Thursday, May 31, 2012

If Obama Doesn’t Understand European History He Can’t Get America’s Future History Right

By Barry Rubin

President Barack Obama’s mistaken reference to Nazi German death camps as “Polish death camps” is being ridiculed by critics as an example of incompetence. That misses the point.  The defense is that it was on his teleprompter. That misses the point, too.

After all, you don’t need to be a historical genius to have caught that error even if it was on the teleprompter. I am not suggesting that Obama doesn't know that the Nazi Germans operated the death camps. Nevertheless, what this is really about is that Obama does not see himself as emerging from European history and, truth be told and despite his university degrees, doesn't know much about it. 

On one level, that is rather obvious. His father was Kenyan. But, of course, his mother was an American of European descent. Still,  Obama has not chosen to focus on his simultaneously half-African/half-European parentage. He has identified himself as an African-American, and the word African here has to be taken literally, not just as a matter of ancestry from three centuries ago.  The only exception to this stance, I believe, was a reference to Irish ancestry during a visit to that country and a feeble, rather insultingly stereotyped, attempt at an Irish accent.

Forget about this as a matter of race or skin color. Think of it as a matter of geographical choice. Obama draws heavily from Third World standpoints, something quite evident in his choice of church, for example. I cannot recall his ever quoting a European political philosopher. He has never to my knowledge made any reference publicly to Communism. In his books, the emphasis is on feelings, personal experiences, and ideas that come out of his head.  

Obama has claimed that his grandfather was punished as an anti-British activist during the Mau Mau revolt in Kenya. The prime minister at the time was Winston Churchill, and it is no coincidence that one of Obama’s first acts was to return a Churchill bust to Britain in a rude manner.

It’s fine to have a president who didn’t come from that background physically but not so good to have a president who doesn’t grasp the meaning of modern European history.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,285 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

And how is that narrative important? Here are some examples:


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

How Can Obama's Middle East Policy Possibly Get Worse? Answer: Look at Syria

By Barry Rubin

Some of my readers are unhappy that I keep criticizing President Barak Obama and his government.  The problem, however, is that this administration keeps doing terrible things in the Middle East.  And the most damning evidence on these actions comes not from Obama’s enemies but from the administration itself and the supportive mass media.

Here’s the latest such item:

U.S. Hopes Assad Can Be Eased Out with Russia's Aid,” by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler, in the New York Times.

For almost three years, Obama insisted he would win over the Syrian dictatorship and make it America’s friend rather than Iran’s number-one ally. That was ludicrous. Forced by the uprising to back away from Damascus, the Obama Administration has spent almost a year bumbling about what to do.

The U.S. government’s main activity was to entrust to the Turkish Islamist regime the job of forming an umbrella Syrian opposition leadership. Not surprisingly, Ankara pursued its own interest by assembling a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated group, the Syrian National Congress. Though several members resigned, complaining of the radical Islamist control, the Obama Administration is still trying to force hostile oppositionists to join.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,285 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

Now a new and equally terrible policy is unveiled. I’ll let the New York Times’ reporters explain it:

“President Obama will push for the departure of President Bashar al-Assad under a plan that calls for a negotiated political settlement that would satisfy Syrian opposition groups but that could leave remnants of Assad's government in place. The success of the plan hinges on Russia, one of Assad's staunchest allies, which has strongly opposed his removal. Obama, administration officials said, will press the proposal with President Putin of Russia at their meeting next month. Obama's national security adviser raised the plan with Putin in Moscow three weeks ago.”

Good grief! There are four different acts of strategic insanity involved in this paragraph. They are:

--------------------------
Barry Rubin, Israel: An Introduction (Yale University Press) is the first comprehensive book providing a well-rounded introduction to Israel, a definitive account of the nation's past, its often controversial present, and much more. It presents a clear and detailed view of the country’s land, people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. This book is written for general readers and students who may have little knowledge but even well-informed readers tell us they’ve learned new things.Please click here to purchase your copy and get more information on the book. http://www.gloria-center.org/israel-an-introduction/
-------------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.



