.N. whereas we lost them, a trend that was reversed in the 80’s. VN was a proxy war between the U.S. and the Soviets/Chinese. Had we have done nothing and allowed them to expand their sphere of influence in the 50’s or 60’s, the power shift that happened in the 70’s would have occurred much earlier. Fast forward to today. If we allow radical Islam to win in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else, they will gain legitimacy and we will lose it. Think of the stakes and the consequences.

Hi Another Vet: Thanks for the comments. Like many people who found themselves classified 1A during the Vietnam War era, I’ve always had an intense interest and I’ve read a lot. I’ll discuss this with you at another time, if you’d like, but I stand by what I wrote.

I haven’t read the Lind book, but I’ve read reviews and critiques. The fact that Ho accepted help from both the Soviet Union and China has to be viewed in the context that the first country he went to for support against the French returning after WWII to re-assert colonial rule was the USA. Ho had quoted from Thomas Jefferson in his inauguration speech, while receiving a ceremonial fly by salute from a US military plane. But we turned him down.

Sure, he got support and accepted it (afterall, he was fighting for his life against the most powerful nation on earth), but neither the Soviet Union nor China ever had any influence over him, post-War, and both complained about it loudly, as documented in historical documents. I remember a quote from an earlier reading (as I said, I’ve been reading this stuff for decades): “never did we spend so much for so little” (referring to supporting Ho Chi Minh and getting nothing in return).

Our intervention did lead to millions of deaths. According to reviews and critiques of Lind’s book, he argues that it was justified as a battle for prestige and for hearts and minds during the Cold War. The facts are that Vietnam was a unified country following WWII, unified by a long term freedom fighter, and it became dis-unified because of French re-colonialization, supported by the US. The fact that the disunified South was recognized by 30 US crony nations imparts no historical legitimacy.

Whatever loss to US prestige or strengthening of Soviet prestige resulted from the fall of Saigon could have been avoided, had the French not re-colonialized and had the US just kept hands off.

Here’s one (of innumerable) free on-line reference sources:

http://www.clemson.edu/caah/history/FacultyPages/EdMoise/vietnam.html

Here’s the author:

http://virtual.clemson.edu/caah/history/facultypages/EdMoise/index.htm

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: The “Arab Spring” started December 18, 2010, in Tunisia. Obama’s speech came, as you wrote, May 19th. All winter and spring he was being criticized for sitting on the fence (that’s the way he does things, if you haven’t noticed. He is, by nature, very conservative, with respect to considering things for a long time, before he makes up his mind. Don’t you remember “dithering” about Afghanistan, and the like?).

Mata wrote that we should have just kept our noses out of Libya and Egypt. I wrote that this is basically what Obama did. In the case of Egypt, by the time he was publicly supporting the uprising, the end result was a foregone conclusion.

You must be a busy guy, or simply don’t pay attention to real events, Larry. The Egyptian uprising was a total of 18 days, commencing on Jan 25. By Feb 3rd, duh Zero was chatting up Mubarak, trying to get him to resign and set up an interim government. When Mubarak announced he wouldn’t be running but would stay until the Sept elections a few days later, the hero of your story, your POTUS and CiC blew a gasket. As the Guardian pointed out, Obama was exposed for the indecisive, impotent and meddling leader he is to the world. He had spent almost a week pressuring Mubarak to step down. So much for influence…

This was staying “uninvolved” and sitting back “all winter and spring”? Why, because you believe his May speech, linked by Nan G, was his first entry into the Egyptian uprising, or other ME riots, opinion?

No, Larry… he threw Mubarak over as soon as the riots started. Just as he did Israel with the bogus “peace talks”. With friends like Obama, who needs enemies.

Tunesia’s revolution, triggered by the veggie vendor who set himself on fire, was called the “jasmine revolution”, with Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali leaving power Jan 14th and heading for the hills. Switzerland froze the Tunesian assets, and France offered aid to the interim government. The US, with no vested interest since Tunesia doesn’t like us either, or Israel much, said nothing and stayed out of it. Tunesia’s riots didn’t even register a blip on the US media radar of interest.

