Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: WoT

Obama the Revolutionary and the Sampson Option

2011-02-24

[Asharq al-Aswat] There is no doubt this is a chaotic phase, where dozens of turbulent protests and demonstrations have spread, demanding the overthrow of regimes in a number of countries in the Middle East. Some of these demonstrations have been justified, campaigning against leaders who have spent several dark decades in power. As for the other demonstrations, they have been motivated by different -- and mixed -- motives, some of them ideological, others based on sect or class. The result is that "revolution fever" has swept everywhere, so it is difficult to distinguish between the various protests. All are championing the same slogan, that of "regime change", through their demonstrations and civil unrest.

There is no need to provide evidence of the negative aspects of Arab regimes, and the social and economic crises suffered by these countries, most notably the tendency of leaders to hold on to power for life. However,
The infamous However...
what we are witnessing today is a state of irresponsible and uncontrolled chaos. Some argue that what is happening is a "democratic revolution", conducted through peaceful protests, with concern for values and principles such as "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights".
... which are not the same thing as individual rights, mind you...
However,
The infamous However...
such a claim presents several genuine problems; most notably that democracy, freedom and human rights are all Western liberalist concepts. We are all aware that considerable debate has arisen over the interpretation or definition of such concepts, and the means of applying them to the Arab region. Have all these differences been overcome as a result of the youth revolution? Or will they be simply overcome in the future? These questions may take years to answer.

What is most striking here is the confused stance of the US administration, having been faced with an earthquake of revolutions in the region. Whilst he adopted a hesitant attitude before President Ben Ali decamped Tunisia, President B.O.'s tone was far stricter when he claimed that former geriatric President Hosni Mubarak should step down immediately. The White House front man said "Now means now...not in September". Yet the US administration returned to its cautious stance with regards to Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, trying to maintain a balance [with its interests]. The US issued hard-line statements against these regimes, but at the same time it conducted telephone conversations with them, expressing that the US was keen to preserve mutual interests.

There is a complete contradiction in the actions of the US administration: While it demands that President Mubarak step down immediately, it puts pressure on President the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw the draft Arab resolution, condemning Israel for continuing with settlement construction, a resolution which nearly 130 countries have endorsed. Abbas' response was frank, when he told the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that he was not willing to take a decision that may "provoke the Paleostinian masses", no matter how much this would anger the US administration, because the Paleostinian masses were more dangerous. This is what the US administration has failed to understand so far!

When the protests began, the US administration had three options: firstly, to remain neutral and accept the results - as [Henry] Kissinger had called for. The second option was to side with the existing regime, or thirdly to attempt to strike a balance, by announcing its support for the demonstrations, whilst maintaining a channel of communication with the threatened regime. It has been said that Obama refuses to stand on the losing side of history, but what the US administration does not realize is that it does not have any part in this history.

The reality which the US administration must realize is that America is effectively powerless from now on. Its weakness has been blatantly exposed, when one of its major allies was toppled and the US could not move a muscle, but rather participated in Mubarak's downfall. Some officials in the US administration argue that what is happening here is a historical process of "creative destruction", and that the administration must accept the outcome of what happens. This particular attitude is similar to the policies of the "neo-conservatives", who once argued that the only way for change to occur in the region would be through a comprehensive regime change. This comparison was expressed by Condoleezza Rice in her latest article, criticizing the B.O. regime by saying that it is doing exactly what the George W. Bush administration was previously attempting. She said: "The United States knows democracy to be a long process - untidy, disruptive and even chaotic at times." (Washington Post, 16 Feb 2011).

Rice's attempt to portray the US administration as an entity standing on the side of "freedom" oversimplifies an already basic way of thinking. Rice and other commentators, including the US administration, seem enthusiastic whenever they see a "revolutionary" phase, which raises the slogan of "freedom". However,
The infamous However...
they fail to realize that the bulk of "revolutions" in history have used "freedom" as their slogan, in an effort to overthrow the ruling regimes. Yet the vital question to be asked is: Freedom in what sense? And at what price?

The problem for President B.O. is that he presented himself to the people as a "realist" president. During his inaugural speech, he said that the US would not seek to impose any kind of rule upon another country, and that each nation must follow its own path. However,
The infamous However...
his policies today have exceeded the efforts of the "neo-conservatives", in fulfilling the principle of "creative destruction." It is ironic that this principle first appeared in the writings of Marks and Engels, describing the ill effects of capitalist liberalism in the "Communist Manifesto", 1848.

