Saturday, August 24, 2013

What Went Wrong in the Middle East? Walter Russell Mead Explains.

Chastened Obama-voter Walter Russell Mead surveys the Middle East in today’s Wall Street Journal and draws the only possible conclusion: Obama’s policy in the region has been a colossal failure.

Mead is hardly the first to note the point. Still, he describes the situation well:

This month the Middle East seems to be reverting to that primeval state: Iraq continues to unravel, the Syrian War grinds on with violence spreading to Lebanon and allegations of chemical attacks this week, and Egypt stands on the brink of civil war with the generals crushing the Muslim Brotherhood and street mobs torching churches. Turkey's prime minister, once widely hailed as President Obama's best friend in the region, blames Egypt's violence on the Jews; pretty much everyone else blames it on the U.S.

How did the Obama administration get it so wrong? How did someone as intelligent and capable as Walter Russell Mead get fooled into thinking that Obama could conduct foreign policy successfully? After all, Mead holds a chair in foreign affairs at Bard College. I have often had occasion to quote his excellent and informative blog, Via Meadia.

Or better, once you have so thoroughly misjudged a presidential candidate how do you save some face?

Mead does so by saying that the Obama administration based its policies on reasonable assumptions and good intentions. He says that administration strategy was: “well intentioned, carefully crafted and consistently pursued.”

It is not quite a whitewash of failure, but it removes the charge that the administration was incompetent and inept. If Obama was not up to the job, those who voted for him could and should have known it.

What were the administration’s reasonable assumptions about the Middle East? Mead explains:

The plan was simple but elegant: The U.S. would work with moderate Islamist groups like Turkey's AK Party and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood to make the Middle East more democratic. This would kill three birds with one stone. First, by aligning itself with these parties, the Obama administration would narrow the gap between the 'moderate middle' of the Muslim world and the U.S. Second, by showing Muslims that peaceful, moderate parties could achieve beneficial results, it would isolate the terrorists and radicals, further marginalizing them in the Islamic world. Finally, these groups with American support could bring democracy to more Middle Eastern countries, leading to improved economic and social conditions, gradually eradicating the ills and grievances that drove some people to fanatical and terroristic groups.

The plan may have been simple and elegant, but it had nothing to do with reality. Mead himself goes on to explain that none of these assumptions turned out to be true.

When your batting average is Zero, it means that you need more time in the minors. It means that you are not ready for the major leagues. It is meaningless to say that you had a simple and elegant plan, that you pursued it consistently, but that, alas, you never got a hit.

Mead then goes on to show how badly the Obama administration missed the point:

With the advantages of hindsight, it appears that the White House made five big miscalculations about the Middle East. It misread the political maturity and capability of the Islamist groups it supported; it misread the political situation in Egypt; it misread the impact of its strategy on relations with America's two most important regional allies (Israel and Saudi Arabia); it failed to grasp the new dynamics of terrorist movements in the region; and it underestimated the costs of inaction in Syria.

Most of Mead’s article explains how the administration misread every particular of the situation in the Middle East. But note well, the face-saving phrase: “with the advantages of hindsight.”

Mead is suggesting that every rational individual, handed the situation that Barack Obama faced in 2009 would have made the same assumptions and conducted policy the same way. That, of course, is untrue.

I have never had a problem finding intelligent and perspicacious analysts of Middle Eastern politics who knew from the onset of the Arab Spring that the Obama administration was making a complete mess of the situation. I mention David Goldman and Caroline Glick. Neither of them needed the advantage of hindsight to see the reality.

I would also underscore a point that commenter Lastango made in response to an earlier post. Why is it that Mead fails to mention the Secretary of State who was charged with formulating and implementing administration policy?

Is Mead trying to distance Hillary Clinton from the foreign policy failures that occurred while she was Secretary of State?

If we grant the Obama administration the best of intentions, these are for nothing when foreign policy is being conducted by people who are inexperienced and incompetent. Everyone should have known that President Obama had no experience in foreign policy and that his understanding of the realities of world politics was grossly inadequate.

That being the case, he was obliged to run a policy that referred, not to reality, but to a fictional world he did understand.