Bahrain… most certainly a US valued asset… lit up on Feb 14th, not long after Obama’s pressure on the other notable ally, Egypt. A month later, the Saudi’s sent military over and martial law was declared. Obama? Two days after the Bahrain woes began, he began lecturing Prince Salman on how to treat the protestors… “respect”, he says. He continues outside lectures and pressure on the Bahrain royals for “reform”. Salman, and King Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa ignore the leader of the western world, and cracks down on the protestors. Obama’s advice was not welcomed. Some protestors were sentenced to death, 300 workers at an oil factory fired for their participation.

By May, Obama is accusing the royalty of “brute force”… One has to wonder what he’d do if the union thugs in American acted the same way…. hopefully, we’ll never have to find out.

In June, and after a relatively cool meeting between Prince Salman and Obama and no glowing photo ops of love and bonding, Bahrain launched an investigation into human rights violations that doctors, peace keepers and journalists charged. But all in all, it’s another US ally where Obama sided with the protestors, calling Salman “a serious interlocutor.” Bahrain, not as flaming hot as Libya… perhaps because they don’t have NATO forces bombing the country…. is still simmering, and the royalty remains. And with no apparent love and respect for Obama or his meddling. He was cast off like an annoying fly on a hot summer day.

BTW, I was actually waiting to see Obama start lecturing the UK on their recent riots. I think he figured out they’d be happy to tell him where to stick his nose….

I have no idea why you think that Obama has stood back and been “conservative”… or at least what your skewed concept of “conservative” is… Larry. The man has meddled only with allies, telling them how to handle their internal strife and, in all cases, siding with the protestors. On the other hand, those seriously in desperate trouble – like the Iranians – were abandoned to deal with their own big bad uglies with nary a bat of an eyelash. Even now, as Iran has held US citizen hikers, Obama exerts no pressure and says zip.

The last thing I will say is I find your concept of conservative leaders – most especially your constant casting of Obama in that spotlight – not only light years away from reality, but extremely offensive. The difference between prior liberal or GOP POTUS who have led us into war has been the degree of effort to prosecute that war to victory. Victory is a word that never crosses Obama’s lips, save post an election.

Clinton liked to do the safe bombing from above and stay unengaged. With his first brush with both Saddam and Bin Laden in Somalia, he lost lives big time, and the world watched his CiC fanny beat feet out of the region. He was not to engage in major boots on the ground after that.

Reagan called bluffs, took chances and often bucked public opinion. He built up the US military and arsenal, and did a Russian stare down. He was not about to take no for an answer, nor blink first.

Kennedy and Johnson got us into Vietnam, waging war with hands tied behind our backs. Nixon wasn’t much better. Bush the elder went in to the Gulf War, full force, no holds barred. Bush the younger did the same in both Afghanistan and Iraq… when removing Saddam. When it was shown that the global jihad movement had planted their Caliphate flag on the sands of Iraq, Bush then did “the surge”, amidst the protest of your side of the fence. That’s because victory was a word that Bush actually had in his dictionary. It was after the complete relinquishment of security to NATO in Afghanistan in the summer of 2006 that security started spiraling down big time… long after the March 2003 deposing of Saddam.

But one thing that all had in common… despite the party affiliation.. is that when our US warriors were called to serve under NATO, they made sure we were extremely involved in all aspects, if not in full control. If our men and women were serving, they wanted a front row seat… not the nose bleed section.

Not so with Obama… he just provided the lives and the equipment, and said “go for it” in Libya. He did not want his hands stained with blood politically.

Conservative is not being a coward. If you decide to go in – right or wrong in your opinion – take charge because no one can do it better that the US military. Otherwise, stay out of it.

Obama does neither.

He is, bar none, the biggest boob as a military commander in chief in America’s history. So I’ll thank you to stop insulting conservatives by likening Obama’s back seat dithering, indecision, and half hearted cowardly charges as anything akin to “conservative”.

Obama’s CiC leadership is self serving and political… not to mention inept. And they are a bane on this nation’s reputation. It may be that his only real achievement for our nation’s founding principles is to be the POTUS who proved to the bulk of US voters that they really didn’t want Euro-socialism at all. Or else he will be reigning over the last years of the US as both an economic and military superpower.

Hi Mata: I’ll ask you the same question I asked both Hard Right and Nan.

What, precisely, would you have done differently, in both Egypt and Libya?

Answer the question, then we can have a more serious discussion.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

I just need to ask you just one more question, pertaining to one off topic comment you (Mata) made:

Even now, as Iran has held US citizen hikers, Obama exerts no pressure and says zip.