When the anti-Shah demonstrations and riots escalated [in Iran], the Carter administration tried to entice the Iranian army to stage a coup - when General Huyser visited the country. However,
The infamous However...
the US failed to do so, and later on welcomed the "freedom" revolution. The US ignored its ambassador's warnings, suggesting that the influence of al-Khomeini and his movement was extending to all sectors of the state, and several months later the US embassy was occupied for 444 days, in an act that greatly humiliated the US President. Today, the same scenario is being repeated in the Middle East. Dozens of American, Western and Arab intellectuals and journalists -- exactly as happened in 1979 -- will celebrate the Middle East revolutions, liberating the people from dictatorship. However,
The infamous However...
the region's ills will not necessarily be eliminated by the overthrow of some regimes.

"For after every Caesar that dies

Is born another Caesar" (The Last Words of Spartacus, Amal Donkol).

The US administration has abandoned its policy of realism, and is now championing unrealistic ideals. Thus it is not inconceivable that America would support a man like

Colonel Muammar Qadaffy.
... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule...
Yet the US administration should now be prepared to confront the complex sectarian, religious, social and economic reality -- which has been further complicated by the recent unrest - and the possibility of the emergence of populist regimes, threatened by sectarian and civil wars. Obama believes that "creative destruction" can be implemented without paying the price, but sooner or later we will see the result. The administration is now faced with the Samson Option - when it stands by revolutions, it should realize that its interests are also prone to collapse.

Carter was an avid supporter of the freedom revolutions, but then oil prices dropped. Obama will soon realize that security, stability and development in this part of the world are no less important than the freedom of expression. The people of the region are not necessarily obliged to consider American interests, in return for the US supporting "freedom" for two weeks.

Renowned American politician Kenneth Waltz says "A lot of people don't like realists...Realists face the world as it is. Most people want the world to be nicer and for people to be better."

Posted by:Fred

#27 :) Thanks T.W. and Mike for the outstanding presentation! I always learn more than I knew at Fred's site.

Posted by: JohnQC 2011-02-24 18:43

#26 Thank you very much, will do tomorrow, I am outta the office today with a migraine.

Posted by: Fire and ice 2011-02-24 16:40

#25 Sorry to all for going off-topic for so long. Fire and Ice, send me an email for the rest -- it's too long and too personal to take advantage of Rantburg's server space. My email should be attached to my name below.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 16:27

#24 F&I: Why is religion in decline?

You sure about that?

...According to the report, there will be, by mid-2011, 2,306,609,000 Christians of all kinds in the world, representing 33 percent of world population a slight percentage rise from mid-2000 (32.7 percent), but a slight percentage drop since 1900 (34.5 percent). Of those 2.3 billion Christians, some 1.5 billion are regular church attenders, who worship in 5,171,000 congregations or "worship centers," up from 400,000 in 1900 and 3.5 million in 2000.

These 2.3 billion Christians can be divided into six "ecclesiastical megablocks": 1,160,880,000 Catholics; 426,450,000 Protestants; 271,316,000 Orthodox; 87,520,000 Anglicans; 378,281,000 "Independents" (i.e., those separated from or unaffiliated with historic denominational Christianity); and 35,539,000 "marginal Christians" (i.e., those professing off-brand Trinitarian theology, dubious Christology, or a supplementary written revelation beyond the Bible).

Compared to the world's 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours....

(Source here; boldface emphasis added.)

As for the notion that "Western liberalist concepts" have no place in other cultures....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....

Now, you either agree with that statement or you don't. If you agree with it, then the only legitimate government is one which is subordinate to God and the servant of its citizens, not the god and master of its subjects--and that's just as true in Cairo, Egypt as it is in Cairo, Illinois. If all of that is true, then it cannot also be true that any group of men lacks those inalienable rights and can therefore be condemned to live under tyranny (or its little brother, kleptocracy) in perpetuity.

(Before any of you jump on me about the Muslim Brotherhood, allow me to raise two subsidiary points: (1) a sharia government is just another flavor of tyranny, and is no more legitimate than one based in the divine right of kings or the dialectic of class struggle; and (2) freedom includes by implication the freedom to screw up, and if the people in any one of these countries just swap out one set of goons for another, it does not invalidate their unalienable rights or preclude them from later correction of the error; see also, e.g., United States, 2008 Presidential election in.)

If you don't agree with the Declaration, then the law of the jungle applies, and the only necessary condition for any government is sufficient coercive force to keep it in power, and you have no principled argument against tyranny.

Posted by: Mike 2011-02-24 16:25

#23 Really? I was told that I'd have to go beg to the Rabbi who would put me through verbal abuse in order to join up,

When, how long since the rabbi had gotten his/her diploma, and was he/she Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or other? And again, were either your father or you ever baptized?

