It has become quite clear to a number of individuals on both sides of the "right-left" divide over the last 3 1/2 years that the foreign policy of the current US administration with respect to the Middle East has been at the very least confusing.
DOUBLE STANDARD?
On the one hand, our administration has fully supported so-called "democratic" uprisings during what has come to be known as the Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia where major protests and populace demands have led to wholesale leadership shifts. Although the uprising in Egypt was the most visible, the deadliest of the three was in Libya were close to 300 "protestors" lost their lives at the hands of Muammar Khadaffi, prompting the US to organize a multi-national military campaign to end "the massacre," which it successfully accomplished in a matter of weeks.
Other major uprisings in the region have met with different responses. In Iran, although not nearly as well publicized, major cities were filled with tens of thousands of protesters verbalizing their anger and frustration over the horrendous suppression of freedom by the Mullahs of Tehran. Experts have estimated that the demonstrations included not only several times more people than those in Egypt, but, resulted in many more deaths, torture and the imprisonment of the opposition than Egypt and Libya combined.
Additionally, the threat to regional imbalance and the support of worldwide radicalism by Iran's leadership was, and still is, much more dangerous than any threat Libya or Egypt posed. In fact, although controlled by autocratic leaders, certainly Egypt and to some extent Libya, were considered two of the more stabilizing forces in an otherwise chaotic Arab Middle East.
One would have predicted based on the response in Egypt and Libya, that the reaction to the Iranian popular demand for democratization to have been even more overwhelming by the US and its allies. However, the reaction by our administration over the course of several weeks was surprisingly muted, which frustrated not only the aspirations of the populace of Iran, which was eventually brutally quelled, but even many anti-Iran Arab allies in the Middle East.
In Syria, a popular uprising has been going on for many months against a dictatorial and despotic leader who historically has been much more violently oppressive of his people than either Mubarak or Khadaffi, having been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the past. During the current uprising, estimates are that well over 30,000 men, women and children have been killed by the regime. What has been the response of our current administration? Extremely weak and inconsistent condemnation and loosely formed sanctions.
The official Obama Administration's overview of National Security and Foreign Policy strategy states the following: "The United States rejects the false choice between the narrow pursuit of our interests and an endless campaign to impose our values. Instead, we see it as fundamental to our own interests to support a just peace around the world—one in which individuals, and not just nations, are granted the fundamental rights that they deserve."
Although seemingly well within the concept of ensuring fundamental rights for the people of Egypt and Libya, this doesn't apply the same way for Iran and Syria. The explanations by the State Department have been exhaustingly vague and illusive. Why, then, was Libya and Egypt "our problem" and Iran and Syria not? It has been a struggle for me to attempt to answer that question because, until recently, no single theory fit.
The concept of the "double standard" can be summarized succinctly as "any code or set of principles applied differently for one group of people than another." Clearly, our administration's policy vis a vie the Middle East has been framed entirely by a double standard. But, again, the real question is why?
It would certainly be Pollyannish to think that for decades, prior US administrations have not also applied double standards to foreign policy, having supported regimes, even despots, based on economic ties or the need to maintain regional stability, to keep under check the growth of communism or, most recently, to minimize the impact over the Muslim world by radical Islamist regimes.
DUPLICITOUS?
On the other hand, many people have claimed that the undergirding reasons for the Middle Eastern policy of Obama and his administration have been duplicitous. Defining the concept of duplicity as "deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech," Obama has been accused of everything from being a manchurian candidate, a hidden Muslim to a radical socialist.
While, it is true that he has on multiple occasions over his term in office reneged on prior commitments on both domestic and foreign policy issues, he has rarely defended these decisions with an explanation as to why the alteration in principle or course. Is this the machinations of a Machiavellian leader - one who is intentionally deceitful; or is this the product of Consequentialism - that of the ends justifying the means? His policy-makers have claimed the latter and have encouraged those hurt by the seeming reversals of course to be patient and all will turn out well.
Then, there is the Israel-Arab issue. On the one hand, our president has verbalized, at least when speaking to predominantly Jewish proponents of Israel and mainstream Americans - who are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, his self-proclaimed unwavering support for Israel and her security. He has even gone so far as to state unabashedly that he is "the most pro-Israel President since Truman."