You know this…how?

You are upset that maybe he’s using back channel communications as opposed to challenging Ack-man-inna-dinna-jacket to a public bluster off?

– LW/HB

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: I’ll ask you the same question I asked both Hard Right and Nan.

What, precisely, would you have done differently, in both Egypt and Libya?

Answer the question, then we can have a more serious discussion.

I’m sorry… so this means my points made in both of my posts above are “not serious”? LOL

I’ve already told you before. Bush did precisely the right thing when Musharraf came under fire in Pakistan. He stayed out of it, but was very direct in noting that… even tho this was a Pakistani choice… Musharraf was a US ally that he appreciated. This should have been done in Mubarak’s case… exactly.

As for Gaddafi – a man for whom I have no love – a toned down version of the same. Again, this was a decision for the Libyans without a US POTUS demanding resignations or regime changes for another country. However, unlike Mubarak – who was instrumental in keeping peace with an unequivocal ally, Israel – I would have stressed that despite Gaddafi’s past violence against the west, since Sept 11th, he has been attempting to curtail a global movement by radical Islamists. Again, it was a civil war that the US had no business taking sides when an ally is involved.

Mata sez: Even now, as Iran has held US citizen hikers, Obama exerts no pressure and says zip.

Larry W sez: You know this…how?

You are upset that maybe he’s using back channel communications as opposed to challenging Ack-man-inna-dinna-jacket to a public bluster off?

I’ll fling your imaginary feel good hopes right back at you, Larry. “You know this how?” INRE “back channel communications”?

Larry, these hikers were detained in July of 2009. Obama didn’t get public with comments until summer of July 2010. Zip since then. Latest news is that Hillary is “disappointed” with the sentencing. Wow… quiver in my boots, I will.

ADDED: The Washington Times has an editorial, noting that Obama isn’t about to raise this to the level of the Carter Iranian hostage situation. I guess since he and Carter are twins on the economic woes, he can’t afford a second tie with his predecessor, considering Carter’s equally peanut small in effectiveness foreign policy, at this time in his campaign.

And precisely what good are back channel communications with a leader of a hostile world? It is only when int’l public pressure is put upon these despotic nations that you may get the UN to actually add their voice for human rights abuses. They were happy to do so with Gaddafi since the Arab League and others have a huge say in the UN, and they hate the rogue Gaddafi. Assad and Ahmadinejad? One of them…

Yes, like Reagan, staring down Russia and taking no quarter, Iran is far along enough in their WMD quest and their intents for that stare down to commence. It was too early when all you lib/progs were promising that Bush would do it. That was never the case. Bush always said that Iran would fall from within by their own youthful population. Of course that moment came and went under this POTUS… never to be taken advantage of either.

@Greg: Americans who want and need for everything a President of the United States is involved in to turn out badly probably shouldn’t be trusted.

Instead of coyly beating around the bush, Greg, exactly what are you saying? And to whom?

Haven’t been able to give an answer to Larry’s question until now, so here goes.
Your #15 post sure seems to be rather starry-eyed over over the “uprisings”. As has been pointed out by others, obama was all for it.

Libya? I would have tried to support him publicly provided he didn’t start slaughtering civilians. While I too seriously disliked him, he was no longer the anti-American terrorism supporter. Once he sent out tanks and started indiscriminately shelling, I would not have gotten involved or allowed our troops to get involved, but would have stated his actions were unacceptrable and relationship ending. Period. That is it.

Egypt? I would have tried to support him publicly and possibly thru more covert means. No, that doesn’t mean thru military force either.
I’m sure Larry W will ask how I know obama didn’t do it. Do I know for certain? No. On a scale of likliehood, I’d say there is a high probability I’m right to say he did not. As it is the obama administration doesn’t seem to know anything about the Muslim Brotherhood or how much of a threat they are.

Mata, that is at least the third time in a week comrade greg is accusing the GOP of either sabotaging the economy to get back into power, or wanting obama to fail even at the cost of America suffering.
Being a zombie leftist means never understanding what “projection” and “hypocrite” means.

@Mata (#30): If the US had publicly expressed appreciation of Mubarek, at at time when he’d lost world legitimacy, Obama would have done incalculable long term harm to the interests of the USA. The comparison with Pakistan is entirely odious.