Monday, May 28, 2012

True Strategic Genius: What Edward Luttwak Teaches Us About America and the World

By Barry Rubin

There are some people so brilliant and original that you shouldn’t want to miss a single word they write or say. Even when you don’t agree with them, their views inspire a better understanding of this strange world we live in, the complex people who dwell there, and the absolutely loony-tune era we have been sentenced to endure (for how much longer?).

Edward Luttwak should be high on any such list of great minds. As he turns 70, a very able interview with David Samuels, by far one of the smartest American reporters on international affairs, in The Tablet is well worth reading. I’ll leave the description of Luttwak’s fascinating background, colorful personality, and extremely interesting discussion on the killing of Usama bin Ladin to the interview. But here, I want to convey and analyze some of the ideas Luttwak raises.

Having known him for almost 40 years, I think I can point to two “secrets” of Luttwak’s greatness that are of wider interest. First, he is absolutely honest in saying what he thinks. This characteristic has tremendous costs, especially in Washington DC.   It is a trait more suited to an intellectual than to a policymaker. One sacrifices influence for the satisfaction of having been right and keeping one's integrity. We who listen are the beneficiaries.

The second point to learn from, which I’ve never heard anyone say before for obvious reasons, is that an American who wants to understand, write about, or be involved in international affairs must learn how to think differently from an American.  Indeed, American military, intelligence, and diplomatic personnel -- if they are going to be any good -- succeed in doing that.

I hesitate to say this, especially at a time when so many radicals from abroad have been reshaping American academia and even the mass media. So I will quickly add that this must be combined with a deep sense of American values, appreciation for the United States, and a refusal to adopt the stances of adversaries. The very fact that the United States is such an exceptional country is demonstrated precisely by the need to make some adjustments for comprehending how others from different types of societies act and view the world. Otherwise, as I point out in a new article that I invite you to read, “Bush and Obama Together At Last: In Misunderstanding the Middle East,” your vision isn’t going to work.

For example, here’s Luttwak about regimes being overthrown in the “Arab Spring”:
Dictatorships attempt to turn entire populations into well-drilled regiments….Once the regiment dissolves, then the people are released and they revert to their natural order. They stop wearing uniforms, they put on the clothes they want, and they manifest the proclivities that they have. A few Egyptians are Westernized….But otherwise, there is no room for civilization in Egypt other than Islam, and the number of extremists that you need to make [a moderate, Western-style society there impossible] is very small…maybe 15 percent of the population.
In other words, most Western analysts, journalists, and even policymakers -- especially nowadays -- are looking in a mirror and think they’re looking out the window. They don’t want to deal with others as they are, especially because the tortuous illogic of Multiculturalism leaves them with only two choices: either they must assert that there are no differences or that the other society is superior to their own.

Of course, when such people have to deal with a society that is closer to their own that makes them very uncomfortable. After all, it is the other side that is supposedly the right side of history. Luttwak has no time for such nonsense as exalting in the virtues of one’s own weakness.




Bush and Obama Together At Last: In Misunderstanding the Middle East

By Barry Rubin


In one of his first statements since leaving office, former President George W. Bush remarked on Middle East developments in an article, “The Arab Spring and American Ideals,” in the Wall Street Journal, May 18. The former president reflects certain American misconceptions about the Middle East that are starting to blow up big-time in the region. 

Bush writes:  
 
"We do not get to choose if a freedom revolution should begin or end in the Middle East or elsewhere. We only get to choose what side we are on."

While one should not overestimate U.S. influence, one should also not underestimate it. Consider:

--In the Gaza Strip, by supporting the inclusion of Hamas in elections for which it was not qualified to run (since it had not accepted the Oslo accords), Bush’s own administration ensured that there would be a radical Islamist revolution in the Gaza Strip. This weakened the already dim prospects for any Israel-Palestinian peace process, has already brought one war, and will certainly bring others.

--In Lebanon, by refusing to give strong support to the moderate forces, the last two presidents ensured that the “freedom revolution” in that country would end in an Iran-Syria-Hizballah takeover.