In his ground-breaking speech to the Muslim world in Cairo in 2009, Obama attempted to be balanced in his determination to address the Israel-Arab crisis. While he emotively challenged the Arab world and the Palestinians specifically to abandon violence and recognize the aspirations of Israel as the Jewish homeland, he also publicly flagellated Israel and stated unequivocally, that "the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." and compared the plight of the Palestinians to that of the African Americans through slavery in the US.
While understanding his verbalized desire to be fair and balanced, what has his record been through the remainder of his term in office? Repeatedly, the actions of this administration have been intentional about its attempt to strong-arm Israeli leadership, often in direct opposition to long and short-term Israeli security needs. Although, it has spoken judiciously and occasionally in opposition to terror attacks on Israel, it has spoken loudly through State Department and Defense Department leaders with regard to Israeli policy toward stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, undermining Israel's attempt to utilize military strength as a negotiating tool. It has likewise consistently supported Arab perspectives on peace negotiations. It lambasted Israel for the Gaza Flotilla disaster, even before it became obvious that Israeli personnel were acting in self-defense and subsequently never corrected their verbalized judgment.
While vetoing the Palestinian's attempt at unilateral statehood at the United Nations, the administration vociferously denuded Israel for their supposed continued policy of settlement building, giving tacit impetus to Palestinian demands. This occurred even in the face of an almost year-long moratorium on settlement building that Israel's government self-imposed to show good faith at re-igniting peace negotiations, which were rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
Additionally, time and time again, Obama has placed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in an untenable position, through rhetoric and public repudiation with his policies. Preempting his face to face meeting with Netanyahu, Obama, while the Prime Minister was in the air on his way to the US, set the foundation for US policy with regard to Palestinian peace negotiations to be based on "pre 1967 lines with mutual land swaps." The backlash of vehement opposition to this placed the administration in an extremely defensive position. However, as it had before, it never apologized or corrected what others perceived as a horrendous policy error.
These incidences and the overt attitude of the US administration has served to further isolate Israel in an already overwhelmingly anti-Israel world, not to mention the plethora of covert occurrences that have come to light over the past several years.
Why? Is it a continuation of the double standard, is it overt duplicity, or is it something else?
Dinesh D'Souza in his controversial book The Roots of Obama's Rage and subsequent major documentary, "2016: Obama's America," puts forth the theory that it is Obama's anti-colonial obsession which is the motivation behind both his domestic and foreign policy decisions. When analyzed in the light of Middle East policy decisions, this would seem on the surface to be an obvious factor.
Why else would Obama support the overthrow of three regimes, one of which - Egypt - was the single strongest political and military ally the US had in the Middle East apart from Israel, and which was seen in the Arab world as being "in the pocket" of the Americans? To support Egypt's regime change is to prove unequivocally to the Arab and Muslim world that America was no longer the colonialist that it "once was." While at the same time, he did little to support the overthrow of 2 despotic nations that brutally suppress their populations - who happened to be allies with each other and extremely anti-American. Of course, it would have been counterproductive to his anti-colonial passion to overtly support the overthrow of two anti-American and anti-Israeli regimes.
Now, to the Israel-Arab issue, this would apply all the more, as the Arab world views Israel as having clear colonialist aspirations. For the US to continue to support Israel would again be counterproductive to Obama's anti-colonialist obsession. Of course, walking this fine line puts the President in a potentially unenviable position with many Americans who are pro-Israel and certainly with many of his wealthy constituents, who are pro-Israeli Jews. Thus, the equivocation that we see time and again between promise and actionable policy.
This anti-colonial program has carried itself even further with recent events in the Middle East. As a response to the production of an anti-Muslim video by a private citizen who happens to live in the United States, riots and protests throughout the Muslim world have taken the lives of American personnel in Libya and threatened other westerners. The violent protestors continue to rage, blaming the US and Israel as well as other Western Countries for overt anti-Islamic policies that they have linked with this video.
