Posted by Tina
Carolin Glick, a Middle East expert at the Center for Security Policy in Washington DC, writes about the effects of Obama’s Middle East policies:
TO UNDERSTAND the depth and breadth of America’s losses, consider that on January 25, 2011, most Arab states were US allies to a greater or lesser degree. Mubarak was a strategic ally. Saleh was willing to collaborate with the US in combating al- Qaida and other jihadist forces in his country.
Gaddafi was a neutered former enemy who had posed no threat to the US since 2004. Iraq was a protectorate. Jordan and Morocco were stable US clients.
One year later, the elements of the US’s alliance structure have either been destroyed or seriously weakened. US allies like Saudi Arabia, which have yet to be seriously threatened by the revolutionary violence, no longer trust the US. As the recently revealed nuclear cooperation between the Saudis and the Chinese makes clear, the Saudis are looking to other global powers to replace the US as their superpower protector.
Perhaps the most amazing aspect to the US’s spectacular loss of influence and power in the Arab world is that most of its strategic collapse has been due to its own actions. In Egypt and Libya the US intervened prominently to bring down a US ally and a dictator who constituted no threat to its interests. Indeed, it went to war to bring Gaddafi down.
Moreover, the US acted to bring about their fall at the same time it knew that they would be replaced by forces inimical to American national security interests. In Egypt, it was clear that the Muslim Brotherhood would emerge as the strongest political force in the country. In Libya, it was clear at the outset of the NATO campaign against Gaddafi that al-Qaida was prominently represented in the antiregime coalition. And just as the Islamists won the Egyptian election, shortly after Gaddafi was overthrown, al-Qaida forces raised their flag over Benghazi’s courthouse.
US actions from Yemen to Bahrain and beyond have followed a similar pattern.
Read her full assessment here.
She’s not what you’d call a proponent of democracy, is she?
Being familiar with her work, I can say that she really isn’t, Libby. She also apparently thinks having dictators for allies is something to be proud of.
On the contrary Libby, she is for democracy. But she also thinks that human/civil rights for women are important…do you? Or do you prefer the US lend full support to oppressive dictators and terroist regimes?
The young enthusiastic “boys” (as you like to call them) seeking freedom and modernization in the “Arab Spring” have lost to extremist bullies! The ME is much more dangerous now, a repeat of the Carter plan to bring “democracy” to Iran in the seventies.
Yep all of those former socialist and communist Democrats don’t have a clue about the kinds of things repressive regimes will bring to the world. They don’t know anything about the “final solution” or the designs of those who seek to eliminate entire peoples and countries.
Stick your heads in the sand and pretend you can opt out of the world. Vow to lend approval and support to any terrorist organization or extremist as long as there is an election, no matter how corrupt.
I’ll take a moderate leader who is willing to work with America over a terrorist elected with our help any day of the week…we will get to deal with them one way or another.
Tina: “Or do you prefer the US lend full support to oppressive dictators and terroist regimes?”
Tina, why are you asking Libby this question, and not Carolin Glick? In the article you just quoted, Glick explicitly SAID that she prefers “the US lend full support to oppressive dictators and terrorist regimes.” She is lamenting that the U.S. no longer has great relationships with Mubarak (an oppressive dictator), Qadaffi (another oppressive dictator) and even Saudi Arabia (a terrorist regime). And she is blaming President Obama for this, and saying that she wishes he had done things differently, i.e., that he still supported these oppressive dictators and terrorist regimes.
Your question to Libby makes no sense and makes me wonder, yet again, if you even read what you copied and pasted here.
Quentin, I had forgotten that Glick worked for the Center of Security Policy. That would be the second time this week that Tina has quoted someone associated with this discredited organization.
And yes, I said discredited. And I’ve explained exactly when and how they have lied in previous posts. I know, Tina, you don’t like when I point out that your sources are extremist liars. But that is a perfectly valid debating technique, as long as I point out specific instances where they have lied and made extreme statements, and I have. The organization is run by a birther! What more evidence do you need that you shouldn’t trust this organization?
When you lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas.
“Yep all of those former socialist and communist Democrats don’t have a clue about the kinds of things repressive regimes will bring to the world. They don’t know anything about the “final solution” or the designs of those who seek to eliminate entire peoples and countries.”
This is just angry ranting with no relation to the topic under discussion. I would expect that from someone trolling a blog, not from a blog manager.
” But she also thinks that human/civil rights for women are important…do you?”
It’s their business, Tina. Not yours, or mine. And it’s not for you to meddle in other peoples’ democratic decisions.
Carolin is quite right, of course. All those bought-and-paid-for stooges what were agreeable to “American national security interests” (which is code for cheap oil) to the detriment of their own citizens … well, they’ve lost their jobs and/or lives.
It had to happen. We’ll just have to cope. And we will … as long as you all can refrain from putting any more morons into the oval office.
chris: “And she is blaming President Obama for this, and saying that she wishes he had done things differently, i.e., that he still supported these oppressive dictators and terrorist regimes.”
Because? What will replace them will be far worse in terms of our national security interests. America gets to deal with other countries as they are not as we wish they were. In her opinion, and like it (her) or not she has a lot more education and experience in this area than either of us, what Obama has done will make the ME a much more dangerous region.
“…someone associated with this discredited organization.”