You said that by Feb 3, Obama was “chatting up Mubarek,” trying to get him to resign. What had transpired by then:

(Timeline from wikipedia):

25 January 2011: The “Day of Revolt”: Protests erupted throughout Egypt, with tens of thousands of protesters gathered in Cairo and thousands more in cities throughout Egypt. The protests targeted President Hosni Mubarak’s government, and mostly adhered to non-violence. There were some reports of civilian and police casualties.

26 January 2011: “Shutting down The Internet and Mobile Services”: After several Facebook groups were created and tweets (from Twitter) called for mass demonstrations, the Egyptian government shut down internet access for most of the country.[114] This was done to cripple one of the protesters’ main organizational tools and to impede the flow of news and people.

28 January 2011: The “Friday of Anger” protests began. Hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Cairo and other Egyptian cities after Friday prayers. Opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei arrived in Cairo. There were reports of looting. Prisons were opened and burned down, allegedly on orders from then-Minister of the Interior Habib El Adly. Prison inmates escaped en masse, in what was believed to be an attempt to terrorise protesters. Police forces were withdrawn from the streets, and the military was deployed. International fears of violence grew, but no major casualties were reported. President Hosni Mubarak made his first address to the nation and pledged to form a new government. Later that night clashes broke out in Tahrir Square between revolutionaries and pro-Mubarak demonstrators, leading to the injury of several and the death of some.

29 January 2011: The military presence in Cairo increased. A curfew was declared, but was widely ignored as the flow of defiant protesters to Tahrir Square continued throughout the night. The military reportedly refused to follow orders to fire live ammunition, and exercised restraint overall. There were no reports of major casualties.

1 February 2011: Mubarak made another televised address and offered several concessions. He pledged to not run for another term in the elections planned for September, and pledged political reforms. He stated he would stay in office to oversee a peaceful transition. Small but violent clashes began that night between pro-Mubarak and anti-Mubarak groups.

2 February 2011: “Battle of the Camel”. Violence escalated as waves of Mubarak supporters met anti-government protesters, and some Mubarak supporters rode on camels and horses into Tahrir Square, reportedly wielding swords and sticks. President Mubarak reiterated his refusal to step down in interviews with several news agencies. Incidents of violence toward journalists and reporters escalated amid speculation that the violence was being encouraged by Mubarak as a way to bring the protests to an end.

By February 3, Obama was already being castigated for his silence. You seriously suggest that he ought to be coming out with some pro-Mubarek statements at that time? Or at any time before then? Or since then? We bought and paid for Mubarek, for more than 3 decades. He was a thug ruler who was richly paid for his services to the USA and Israel. If he lost legitimacy in the minds of his own people, the fault was his, and not Obama’s. Still, Obama would have continued to support him, if there’d been any chance that he could survive by doing anything short of a draconian crackdown with the eyes of the world on both him and Obama. By the time Obama had his little “chat up,” Mubarek was already dead meat.

With regard to Libya, you think that the USA should have ignored the entreaties of our NATO allies and ignored the looming humanitarian disaster and just let things play out, for the sake of keeping Gaddafi in power? Yes, this was one course of action. Or else the US should have taken the lead, all the responsibility, and thereby taking ownership of whatever transpired?

Yes, these are two positions. None … or All. That’s pretty much the way we’ve always done it.

But I like the Obama Doctrine. Do what we can (humanitarian wise), when we can, in a way which incurs the least risk (since we are doing it primarily for humanitarian, as opposed to strategic reasons).

Egypt and Libya were two unexpected, tough, dicey situations. And Obama played both perfectly, in my opinion.

With regard to Ronald Reagan and whatever — interesting topics for another time, but irrelevant for the present, again by reason of odiousness of comparisons.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@rich wheeler: Imminent annihilation of Benghazi brought Nato in. Correct humanitarian decision.

Wait… we are now for pre’emptive war/bombing based on words, not deeds? Gaddafi had sent military forces into Benghazi. Gee… they were battling rebel elements. What a surprise. Part of civil war, neh?

But now “possible” humanitarian is a trigger for NATO action? Interesting…. wonder how the Tutsi’s feel about this new revelation after watching both the UN and the Clinton admin turn their backs. Oh wait… wasn’t Obama still on that kick during the campaign? Musta slipped his mind about this “humanitarian” reason for evoking US troops under UN control while he sits in the back seat at Martha’s Vineyard.