What has the official US response been? While briefly castigating the taking of innocent lives, the US response at both the State Department and Federal level has been one of apology for "the insensitivity" of this video's denigration of the Muslim religion.
Even as more knowledge has come to light that the attacks on the US embassy in Libya were actually premeditated and only coincidentally linked to the blamed video, the official response has again been one of equivocation and confused rhetoric, with the goal of not wanting to undermine the need to present the US as anti-colonial.
And, with all his attempt to represent the US in a new light to the Muslim populace, that of a more passive world power who is no longer interested in imposing its values on Islam, what results have been accomplished? Iran and Syria have been emboldened, Israel has been further isolated, Islamist extremists have been able to gain much stronger footing in the Arab world, and the US remains the "Great Satan" - still seen as attempting to impose its Western values on the Islamic peoples.
Although the anti-colonial perspective explains to some extent the basis for Obama's foreign policy, it still does not seem to drill all the way to the core of the matter. Which brings me to my final point.
DELUDED?
While there is an obvious double standard that has been applied and perhaps some duplicity in order to further the administration's goals, it is my opinion that neither of these are the crux of the matter. In point of fact, anti-colonialism may be the vehicle that carries the policies of this administration. But, it is a deeper reality that is at the foundation.
What I believe differentiates Obama's philosophical approach, and indeed what separates him from prior US leaders, is his very firm belief that good and evil are relative concepts. To put it more succinctly, redefining what is good and evil is the real matter. "Good" is defined as "live and let live." "Evil" is defined as "the imposition of values" - even if those values appear to be intrinsically "good." There is no strict line that forms the boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil and therefore, those concepts are no longer part of the dialogue vis a vie foreign policy. There remain only shades of gray.
To Obama, the response of the Muslim world to, for example, this crude and denigrating video was justified. The anger at which it responds to Israel's presence in the Middle East and to the perception of any complicity on the part of the US, even in the form of terrorism and violence, makes perfect sense.
Although the taking of innocent lives may be counterproductive, to Obama, it appears not a result of evil, but of the cry of repression that longs for freedom of expression. It is merely a product of a different ethic and culture, not to be eradicated, but to be tolerated - as different. To apply a "Western" or "Judeo-Christian" ethic in labeling these events as evil or good, is to impose values that serve to denigrate those whose behavior is "different" to a form of forced behavior - which to Obama is tantamount to the greatest of all "evils," if you will.
The transitive verb "deluded" is defined as "to have one's mind misled, to have one's judgment deceived." While the intention of this discussion is not to compare philosophical or theological perspectives, the fundamental perspective that is at the foundation of Obama's foreign policy is indeed: political, social and moral relativism. It is a fascinating perspective that has evolved out of postmodern thought and defies any sense of absolutism.
Right and wrong, good and evil, indeed truth itself is no longer necessary to frame our society and the world must evolve away from these absolutes in order to become a more stable, co-dependent place, according to the relativist. To impose values is anathema to the moral relativist. To be sure, however, even the assessment of actual conduct as "good" or "evil" and "right" or "wrong" is bete noire.
The conclusion here is not a pretense for arguing the validity of relativism vs. absolutism. It is, in fact, a challenge to those wanting to understand the reasoning behind this country's foreign policy under the current administration, especially with regard to the Middle East. It is, more importantly, a call to become introspective regarding your choice for whom we want as leader of our nation and for what direction we want to see this nation's interaction with the world around us.
THE DELUSION?
If it no longer strikes one as evil that homicide bombers continue to kill and mame innocent people; if we no longer wish to define as morally wicked the aspirations of one sovereign state to annihilate another; if the response to the innate commitment of an entire religious culture to dominate and place in subserviency the world, one region at a time, is no longer considered worthy of confrontation, even violent confrontation.
Ultimately, if you feel comfortable with the delusion that evil no longer exists and that wickedness is no longer something we must fight with every fiber of our civilization, then I suggest you place your name amongst those who would like the current administration to continue the journey it has begun taking our nation.
If not, then I strongly suggest that with every ounce of your being, you make your voice heard: at the ballot box, in your congregations and churches, on social websites and in any other way you deem necessary.
Whatever you choose, to do nothing is only deluding yourself.