Discredited by whom? You are welcome to your opinion and associations; you are not a purveyor of absolute truth.
“I’ve explained exactly when and how they have lied in previous posts…”
And I demonstrated how you were wrong in some cases and just opinionated in others.
“This is just angry ranting with no relation to the topic under discussion”
It has everything to do with the discussion!
Chris you are welcome to spend your time somewhere else. I see no reason to be so contentious over an opinion expressed by someone with a very good education that is well respected in the field. Unless you are afraid what she has to say will resonate with others? Or perhaps that in years to come history will reveal just how right she was?
Libby: “And it’s not for you to meddle in other peoples’ democratic decisions.”
No worries. I have no power. the current administration has been meddling quite regularly, however so your opinion would better be expressed toward them right now.
You people are going to have to get over your oil phobia. Much of what you use every day, including healthcare services and things like that, depend in inexpensive sources of energy, including oil. But there are many reasons we engage with the other countries of the world. One of them is human rights which you have no problem screaming about when a republican is president. Now suddenly you don’t give a fig!
The one in office presently is going to be responsible, like Jimmy Carter was with Iran, for a more dangerous world. You may think that’s brilliant…I don’t!
Tina: “Because? What will replace them will be far worse in terms of our national security interests….”
That’s a valid difference of opinion.
However, your question to Libby still didn’t make any sense, and employed a massive double standard. Can you at least admit that?
“Discredited by whom?”
By FACTS, Tina. You do know what facts are, right? Or are you operating under the PC idea that every opinion just as good as any other?
“And I demonstrated how you were wrong in some cases and just opinionated in others.”
Let’s recap.
You posted a link to a study by the CSP claiming that Sharia law has been successfully applied in American courtrooms.
I pointed out the fact that none of the 50 cases cited by the CSP successfully applied Sharia law.
You countered that the study was actually right, and that Sharia law had been successfully applied. To demonstrate this, you quoted one case from the study. But even in the portion you quoted, it was clearly written that Sharia had NOT been successfully applied in the case. By the study’s own admission, the verdict in the case was OVERTURNED by an appellate court. Therefore, no success for Sharia.
So, no, you did not show that I was wrong about the CSP. Your one attempt to do so failed, because you failed to either read or comprehend the quote you posted here. In fact, it seems that the study’s authors also failed to comprehend their own evidence, since their conclusions didn’t match their evidence at all.
There’s also the fact that the CSP’s founder and leader still clings to birtherism, a theory that is based on no evidence whatsoever and which disregards all the evidence currently available. Yet you have argued, without any evidence of your own, that this is a legitimate theory.
“Chris you are welcome to spend your time somewhere else. I see no reason to be so contentious over an opinion expressed by someone with a very good education that is well respected in the field.”
First of all, I didn’t get contentious over Glick’s statements. I got contentious over your question to Libby, because it showed you were employing a complete double standard.
You asked Libby if she thought the U.S. should support dictators and terrorist regimes.
But Carolin Glick explicitly said that the U.S. should support dictators and terrorist regimes, at least up to a certain point.
You had no problem with Carolin Glick saying this, but you did have a problem with Libby, who did not say this, because you assumed she might believe it.
Can you honestly tell me you don’t find that the least bit problematic?
Second of all…which field is Carolin Glick respected in, Tina? Who is she respected by? Does this respect cross party lines, or does she mostly appeal only to conservatives?
These are important questions. One of the most important lessons we learn in college is how to tell a credible source from a non-credible one. I hate to say it, but this is a lesson you are sorely in need of.
“… Jimmy Carter was with Iran, for a more dangerous world.”
I see. Carter was personally responsible for those several million Iranians who drove the Shah to the airport?
Such power … he had no idea.
Tina, you are not that ignorant. I know it. Don’t pretend otherwise to bolster specious political claims.
Libby I realize you have learned hgistory only from the perspective of those liberals that write and teach history in our schools but there are other opinions about what happened in the 70’s when Carter was president. Anyone interested might want to read this historical perspective:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/jimmy_carters_human_rights_dis.html
“Jimmy Carter’s Human Rights Disaster in Iran,” by Slater Bakhtavar
It would be ludicrous to say that Jimmy Carter is solely responsible for what happened in Iran but it is also ridiculous to fail to notice the overall effect of his policies and the wide and terrible implications of those policies. as the author concludes he is indirectly responsible for not only what happened in Iran but many of the worlds troubles regarding terrorists and human rights violations today.
You have said we shouldn’t “meddle in other people’s democratic decisions” but your decree is somewhat selective and always in opposition to the notion of encouragement toward the goal of modern mores that include decency and rights rather than the control freak “ham fisted” methods usually used by the likes of Mr. Carter.
I hope our readers will read the full article.
Libby: “It’s their business, Tina. Not yours, or mine.”
Now this, Libby, I must disagree with. I do think the United States has a legitimate interest in supporting humanitarian causes, especially in regions that are in severe violation of human rights.
I think the Iraq War has discredited many of the tactics our country has often used to achieve this goal, but I don’t think it’s discredited the goal in and of itself.
Human rights are everyone’s business. Ignoring that is not progressive, it’s isolationist.
“Human rights are everyone’s business”. Chris
THANK YOU CHRIS!!!! Now there’s something we can agree on. -Jack