Oh… wait a minute. Assad is the one who has done the killing, not Gaddafi. How long as it been now?

I guess that “humanitarian war” reason only has political reasons and choices, right?

Larry, you seem to think obama plays everything perfectly. You have a man-crush on him that rivals matthews.
So you’ll excuse us if we poo-poo your POV.

Hi Hard Right (#35): Actually, I think that he’s been a major screw up on the most important issues. Not with respect to the policies pursued and followed, but with respect to lack of leadership and appallingly poor communications skills.

But I give credit where credit is due. There is nothing any US President could have done to make either Egypt or Libya turn out any better than they have (or will). There are lots of ways Obama could have screwed up one situation or both. Thank goodness he didn’t (screw them up).

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry, there are NEVER only two positions, either

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: None … or All.

as you put it.

Diplomacy is the art of fine tuning foreign affairs.
Nuance.
Art.
Tact.
A velvet fist.
A soft word with a big stick.
And a thousand possibilities.
Certainly not just two.

Obama seems to only have two speeds.
LOL.
But that doesn’t make either of them correct for the circumstances he faces.

Hi Mata:

Oh… wait a minute. Assad is the one who has done the killing, not Gaddafi. How long as it been now?

I guess that “humanitarian war” reason only has political reasons and choices, right?

Obama Doctrine: With respect to international humanitarian challenges (as opposed to strategic challenges), you do what you can, when you can, at an affordable price, and incurring the least risk. It’s a specious charge to say that you have to intervene in every single situation or intervene in no situations.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

@openid.aol.com/runnswim: @Mata (#30): If the US had publicly expressed appreciation of Mubarek, at at time when he’d lost world legitimacy, Obama would have done incalculable long term harm to the interests of the USA. The comparison with Pakistan is entirely odious.

As yes… the “cowardice” vs “conservative” argument comes up again. Larry W, the only “world legitimacy” that Mubarak lost was in the eye of the agenda driven western press. Not to mention “odious” seems a bit strong of a choice of words in that comparison. You asked. I told you. In that, you take my response, and elevate it to “odious”??

But back to the “world legitimacy” and atta boy pats that you seem to believe to which a POTUS/CiC must bow. So what if Mubarak had lost favor. Wow… so did Musharraf, at the hands of the same western press machine as well. And at the same time, the mother of the Mullah Omar Afghanistan Taliban – Benezir Bhutto – was raised to canon status in world opinion by that same press machine.

Did that stop a genuine conservative (at least in foreign policy) POTUS? No. He pointed out two things…constantly…. that Musharraf was a US ally, and that the US was staying out of Pakistan affairs. The timing and popularity meant nothing. To stand by a friend, while staying out of his domestic battles, was never a question of politics.

Yet the respect for the US was higher when Bush … that evil guy… was around than now with Mr. Patsy. As far as “legitimacy” and ” incalculable long term harm”… I’d say your boy has done that pretty darned well on his own with his “PRESENT” handling of foreign affairs in just three terminably long years. I have never seen a nation decline so fast in history… in strength, power and economics.

Obama could take some serious lessons in strength, diplomacy and convictions from the cowboy and his Veep.

By February 3, Obama was already being castigated for his silence. You seriously suggest that he ought to be coming out with some pro-Mubarek statements at that time? Or at any time before then? Or since then?

Ya know, that’s an interesting observation, Larry. And that all depends upon the consistent behavior of the man sitting behind the Resolute Desk, doesn’t it?

I seriously suggest that Obama… who is quick to put his face before the public (even late from the event) on even the most petty… differs from most predecessors. This is a man who doesn’t like to do press conferences because they aren’t controlled, but will take every opportunity for a nice safe statement, sans any questions. He lives for face time. Prior presidents generally stayed more low key.

Considering his love for the limelight and his affinity for hearing his own voice, yes he most certainly have should. Whether the world for for or against Mubarak, he still should have come out… even late… to state that Mubarak was a US ally, and that Egypt’s civil strife was their own sovereign decisions.

With regard to Libya, you think that the USA should have ignored the entreaties of our NATO allies and ignored the looming humanitarian disaster and just let things play out, for the sake of keeping Gaddafi in power? Yes, this was one course of action. Or else the US should have taken the lead, all the responsibility, and thereby taking ownership of whatever transpired?