DOUBLE STANDARD?
On the one hand, our administration has fully supported so-called "democratic" uprisings during what has come to be known as the Arab Spring in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia where major protests and populace demands have led to wholesale leadership shifts. Although the uprising in Egypt was the most visible, the deadliest of the three was in Libya were close to 300 "protestors" lost their lives at the hands of Muammar Khadaffi, prompting the US to organize a multi-national military campaign to end "the massacre," which it successfully accomplished in a matter of weeks.
Other major uprisings in the region have met with different responses. In Iran, although not nearly as well publicized, major cities were filled with tens of thousands of protesters verbalizing their anger and frustration over the horrendous suppression of freedom by the Mullahs of Tehran. Experts have estimated that the demonstrations included not only several times more people than those in Egypt, but, resulted in many more deaths, torture and the imprisonment of the opposition than Egypt and Libya combined.
Additionally, the threat to regional imbalance and the support of worldwide radicalism by Iran's leadership was, and still is, much more dangerous than any threat Libya or Egypt posed. In fact, although controlled by autocratic leaders, certainly Egypt and to some extent Libya, were considered two of the more stabilizing forces in an otherwise chaotic Arab Middle East.
One would have predicted based on the response in Egypt and Libya, that the reaction to the Iranian popular demand for democratization to have been even more overwhelming by the US and its allies. However, the reaction by our administration over the course of several weeks was surprisingly muted, which frustrated not only the aspirations of the populace of Iran, which was eventually brutally quelled, but even many anti-Iran Arab allies in the Middle East.
In Syria, a popular uprising has been going on for many months against a dictatorial and despotic leader who historically has been much more violently oppressive of his people than either Mubarak or Khadaffi, having been responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the past. During the current uprising, estimates are that well over 30,000 men, women and children have been killed by the regime. What has been the response of our current administration? Extremely weak and inconsistent condemnation and loosely formed sanctions.
The official Obama Administration's overview of National Security and Foreign Policy strategy states the following: "The United States rejects the false choice between the narrow pursuit of our interests and an endless campaign to impose our values. Instead, we see it as fundamental to our own interests to support a just peace around the world—one in which individuals, and not just nations, are granted the fundamental rights that they deserve."
Although seemingly well within the concept of ensuring fundamental rights for the people of Egypt and Libya, this doesn't apply the same way for Iran and Syria. The explanations by the State Department have been exhaustingly vague and illusive. Why, then, was Libya and Egypt "our problem" and Iran and Syria not? It has been a struggle for me to attempt to answer that question because, until recently, no single theory fit.
The concept of the "double standard" can be summarized succinctly as "any code or set of principles applied differently for one group of people than another." Clearly, our administration's policy vis a vie the Middle East has been framed entirely by a double standard. But, again, the real question is why?
It would certainly be Pollyannish to think that for decades, prior US administrations have not also applied double standards to foreign policy, having supported regimes, even despots, based on economic ties or the need to maintain regional stability, to keep under check the growth of communism or, most recently, to minimize the impact over the Muslim world by radical Islamist regimes.
DUPLICITOUS?
On the other hand, many people have claimed that the undergirding reasons for the Middle Eastern policy of Obama and his administration have been duplicitous. Defining the concept of duplicity as "deliberate deceptiveness in behavior or speech," Obama has been accused of everything from being a manchurian candidate, a hidden Muslim to a radical socialist.
While, it is true that he has on multiple occasions over his term in office reneged on prior commitments on both domestic and foreign policy issues, he has rarely defended these decisions with an explanation as to why the alteration in principle or course. Is this the machinations of a Machiavellian leader - one who is intentionally deceitful; or is this the product of Consequentialism - that of the ends justifying the means? His policy-makers have claimed the latter and have encouraged those hurt by the seeming reversals of course to be patient and all will turn out well.
Then, there is the Israel-Arab issue. On the one hand, our president has verbalized, at least when speaking to predominantly Jewish proponents of Israel and mainstream Americans - who are overwhelmingly supportive of Israel, his self-proclaimed unwavering support for Israel and her security. He has even gone so far as to state unabashedly that he is "the most pro-Israel President since Truman."