--In Egypt, by taking the side not only of a total overthrow of the regime and even openly and unilaterally supporting the possibility of a Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did help ensure that the fundamental transformation of Egypt began with the inevitable end of an anti-freedom Islamist regime.

--In Iran, by ignoring the upsurge of protest following the stolen election, the Obama Administration ensured that a “freedom revolution” didn’t get started there.

--In Syria, by refusing to help the rebels in any real way, the U.S. government ensured that the “freedom revolution” would be defeated. Equally bad, by giving disproportionate help to the Islamists, the administration made it far more likely that if the rebellion succeeded it wouldn’t be a “freedom revolution.”

--And finally, in Libya, the United States and its European allies determined pretty much everything, overthrowing Muammar Qadhafi and determining who would rule the country.

Thus, a simple claim by Bush, which is also about the closest he and his successor would agree on any issue, can easily be proved false. One hallmark of those favoring “neoconservative” positions is their lack of knowledge about the actual Middle East.



-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,285 (among about 45679 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

But that’s not all. The most important point of all is this one: “We only get to choose what side we are on." The underlying assumption here is that there are two sides: evil dictatorship and noble democracy advocates.

In fact, there are three sides:

--Dictatorships of various levels of repressiveness, some of which are friendly and some that are sworn enemies of the United States.

--Moderate democracy advocates who want freedom in the Western sense of the word.

--Revolutionary Islamists who want a new, and anti-American, dictatorship run by themselves.

During the Cold War, American policymakers were very much aware of this three-part distinction (the third being Communists, in that case). They didn’t always choose correctly but they tried to evaluate each situation seriously. Sometimes they chose the dictators; sometimes they chose the democrats; and sometimes they even helped nudge the dictators (usually military juntas and especially in Latin America) into returning to the barracks and letting democracy resume.  

No such careful process goes on now. In fact, the Obama Administration has repeatedly done the opposite of what a proper policy would be.

Bush also reflects Obama in using the be-on-the-right-side-of-history argument, a fatal flaw in a president of the United States who should be making choices based on U.S. interests.

Here is Bush’s argument annotated by me:

"The idea that Arab peoples are somehow content with oppression has been discredited forever.”

Again, the question, sadly, is not necessarily dispensing with oppression altogether but which kind of oppression we’re talking about. They are either willing, or can be forced, into getting rid of the old Arab nationalist oppression and then substituting Islamist oppression for it. Bush argues as if they are going to jump out of the frying pan with no danger of ending up in the fire. 


He speaks critically about policymakers who "argue [that America] should be content with supporting the flawed leaders they know in the name of stability.”

Yet such a realist, U.S. interests-based policy has worked for decades. True, there are times when a revolutionary situation exists but these are relatively few and far between. For example, Egyptian dictatorships ruled from 1952 to 2010 without facing a single serious internal revolutionary threat. So how America handles those brief crisis periods help determine what happens for decades into the future.

By the way, Bush speaks of "supporting the flawed leaders," so does that imply the alternative leaders aren't flawed, perhaps even more flawed? Perhaps the "flawed leaders they know" do not number among their flaws a tendency to sponsor terrorism, commit aggression against their neighbors, and do everything they can to hurt the United States.

The czar, the Weimar republic, the Batista dictatorship in Cuba, the regime of Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia, and the shah, for example, were all deeply flawed. Now what about the regimes that replaced them?

It would be better to make a distinction in setting policy: overthrow anti-American dictatorships (Iran, Syria, Gaza Strip) and support indispensable pro-American ones that are less oppressive than their counterparts (formerly Egypt, formerly Lebanon, and still Jordan and Saudi Arabia). Remember that a high percentage of those in the Middle East who don't like U.S. policy also hate the United States (and are not assuaged by America helping them gain power) and want Islamist dictatorship, or at least will vote for it for various reasons.

“But in the long run, this foreign policy approach is not realistic….”

Why? Suddenly revolution is inevitable in every Arab country and nothing is going to stop it? Ridiculous.
Consider the following:

--In Algeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain, opposition movements were suppressed with relative ease. The same would have happened in Libya if not for NATO taking over the war and running it.