Yes, these are two positions. None … or All. That’s pretty much the way we’ve always done it.

But I like the Obama Doctrine. Do what we can (humanitarian wise), when we can, in a way which incurs the least risk (since we are doing it primarily for humanitarian, as opposed to strategic reasons).

What a surprise that you like the “Obama Doctrine”….. not! LOL Well, Larry… we’ve made progress. At least you can now call back seat lounging while others drive the limo the “Obama Doctrine”, and stop insulting other, more worthy, CiCs in history… not the mention conservatives. “The US votes Present, but Please… Take my Limo to Use!” is the nation you want.

You stand without me, my friend.

At that, we are at an impass. If you want a Commander in Chief to supply the catering while others screw up the serving of the dinner, that’s your choice. A convenient patsy is not what America has been, and I guess I’m a bit more protective and assured by our military and our command than I am of NATO’s. You see, history doesn’t show them to be anything more than the boob this POTUS is. As I said, no one does it better. If you go in, let us be in charge. Otherwise, stay out. And no… I didn’t like giving Afghanistan to NATO either… as I’ve often said.

But fear not…. if Obama continues his path, the US military and economy will be a shell of it’s former past, and we most certainly will be just another France. You’ll forgive me if you don’t find me celebrating with you.

Hard Right and to a slightly lesser degree Mata say we should have supported our “allies” and longtime dictators Mubarek and Gaddafi.Although Mata disagrees it is generally believed Mubarek’s henchmen were killing civilian protestors in the square.We’ll learn more about this and other attrocities against his citizens during his imminent trial.
The mad COLONEL had the blood of American citizens and soldiers on his hands.His trial and the trials of his sons will most certainly paint a picture similar to that father and sons killing machine in Iraq.
Mata I don’t believe Musharref belongs in the same category as the 3 aforementioned butchers.

Worth noting are the American casualty totals in these 2 overthrows.How’s ZERO. I’m not high fiving BHO but he certainly shouldn’t be overly criticized.

I’m hopeful Assad is the next butcher to go.NATO get ready.

@rich wheeler: Although Mata disagrees it is generally believed Mubarek’s henchmen were killing civilian protestors in the square.We’ll learn more about this and other attrocities against his citizens during his imminent trial.

Not so sure I trust a trial, overseen by “the rebels”, rich wheeler. As a matter of fact, I’m not sure why you are so confident that the rebels (both Libya and Egypt) have not done their share of violence, murder and intimidation during this civil war as well. Seen more than my fair share of their theft and abuse in this time as well. Or did you think they were behaving as the perfect gentlemen?

So try the official leader, and give the rebels a pass for their behavior? How about NATO’s wide collateral damage in Libya?

Like I said… the US does it better…..

My point? I said from the beginning about Egypt, and years ago about Pakistan. There are no real “good guys”, but there are guys that work with us. Or as retire05 likes to put it, the “devil we know” vs the “devil we don’t know”.

Maybe something a few of you really need to think over…. what if thugs behaved the same way in this nation? Just where do you draw the law between “revolution” and regime change (even in America) and violent lawlessness?

Think it can’t happen? London was just in the past week. Needed US austerity has not yet been implemented, and we are a society with more availability to arms… just as it should be. But that does mean that London’s measures for law enforcement will not work in the US.

Did any one of you think to suggest to the UK government they shouldn’t take all means possible to curtail the violence in London? Or is the parallel between despots/civil war and western nations/disgruntled miscreants perhaps just too uncomfortably revealing to entertain?

One more thing to ponder about the “success” of Libya… Photos of that massive “celebration”… where are the throngs? The people cheering in the streets?

Another that is at the top of the Libya Live blog, hosted by Al Jazeera. I count about 15 people max… a photographer carefully hiding the background. This is, again, not unlike all that “celebrating” I saw in the CNN World News clips last night.

Egypt at least had thousands in the square. What do we have here? A bunch of guys in tees, with guns? Where are the liberated and grateful citizens?

And oh, BTW… Gaddafi’s son – Muammar Gaddafi – escaped with the help of Gaddafi’s forces, and confirmed by AFP. Was waiting for the confirmation.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Thank goodness he didn’t (screw them up).

