... What if there is a rational Kissenger style realpolitik motivation to what Obama is doing? Let's be clear, it simply must be the case that he's got a bunch of institutional buy-in for his policies. What is the rationale?
Speculation:
Recall a while back I posted a piece reflecting on the British Monarch's rapprochement with the IRA commander responsible for ordering the death of her uncle.
My conjecture was that the real power of terrorism was the power to make it stop. This is what gives terrorists true leverage and brings sovereign states to the negotiating table ("we don't negotiate with terrorists" rhetoric notwithstanding).
If there is a rhyme or reason to US policy, it would be this:
- the core assumption is that only authentically Islamist governments have the political capital and actual power to throttle jihadi terrorism against the West. Secular strongmen are forced to appease the jihadis and direct their rage externally. Actual liberal democracy has no credibility. Islamists can point to their success as a rational for the supremacy of their politico-theological exegesis and set conditions such that no others (e.g. Bin Ladenism) are tolerated.
- Leaders of Islamist groups holding or seeking such power and deemed accepting of the above calculus are supported or tolerated.
- Leaders of Islamist groups directed at terror against the west are systematically assassinated from the air - even though their ideology differs only slightly from their co-religionists (and colleagues) who seek local power.
So what's wrong with this reasoning?
Exercise for the readers, but my response would be along the lines of what's wrong with this? What could possibly be right with it?
I don't think that Obama is dealing with the "lesser of two evils" as a matter of politics. Nope.
I honestly believe that he is purposefully and methodically applying "social justice" to the world. He will continue until our big blue marble is a caliphate, there are lights in every Afican hut, and the US is a destitute third-world shithole.
How about the American Spring?
ReplyDeleteGreat photo, Fay.
ReplyDeleteThe Arab Spring 1.0 was 'sposed to have been the "young liberal reformers" moment in the sun.
The hipster progressive demographic was all over that Egyptian Google guy who was one of the protest leaders.
Then the Brotherhood took over.
And Obama has supported them. And Erdoğan. And if not "support" the Ayatollahs in Iran, certainly he hasn't really attacked them either.
The Republicans of my youth 70's and 80's) were attacked for cynically supporting foreign totalitarians for selfish American interests.
Obama is crazily supporting foreign totalitarians against American interests.
Wrong side of History. Wrong side of the cynical self interest ledger. What the hell, people?
So to try to answer my own question...
Delete... What if there is a rational Kissenger style realpolitik motivation to what Obama is doing? Let's be clear, it simply must be the case that he's got a bunch of institutional buy-in for his policies. What is the rationale?
Speculation:
Recall a while back I posted a piece reflecting on the British Monarch's rapprochement with the IRA commander responsible for ordering the death of her uncle.
My conjecture was that the real power of terrorism was the power to make it stop. This is what gives terrorists true leverage and brings sovereign states to the negotiating table ("we don't negotiate with terrorists" rhetoric notwithstanding).
If there is a rhyme or reason to US policy, it would be this:
- the core assumption is that only authentically Islamist governments have the political capital and actual power to throttle jihadi terrorism against the West. Secular strongmen are forced to appease the jihadis and direct their rage externally. Actual liberal democracy has no credibility. Islamists can point to their success as a rational for the supremacy of their politico-theological exegesis and set conditions such that no others (e.g. Bin Ladenism) are tolerated.
- Leaders of Islamist groups holding or seeking such power and deemed accepting of the above calculus are supported or tolerated.
- Leaders of Islamist groups directed at terror against the west are systematically assassinated from the air - even though their ideology differs only slightly from their co-religionists (and colleagues) who seek local power.
So what's wrong with this reasoning?
Exercise for the readers, but my response would be along the lines of what's wrong with this? What could possibly be right with it?
I don't think that Obama is dealing with the "lesser of two evils" as a matter of politics. Nope.
ReplyDeleteI honestly believe that he is purposefully and methodically applying "social justice" to the world. He will continue until our big blue marble is a caliphate, there are lights in every Afican hut, and the US is a destitute third-world shithole.