--In Egypt and Tunisia revolutions didn’t take place not because the people united can never be defeated but because the armies sided with the opposition. Once you have the entire armed forces on your side revolution becomes a lot more likely. 

“The years of transition that follow can be difficult. People forget that this was true in Central Europe, where democratic institutions and attitudes did not spring up overnight."

Well, actually in Central Europe “democratic institutions and attitudes” did “spring up overnight.” Why? It was because these concepts were deeply imbedded in the culture and revived quickly when given the opportunity to do so. It's the difference between a rich humus soil in which seeds like dormant awaiting the first rain and a sandy soil  that has only ever known drought  The people in Central Europe were not about to vote for fascist-style movements as alternatives to the old dictatorships. And this situation has nothing to do with Middle Eastern realities.


Finally, what is quite amazing is how little backing the United States has given to moderate democratic oppositions to Islamist forces. That certainly has not happened in Lebanon, Turkey, or Iran, while in Egypt and Syria, U.S. policy has been friendlier to Islamists than to moderates.   


And that's the saddest irony. When the Obama Administration, to quote Bush's phrase, gets "to choose what side we are on," it picks the wrong one. It argues, again, to quote Bush, that Ameica  "should be content with supporting...flawed leaders...in the name of stability.” But these new Islamist dictators would deliver internal stability only at the price of freedom and will dismantle regional stability altogether. The alternative that provides some hope of stopping the Islamists, as both Iraq and Egypt show, is politicians who seem at best more like the old-style flawed leaders with whom America allied in past decades.    



Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Egypt’s (First-Round) Presidential Election is a Defeat (Perhaps Only Temporary) For the Islamists

Muhammad Mursi (Muslim Brotherhood, 25.3 percent
Ahmad Shafiq (ex-general, ex-prime minister), 24.9 percent
Hamdin Sabbahi (radical left), 21.5 percent
Abdul Moneim Aboul Fotouh (“moderate Islamist) 19 percent
Amr Moussa (radical nationalist) less than 10 percent

By Barry Rubin

While the Brotherhood claims victory, the election was actually a defeat—at least temporary and possibly less important than it seemed—for the Brotherhood and Islamism. Here’s why.

The Islamist Camp
Note that only about 44 percent of voters backed an Islamist candidate, compared to 75 percent in the parliamentary election, while only about 25 percent voted for the Muslim Brotherhood compared to about 47 percent in the parliamentary vote. Why?
To begin with, the two top Islamist candidates were removed by the election commission, the Brotherhood’s first choice and the only Salafist candidate. Presumably, many voters stayed home or opted for their second choice. The question is whether those who crossed the line and voted for a non-Islamist will return to the Brotherhood in the second round.

A key question is the 25 percent who backed a Salafist in the parliamentary election but could not do so in this one. Did they stay home, or vote for the Brotherhood or the “moderate Islamist,” or for a secular party?  And again, will most of them back the Brotherhood or a Mubarak era politician in the second round?

Clearly, the mistakes made by the Islamists were costly, and they do make many errors. The Salafists nominated a candidate who was vulnerable to vetting. He didn’t meet the qualifications of purely Egyptian citizenship for himself and his family.
On the Brotherhood’s part, victory in the previous elections made them more radical and more arrogant. They mistakenly cast off the cloak of pretended moderation too soon and too completely.  So much for the “Turkish model!” This hubris scared some voters.  Shafiq’s campaign managers warned voters that to an elect Mursi would set off a battle for an “Islamic empire.”
But note this theme of radicalism going along with victory because it is going to be one of the most important of all. Let’s summarize it:

When Islamists win, they become bolder and more aggressive. Western observers who talk about moderating Islamism think the opposite.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,282. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

An opposing camp, however, those who argue all Muslims “must” be Islamists and that political Islam inevitably sweeps all before it have also been proven wrong. As I try to explain, this is a political struggle that can go either way depending on circumstances.