Again, Larry, time will tell whether his decision making in either case will be seen as bad, good, or indifferent. You are making a large assumption that, assuming Ghaddafi does fall, both of those countries will be better off, and that the world will be better off without them in power.

Mata, #41,
We noted the small groups in the ”Martyrs Square” last night, too.
There are NOT crowds of happy people who feel ”liberated,” in Tripoli.
I suspect the Gaddafi forces have begun to melt into the civilian population, a la Saddam’s forces.
Later they will cause all sorts of havoc.
This is less a done deal than Egypt, which is also not a done deal….yet.

C’mon Mata The chance of the “Mad Colonel’s” regime surviving this onslaught (expect the flag waving crowds shortly) about the same as The Fighting Irish going undefeated this Fall—-well they are catching Michigan and USC in down years,couple of easy ACC games NAW

Hi Rich,

Less than 2 weeks until kickoff. The most wonderful time… of the year!

Hi Mata:

My point? I said from the beginning about Egypt, and years ago about Pakistan. There are no real “good guys”, but there are guys that work with us. Or as retire05 likes to put it, the “devil we know” vs the “devil we don’t know”.

In Egypt, there was nothing which could have been done by the USA to change the outcome. The only thing over which we had any control was our world image. Obama gave Mubarek all the time he (Obama) could have to change the course of events; when the outcome was inevitable, Obama skillfully made sure that the USA was on the correct side of history.

In Libya, we had allies begging us to help them and we had an impending humanitarian catastrophe. You don’t agree, but McCain (and many others) did. The USA had to do something. Obama provided assistance, but made sure that this was NATO’s war (led by Britain and France) and not America’s War. We say that Afghanistan is NATO’s war, but the reality is that it’s really America’s war, and everyone understands that. But Libya was, for real, NATO’s war. And NATO achieved its objective at the cost of, as Rich noted, no American lives and only moderate expense. POTUS played the whole thing like a Stradivarius.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Larry w: In Egypt, there was nothing which could have been done by the USA to change the outcome. The only thing over which we had any control was our world image. Obama gave Mubarek all the time he (Obama) could have to change the course of events; when the outcome was inevitable, Obama skillfully made sure that the USA was on the correct side of history.

Pardon me, but what a load of manure you dumped, Larry.

If “the only thing over which we had any control was our world image”, then I daresay a meddling, pushy flibberdegibbet leader of the free world, throwing over yet another ally, was not “the world image” we needed to portray. Again, I will remind you…. all the Arab nations of the world have made note that to be friends with Obama’s US is to mean they invade your sovereign territory (Pakistan), he will throw you over the side to the sharks (Egypt, Yemen, Israel, and attempted in Bahran). But if you remain our enemy he will leave you alone (Syria, Iran, Somalia etal)

Yeah… really good for the world image, of which we’re now lower than in the Bush years because they didn’t like us in Iraq. “Masterful” indeed… snark.

In Libya, we had allies begging us to help them and we had an impending humanitarian catastrophe.

What “impending humanitarian catastrophe”. You mean Gaddafi sent the military to Benghazi? Tell me, Larry… has Gaddafi’s forces killed more civilians? Or the NATO bozos and the rebels. Think carefully before you respond. Had Gaddafi done anything in mass murdering the rebels prior that warranted such a definitive conclusion? Why do you live in some parallel universe where you think you can tell the future, therefore pre’emptive strikes for humanitarian reason are okay as long as you say so, but going after a guy who worked with UBL for murdering Americans in Somalia in 1993 isn’t?

The USA never *has* to do anything they do not wish to do. That’s the difference between your “version” of a “conservative” Obama and patsy leader, and our nation, vs mine. No leader of the free world has to bow to world… or lib/prog… opinions.

Your praise and naive adulation are nothing short of nauseating.

And the “NATO achieving it’s objective” is vastly premature. As johngalt has repeatedly pointed out to you, and you are not content to wait before you kiss Obama’s feet, Gaddafi is not gone, his son is free, there is no “celebrating in the streets of Tripoli” by the population, and the rebels have been equally brutal (not to mention religiously unPC) to their fellow Muslims. Like Egypt, Obama will, again, have contributed to creating another Muslim unfriendly nation in place of what was formerly a cooperative ally if things continue rolling as they are.