Going with the second question first, if the Jewish parent converted at any point to another religion, his Jewishness is lost rather than passed down, and you would have to formally onvert to become Jewish. Again, not like being Irish. Or if your mother's mother took you to church and got you baptized when you were a wee tot, then you would have to formally convert to be Jewish again.

As for the other, only Reform Jews accept descent through the father as well as the mother. For the rest, given how many nice Jewish girls have been raped by marauders through the ghetto over the centuries, recognizing descent through the mother only makes perfect sense, however put out the menfolk might feel about it. And that really is pretty liberated for a solidly patriarchal religion.

Cincinnati has hosted Hebrew Union College rabbinic school since 1875. HUC is the center of Reform Judaism in the United States. The rabbi emeritus of my synagogue used to lecture there. Our synagogue accepts mixed marriages, the offspring of mixed marriages, and even adoptees from China and Hispanic America as Jews (although adoptees must go through an abbreviated formal conversion process to make sure they are choosing the faith that is likely not of their birth parents). You don't have to believe me; write to them yourself and ask.

But if you went to a rabbi about it because you were dating a Jewish man, they would put obstacles in your way as a matter of principle. They don't want people trying to make the marriage easier, they want people drawn by intrinsic faith.

Next comment about the hoops.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 16:03

#22 Some officials in the US administration argue that what is happening here is a historical process of "creative destruction", and that the administration must accept the outcome of what happens.

You remember Cash for Clunkers right? Just think of this as Dictators for Democracy. Yeah...thats the ticket.

Posted by: DepotGuy 2011-02-24 15:04

#21 Back to the Charlotte York Goldenblatt question, why does someone wishing to convert to Judaism have to jump through hoops? And what are the hoops? Please forgive my ignorance, but I've only seen or heard of these things from a few Jewish people I know or on television. All the Jewish relatives of mine on the father's side are non practicing and seem content to stay that way.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 13:04

#20 you certainly have, what we call, a Jewish mouth.

You have no idea. Im only quiet when Im asleep.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 13:00

#19 your religious pillars fail to deal with "halfsies" well

My religion doesn't deal with "halfsies", at all. Perhaps you didn't understand what being stock breeders entails. I'll try another way. Ever heard the expression "Maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion."? Well, the people who formulated Jewish Law, did. So, no half Jews. Either 100% (mother or conversion) Jew, or not a Jew. So sorry.

p.s. Please don't take the above personally. It is not an attempt to cast aspersions on your paternity---just a clarification. For myself, I've no doubts---you certainly have, what we call, a Jewish mouth.

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-02-24 12:43

#18 Reform Judaism recognizes descent equally through the father as well as through the mother.

Really? I was told that I'd have to go beg to the Rabbi who would put me through verbal abuse in order to join up, ala Charlotte York Goldblatt, Sex and the City style. Who would want to deal with that? And if the person who told me that was pulling my leg, then I guess I was too easily mislead a Schiksa for dating him.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 12:33

#17 Racism goes both ways, and if you don't admit that there are words for kid who have a jewish father and a different race mother, than youze a LIAR.

Huh? I've lived a sheltered life, so perhaps that's why I don't have a clue to what you're on about, Fire and Ice.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 12:14

#16 Nb 2 (Sorry, thinking this through slowly): If you have been baptized, or your Jewish parent has, then you are not Jewish, but only "of Jewish descent". Judaism is a culture as well as a religion, yes, but if you choose not to be a member of the religion, you also lose the culture. It's not like being Irish on St. Patrick's Day.

Hope that helps.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 12:11

#15 Nb: Despite the illusions of the Israeli chief rabbinate, they do not define Judaism for the world-wide community. g(r)omgoru is quoting their definition for the purpose of automatic Israeli citizenship, but elsewhere other definitions hold. This will no doubt take several generations to work out.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 12:08

#14 Racism goes both ways, and if you don't admit that there are words for kid who have a jewish father and a different race mother, than youze a LIAR.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 12:07

#13 Believe me Jews don't REALLY respect your mother if she isn't Jewish as well. Its an Old Testament thing, you know. I've seen it among the Jew/Gentile people in my home town growing up. Islam and Judaism are still very cozy with their middle eastern roots.

You have several times generalized from your difficult personal experience on this subject, Fire and Ice. I am sorry you experienced bigotry from those who should have loved and accepted you.

However, your experience is limited. Reform Judaism recognizes descent equally through the father as well as through the mother. A Reform Jewish girlfriend of mine was twice reelected as president of the synagogue sisterhood (which put her on the board and the prayerbook committee) and got her son through his bar mitzvah before deciding that she ought to be Jewish rather than Methodist. Clearly she wasn't being discriminated against within the faith community -- and the bar mitzvah was well attended.