Islamism is by no means immune to social conditions. The strongest support for Mursi is in Egypt’s poor, underdeveloped south; the weakest backing is in the cities.

Yet let’s also remember that the Islamists are still heading for control over Egypt. They might win the presidency in the second round. The parliament, which they run, is going to make the rules and write the constitution. If they don’t like who becomes president, they will reduce his powers.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Friday, May 25, 2012

NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

By Barry Rubin

Summary: It appears the run-off to be Egypt's president will be between the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate, Mursi, and a prominent figure in the Mubarak regime, Shafiq. If Mursi wins runoff, Egypt will be radical, anti-American, belligerent toward Israel. War will be possible.  If Shafiq wins the runoff the Brotherhood-dominated parliament could still give him only minimal power, pick a Brotherhood prime minister to run the country, and the previous paragraph would still be true. But what if the army backed Shafiq in a confrontation with the Brotherhood  and Salafists, or the Islamists launched violence to protest a "stolen revolution?" In other words, while there are alternative futures all of them look pretty nasty. And of course the media and experts who predicted a victory for a "moderate Islamist" once more got it wrong. 


For the most up to date analysis on the election go to: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/05/25/news-flash-muslim-brotherhood-claims-victory-in-egypt-presidential-election/


-----------------------
This is the kind of 24/7 analysis and information the GLORIA Center provides. Please support us!
To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,207. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

According to the Brotherhood, the vote counting for president looks like this.

Mohamed Mursi (Brotherhood) 28.4 percent
Ahmed Shafiq (Mubarak era general and that regime's last prime minister) 24.6
Abdul Moeim Abul Fotouh (so-called “moderate Islamist” but supported by radical Islamist Salafists)  18.1
Hamdeen Sabahi (radical anti-American “left” Nasserist) 17.1%
Amr Moussa (radical nationalist pragmatist) 11.6%.

The Brotherhood claims that this means it will win the second round. I’m not 100 percent sure that's true. It seems possible but not ineevitable. If a second round would be a straight contest between a secularist and an Islamist. Who would voters choose?

After all, according to this the total Islamist vote is around 46 percent, not enough to win. One key question would be where would the Sabahi voters go? Are these people anti-Islamists who like a left-wing (virtually Communist-style) candidate or are they people who want a further-going revolution and might back the Brotherhood candidate?

Here are three key points, assuming these numbers are correct:

--Once again we have been misled by “experts” and media who slanted coverage toward the alleged popularity of Abul Fotouh.  They should have backed secularists and not “moderate Islamists.” There should be some apologies and rethinking but of course that won’t happen.

--Egyptian/Arab nationalism has revived, receiving about 52 percent of the vote! And that means Shafiq could win in the run-off round. And here's another point of importance: If Egyptians want an alternative to Islamism it will be radical populist nationalism, not moderate cosmopolitan liberalism.

--This shows that things since the revolution have become so bad that a lot of Egyptians are nostalgic for the Mubarak era. Perhaps it wasn't such a great idea to overthrow the regime, call it an Arab Spring over a cliff? 

Again: Caution, this is based on figures that might not be accurate.

-----------------------
Barry Rubin, Israel: An Introduction (Yale University Press) is the first comprehensive book providing a well-rounded introduction to Israel, a definitive account of the nation's past, its often controversial present, and much more. It presents a clear and detailed view of the country’s land, people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. This book is written for general readers and students who may have little knowledge but even well-informed readers tell us they’ve learned new things.Please click here to purchase your copy and get more information on the book. http://www.gloria-center.org/israel-an-introduction/
-----------------------


IF MURSI BECOMES PRESIDENT (winning second round run-off):

Remember that he and the Brotherhood are now not even trying to hide their extremism, openly demanding an immediate Sharia state and a Caliphate. In fact, I'd suggest they could have done much better in the first round if they had continued to pretend more moderation. Also Mursi was not an attractive candidate personally. Remember he was not the Brotherhood's first choice but stepped in at the last moment when someone else was disqualified.