How consistent of the left to angrily vocalize strains of righteous indignation when Israel intentionally, or even accidentally, brings harm on a Palestinian, but . . . . deafening silence from it and the MSM when Arab regimes slaughter their own people such as the butchery of thousands as we are witnessing in Syria. Where is that loud condemnation now? Why are those self-righteous moralist pontificators? Where are the street-crawling-placard-waving ideologues? Afraid to be accused of Racism, perhaps?

Hi James Raider:

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08-14/news/29902794_1_obama-and-cameron-allies-and-arab-partners-syrian-leader

Clinton Urges Further Sanctions as Syrian Violence Continues

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/13/obama-saudi-king-call-for-end-to-syrian-violence/

http://www.euronews.net/2011/08/22/syrian-violence-tops-un-agenda-in-geneva/

etc.

But how about our steadfast Iraqi allies, ever eager to show their gratitude for our human sacrifices and vast treasure spent on their behalf:

http://www.dp-news.com/en/detail.aspx?articleid=93030

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

Easy James One Despot at a time. Syria’s Assad is next. Over/Under is 6 months The Jewish left is obviously Israel’s greatest ally.

Larry Absolutely the best time of the year!

Here is a good overview by Ed Koch. We need to heed his last sentence.

http://www.newsmax.com/Koch/Koch-Libya-Syria-Israel/2011/08/22/id/408222

Here another article warning of the pitfalls if this operation is not properly followed up.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/WalidPhares-Libya-Gadhafi/2011/08/22/id/408231

My single biggest complaint about the whole situation is that Congressional approval was never sought or obtained despite our military being involved for the period of time it was.

@Larry: # 48,

. . . . . Exactly in line with what I’m saying. Thank you.

The four articles you use to counter my point in #47, are obviously the strongest counter you are capable of raising up the pole.

Those are perfect examples of a pathetic, ineffective, limp spined, confused, and unengaged leadership – about all we can expect – but it evidently suffices to placate an undiscerning but dwindling crowd that currently makes up 39% of the voters.

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

Larry, perhaps you have again been too busy to pay attention to real events instead of soundbyte education… as I pointed out to you with Obama’s overt lip service support for the rebels in the various ME uprisings. So let me give you a clue….

Saddam is gone and al-Maliki does not speak for the Iraqi nation any more than Harry Reid, Boehner or Obama can speak blanketly for US policy. They have a parliament now, duly elected, with varying religious representation and interest. al-Maliki is no king, and he has always been eyed warily, even by the prior administration. Tell us something new, would you?

I have no doubt that Iraq must strike a workable chord with Syria, as well as Iran. That seems to upset you all in the lib/prog world … despite that fact it was your political party that advocated leaving them all to their despotic fates. But you have looked at a map recently, yes? You know… Syria to the left of me, Ahmadinejad to the right… here Iraq is, stuck in the middle with the US.

I don’t feel the least bit slighted by Iraq walking their narrow line between their radical neighbors, as well as having a relationship with the west. It is the age old story of all our allies there, save Israel. Thus the reason I constantly say you will never have a fully devoted ally in the ME because of their conflicted views of the west. The best we can hope for is what Mubarak and Musharraf delivered. Tacit approval in return for taking the public assault with later “tut tut’s”.

However Obama is busy helping them exit, lavishing US support on the rebels ( of which most are probably laughing their tuckus’ off…. having the west fight their radical Islam battles ) and ushering in heaven knows what.

But so far, it ain’t looking pretty anywhere…. except Iraq where the US kept a firm presence during the rebuilding of a government.

The photo of the Egyptian metal plaque calling Obie the new King Tut speaks volumes about their opinion of him. For one thing, King Tut was an inexperienced “boy king.” Secondly, he advocated policies, learned from his mentor, Akhenaten, which were quite unpopular with the religious authorities. Finally, he had a very short reign and was completely forgotten for centuries. We would never have known his name except for the discovery of his tomb full of treasures.

@rich wheeler:
Ummmm no. The Jewish left is NOT Israel’s greatest ally. In fact, they have repeatedly failed to defend Israel from the relentless PR attacks from anti-semitic Arab states. On top of that, they continue to push Israel to accept the insane demands of the Palestinians. Even worse, they helped elect a man who doesn’t seem to care much for Israeli Jews.
Seriously Rich, it would be nice if you lefties would analyze your beliefs in an open and honest manner….just once.