You will say that many American presidents come to office with little experience in foreign affairs. Obama’s problem was not that he did not know, but that he did not know that he did not know. His fawning admirers thought that his towering intellect would allow him to grasp all of the nuances of foreign policy in a few short weeks.

Obama bought the idea, but in order to maintain the illusion that he was competent he needed to surround himself with people who knew less than he did. Case in point, Hillary Clinton.

11 comments:

  1. " Or better, once you have so thoroughly misjudged a presidential candidate how do you save some face?

    Mead does so by saying that the Obama administration based its policies on reasonable assumptions and good intentions. He says that administration strategy was: “well intentioned, carefully crafted and consistently pursued.” "

    I believe not a word of it. Blinded by the "light bringer". Must have swallowed the MSM stories.

    "It is not quite a whitewash of failure, but it removes the charge that the administration was incompetent and inept. If Obama was not up to the job, those who voted for him could and should have known it." I believe not a word of it.

    Hindsight? Many of us had the foresight not to believe Barry and his MSM lapdogs.

    And given the Obama administration, I see no reason to believe they have "the best of intentions".

    ReplyDelete
  2. My other favourite writer:

    http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell082013.php3#.Uhj5K75rbIU

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When your batting average is Zero, it means that you need more time in the minors."

    More time in the minors won't do any good if you are lazy, you don't observe or take advice, and you really don't care about baseball (other than for the trophies and the adulation of the crowd)

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Whitewash of failure" pretty much sums up much of Mead's writing of late. I once liked his work quite a bit. Of late he fails to impress. And yet he seems to feel he should be more impressive than he previously was. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just as Nikita Khrushchev concluded that President Kennedy was weak and incompetent after the Bay of Pigs ... so ... Putin and ... Khamenei now believe they are dealing with a dithering and indecisive American leader .... Khrushchev was wrong about Kennedy, and President Obama's enemies are also underestimating him

    Sadly, Putin and Khamenei are not wrong. Hussein is dithering and indecisive and he is neither smart nor knowledgeable.

    We are SOoL

    ReplyDelete
  6. How about NOT OUR PROBLEM and NOT OUR BUSINESS?

    Whether 'we' back Morsi or the miltary, 'we' get blamed. Let Egytians fix their own problems without aid from us.
    We are involved so deeply because AIPAC runs foreign policy and forces us to do 'what is good for Israel', and Meade is the biggest pro-Zionist shill running dog on the planet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You're saying that AIPAC caused the Obama administration to strongly support the Muslim Brotherhood???

    ReplyDelete
  8. "How's that Arab Spring hangin'?"

    ReplyDelete
  9. OBAMA!

    Obama does what I used to do when I was working. I used to assign A, B, C or D to the things I needed to get done. A was right now, B was i had time to deal with it, C was I will get to it later and D was a waste of my time. There were times when a B became a C and a C became a B, but most of the time the C's resolved themselves. so the A's and B's took most of my time. It helped me to organize and prioritize what needed to be done. Use the same process in retirement. Whoever said retirement was retirement?
    Unfortunately almost everything is assigned a C or D by Obama with and occasional B which tends to drift down with enough time. The only A's are golf, his political standing and political expediency. Needless to say, but this means almost nothing happens in a timely, effective or efficient manner. Sadly, most of the people Obama has around him are exactly the same. That is why the time for action is always gone by the time anyone in the administration looks at it.
    This should be intuitively obvious to anyone who pays even a slight bit of attention over the past 5 years. What went wrong is that we have a president and administration that takes nothing, except politics, seriously. If it is outside the political arena it can wait until it reflects badly on them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mead lets Hillary off the hook because he plans to vote for her in 2016. In 2017 or 18 Mead will write scathing anti-Hillary essays.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "With the advantages of hindsight,"

    Even the NON-experts on the conservative side were pointing out how delusional the Obama ideas were.

    As Rush Limbaugh always points out...

    Results don't matter to liberals. Its the intention that matters. If they had "well meaning intentions" then if doesn't matter if thousands die...

    ReplyDelete