In his ground-breaking speech to the Muslim world in Cairo in 2009, Obama attempted to be balanced in his determination to address the Israel-Arab crisis. While he emotively challenged the Arab world and the Palestinians specifically to abandon violence and recognize the aspirations of Israel as the Jewish homeland, he also publicly flagellated Israel and stated unequivocally, that "the US does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." and compared the plight of the Palestinians to that of the African Americans through slavery in the US.
While understanding his verbalized desire to be fair and balanced, what has his record been through the remainder of his term in office? Repeatedly, the actions of this administration have been intentional about its attempt to strong-arm Israeli leadership, often in direct opposition to long and short-term Israeli security needs. Although, it has spoken judiciously and occasionally in opposition to terror attacks on Israel, it has spoken loudly through State Department and Defense Department leaders with regard to Israeli policy toward stopping Iran's nuclear aspirations, undermining Israel's attempt to utilize military strength as a negotiating tool. It has likewise consistently supported Arab perspectives on peace negotiations. It lambasted Israel for the Gaza Flotilla disaster, even before it became obvious that Israeli personnel were acting in self-defense and subsequently never corrected their verbalized judgment.
While vetoing the Palestinian's attempt at unilateral statehood at the United Nations, the administration vociferously denuded Israel for their supposed continued policy of settlement building, giving tacit impetus to Palestinian demands. This occurred even in the face of an almost year-long moratorium on settlement building that Israel's government self-imposed to show good faith at re-igniting peace negotiations, which were rejected by the Palestinian leadership.
Additionally, time and time again, Obama has placed Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in an untenable position, through rhetoric and public repudiation with his policies. Preempting his face to face meeting with Netanyahu, Obama, while the Prime Minister was in the air on his way to the US, set the foundation for US policy with regard to Palestinian peace negotiations to be based on "pre 1967 lines with mutual land swaps." The backlash of vehement opposition to this placed the administration in an extremely defensive position. However, as it had before, it never apologized or corrected what others perceived as a horrendous policy error.
These incidences and the overt attitude of the US administration has served to further isolate Israel in an already overwhelmingly anti-Israel world, not to mention the plethora of covert occurrences that have come to light over the past several years.
Why? Is it a continuation of the double standard, is it overt duplicity, or is it something else?
Dinesh D'Souza in his controversial book The Roots of Obama's Rage and subsequent major documentary, "2016: Obama's America," puts forth the theory that it is Obama's anti-colonial obsession which is the motivation behind both his domestic and foreign policy decisions. When analyzed in the light of Middle East policy decisions, this would seem on the surface to be an obvious factor.
Why else would Obama support the overthrow of three regimes, one of which - Egypt - was the single strongest political and military ally the US had in the Middle East apart from Israel, and which was seen in the Arab world as being "in the pocket" of the Americans? To support Egypt's regime change is to prove unequivocally to the Arab and Muslim world that America was no longer the colonialist that it "once was." While at the same time, he did little to support the overthrow of 2 despotic nations that brutally suppress their populations - who happened to be allies with each other and extremely anti-American. Of course, it would have been counterproductive to his anti-colonial passion to overtly support the overthrow of two anti-American and anti-Israeli regimes.
Now, to the Israel-Arab issue, this would apply all the more, as the Arab world views Israel as having clear colonialist aspirations. For the US to continue to support Israel would again be counterproductive to Obama's anti-colonialist obsession. Of course, walking this fine line puts the President in a potentially unenviable position with many Americans who are pro-Israel and certainly with many of his wealthy constituents, who are pro-Israeli Jews. Thus, the equivocation that we see time and again between promise and actionable policy.
This anti-colonial program has carried itself even further with recent events in the Middle East. As a response to the production of an anti-Muslim video by a private citizen who happens to live in the United States, riots and protests throughout the Muslim world have taken the lives of American personnel in Libya and threatened other westerners. The violent protestors continue to rage, blaming the US and Israel as well as other Western Countries for overt anti-Islamic policies that they have linked with this video.