Look it up -- the Reform branch is not exactly a minority here in America. You just happen to be related to jerks.

Posted by: trailing wife 2011-02-24 12:04

#12 You tell me, G(r)goru. WTF does Noah have to do with it, or the fact that your religious pillars fail to deal with "halfsies" well. Sort of like Japanese kids with a white Marine father. Phucked coming and going on the playgroud. And the tone of your answer is as exclusionary as the "RELIGION" you uphold.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 12:03

#11 When a religion fails to answer the basic questions of its adherants, or those "born" into it, simply and fairly, they leave the religion. Why is religion in decline? Because of a failure on the part of religions, numbers are down. If Judaism was a business, it would have been out of business awhile ago. And BTW, all the empty churches that are up for sale and being turned into Artist studios and restaurants illustrate that this phenomenon is not religion specific, but based on widespread dissatisfaction.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 12:01

#10 for the simple fact that I am Half Jewish?

F&I.
(a) You're Jewish only if (i) your mother is (the ancient Hebrews were stock breeders), or (ii) you have converted.
(b) WTF Noah has to do with Judaism?

Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2011-02-24 12:00

#9 Excuse me, I asked a valid question. Vitriolic blather and insults aren't a valid answer.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 11:55

#8 because you are new to the burg and half the stuff you dribble is incomprehensible.

Posted by: bman 2011-02-24 11:52

#7 Please restrain your racist comments

According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.

However, being that I have one Jewish Parent and one who is a gentile why am I racist when I have been the butt of racial epithets made by "full" Jews against me when I have followed everything laid out above, for the simple fact that I am Half Jewish?

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 10:37

#6 Believe me Jews don't REALLY respect your mother if she isn't Jewish

Perhaps not. But on the other hand, they don't seem to be actively trying to kill her, convert her or throw a tarp over her head either.

Posted by: SteveS 2011-02-24 10:11

#5 Restrain your racist comments Fire and Ice. Your maternal, hometown tribal clan "roots" experiences mean nothing to us I tell you. Nothing! It's his fault...no, HIS fault.... no, his fault. Ahhhhg... my ears, my eyes!!!

Posted by: Besoeker 2011-02-24 10:11

#4

They all want to Kill the nasty Jews and they dont love you and they spit on your infidel mother.

Believe me Jews don't REALLY respect your mother if she isn't Jewish as well. Its an Old Testament thing, you know. I've seen it among the Jew/Gentile people in my home town growing up. Islam and Judaism are still very cozy with their middle eastern roots.

Posted by: Fire and Ice 2011-02-24 09:30

#3 Maybe in a few months the MSM will start ridiculing Zero as just a 'community organizer.'
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418

Dear Lord hasten the day.

Posted by: Besoeker 2011-02-24 09:17

#2 This article and comment #1 are both incoherent, but then, so is US policy and the present US administration.
That realization is gradually starting to seep into the MSM. ABC news on GMA a few minutes ago said "It's almost as if Obama is a law enforcement negotiator" in the Libyan crisis, dealing with a hostage-taking. Maybe in a few months the MSM will start ridiculing Zero as just a 'community organizer.'

Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-02-24 07:34

#1 You want to know what an Arab is? Take a look at Khadaffy's face. Look at it.

THAT is the real Middle East. That is the Arab soul.

Let's all trust our liberal ideas about "freedom" and "democracy", shall we?

Those crowds and mobs of Arabs all calling for new regimes and for "freedom".....each person in those crowds and mobs (yes even the ones who are being shot in the streets) all eat camel meat and falafel..
And they all know about stinky old boots and Big moustaches because Dad actually was one and his son is growing a moustache and trying on the boots too.

In Iraq freedom is "Arab" freedom. And in Afghanistab what are our goals? "Freedom"? Yeah?
They all want to Kill the nasty Jews and they dont love you and they spit on your infidel mother.

And The Egyptians got rid of a corrupt dictator and now they have a Military Junta. And the US is a vote present Pussy.

And the EUroweenies are ( wait for it) EUroweenies. Am I lyin' to 'ya?

And just what are YOU gonna get out of all this? $4.00 for gasoline for starters. And leadership for Hope and Change.
You stupid sucker.

Let's fire Rumsfeld, its all his fault. Go look in the mirror, what do you see? And you really want a thrill? Take time to smell the Jasmine, that should really make your day.

Hope and Change....get some.

Posted by: Dribble2716 2011-02-24 06:29

00:00