What has the official US response been? While briefly castigating the taking of innocent lives, the US response at both the State Department and Federal level has been one of apology for "the insensitivity" of this video's denigration of the Muslim religion.
Even as more knowledge has come to light that the attacks on the US embassy in Libya were actually premeditated and only coincidentally linked to the blamed video, the official response has again been one of equivocation and confused rhetoric, with the goal of not wanting to undermine the need to present the US as anti-colonial.
And, with all his attempt to represent the US in a new light to the Muslim populace, that of a more passive world power who is no longer interested in imposing its values on Islam, what results have been accomplished? Iran and Syria have been emboldened, Israel has been further isolated, Islamist extremists have been able to gain much stronger footing in the Arab world, and the US remains the "Great Satan" - still seen as attempting to impose its Western values on the Islamic peoples.
Although the anti-colonial perspective explains to some extent the basis for Obama's foreign policy, it still does not seem to drill all the way to the core of the matter. Which brings me to my final point.
DELUDED?
While there is an obvious double standard that has been applied and perhaps some duplicity in order to further the administration's goals, it is my opinion that neither of these are the crux of the matter. In point of fact, anti-colonialism may be the vehicle that carries the policies of this administration. But, it is a deeper reality that is at the foundation.
What I believe differentiates Obama's philosophical approach, and indeed what separates him from prior US leaders, is his very firm belief that good and evil are relative concepts. To put it more succinctly, redefining what is good and evil is the real matter. "Good" is defined as "live and let live." "Evil" is defined as "the imposition of values" - even if those values appear to be intrinsically "good." There is no strict line that forms the boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil and therefore, those concepts are no longer part of the dialogue vis a vie foreign policy. There remain only shades of gray.
To Obama, the response of the Muslim world to, for example, this crude and denigrating video was justified. The anger at which it responds to Israel's presence in the Middle East and to the perception of any complicity on the part of the US, even in the form of terrorism and violence, makes perfect sense.
Although the taking of innocent lives may be counterproductive, to Obama, it appears not a result of evil, but of the cry of repression that longs for freedom of expression. It is merely a product of a different ethic and culture, not to be eradicated, but to be tolerated - as different. To apply a "Western" or "Judeo-Christian" ethic in labeling these events as evil or good, is to impose values that serve to denigrate those whose behavior is "different" to a form of forced behavior - which to Obama is tantamount to the greatest of all "evils," if you will.
The transitive verb "deluded" is defined as "to have one's mind misled, to have one's judgment deceived." While the intention of this discussion is not to compare philosophical or theological perspectives, the fundamental perspective that is at the foundation of Obama's foreign policy is indeed: political, social and moral relativism. It is a fascinating perspective that has evolved out of postmodern thought and defies any sense of absolutism.
Right and wrong, good and evil, indeed truth itself is no longer necessary to frame our society and the world must evolve away from these absolutes in order to become a more stable, co-dependent place, according to the relativist. To impose values is anathema to the moral relativist. To be sure, however, even the assessment of actual conduct as "good" or "evil" and "right" or "wrong" is bete noire.
The conclusion here is not a pretense for arguing the validity of relativism vs. absolutism. It is, in fact, a challenge to those wanting to understand the reasoning behind this country's foreign policy under the current administration, especially with regard to the Middle East. It is, more importantly, a call to become introspective regarding your choice for whom we want as leader of our nation and for what direction we want to see this nation's interaction with the world around us.
THE DELUSION?
If it no longer strikes one as evil that homicide bombers continue to kill and mame innocent people; if we no longer wish to define as morally wicked the aspirations of one sovereign state to annihilate another; if the response to the innate commitment of an entire religious culture to dominate and place in subserviency the world, one region at a time, is no longer considered worthy of confrontation, even violent confrontation.
Ultimately, if you feel comfortable with the delusion that evil no longer exists and that wickedness is no longer something we must fight with every fiber of our civilization, then I suggest you place your name amongst those who would like the current administration to continue the journey it has begun taking our nation.
If not, then I strongly suggest that with every ounce of your being, you make your voice heard: at the ballot box, in your congregations and churches, on social websites and in any other way you deem necessary.
Whatever you choose, to do nothing is only deluding yourself.