This would set off a crisis that will dominate the region for a decade or two. This would be a catastrophe equal to and perhaps greater than the Iranian revolution. No exaggeration. If there isn't a war with Israel within three years (Hamas backed by Egypt or even involving Egypt) it would be a miracle.

Note that what's most important is not the presidency in isolation but:

--Brotherhood control over parliament and president and writing constitution.

--Brotherhood triumphalism, which we have seen repeatedly, belief in victory leading to arrogance and more extremism.

There will be panic. Christians and liberals will start packing their bags.

IF SHAFIQ BECOMES PRESIDENT (winning second round run-off):
The Islamists have two options, perhaps following both:

A. View his victory as a return to the old regime and the overturning of the revolution. There could be real internal disorder and a lot of violence.

B. The Brotherhood and Salafists would still control parliament and constitution-writing. They would set up the system as having a strong prime minister (Muslim Brotherhood selected by parliament) and a weak, ceremonial president.

For his part, Shafiq would try to limit the radicalism, maintain good relations with the United States, and avoid war with Israel.

If the military backed him—and that makes sense—he would be stronger and might succeed.

In this case, though, watch for three things:

--The Brotherhood and Salafists will make life hard for Shafiq. There will be street violence and terrorism against Christians, “modern” women, liberals, tourists, and foreign installations. Will Shafiq call out soldiers to put down each disorder through repression? Would Obama and Europe back him or condemn the military as repressive and undermining democracy?

--The Islamists would help Hamas and very possibly try to stir up a Hamas-Israel conflict in which hysteria would sweep Egypt to fight Israel, painting Shafiq as a traitor for holding back?

--As the economic situation deteriorates, they would blame Shafiq and stir up disorder against him.
Again, remember that a constitution could well be written providing for a strong parliament and prime minister alongside a weak president. That would subvert the election results.

Sources:

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.



Thursday, May 24, 2012

The Keynes Mutiny

"It is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil." --John Maynard Keynes

By Barry Rubin

We should always challenge the simplistic claims of the left--often echoed by the simplistic, stereotyped response of the right, which falls into the left's trap—about the nature, origin, and “liberalism” (rather than radicalism) of its ideas.

Here's a simple chart:

Obama and the Obamites: We are true heirs of liberalism and it is good.

The Opposition: You are true heirs of liberalism and it is bad.

Me and (hopefully) you: Wait just a moment there, Binky! You're radicals pretending to be liberals and we can prove it. Centrists and real liberals should be supporting the opposition today against you.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,206. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------
Consider John Maynard Keynes, who the current left claims as the patron of its economic policies. Of course, there is some justification for this idea but I believe Keynes would have been horrified by contemporary Obama Administration policy.  True, Keynes advocated high government spending to stimulate economic growth. Let’s examine Keynes’ advice to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to see how he might differ with disastrous current policies.

Remember what Roosevelt had been doing in his first months in office. His basic strategy was to restrict prices and slap on high levels of production controls, an approach neither side in today’s debate would advocate. So part of what Keynes was doing was to get Roosevelt to reduce the regulations restricting business that the president had imposed in his first months in office, another difference from Obama.

In his letter to Roosevelt of December 16, 1933, Keynes wrote: “The object of recovery is to increase the national output and put more men to work.” In other words, these two factors were the measure of success and Obama has failed on both fronts. Keynes wouldn't be impressed by the blame Bush tactic.

Keynes continues:


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Egypt: If There's No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can't You Provide Evidence?

By Barry Rubin 

Consider one fact that demolishes the apparatus of nonsense about moderate Islamists and the credibility of those claiming there is nothing to worry about. These are the same people who have been declaring for more than a year that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Yet now the Brotherhood's presidential campaign has shown it to be extraordinarily radical, openly demanding a caliphate and Egypt being a Sharia state. 

Suddenly the subject is changed. Nobody acknowledges that they were wrong about the Brotherhood. They focus now on a different candidate who we are told is the true moderate Islamist, as if their previous favorite "moderate Islamist" movement has now thrown off its camouflage.    

“Democracy, as Western democracies have long known,” wrote Shadi Hamid, in predicting a Brotherhood majority in the parliamentary election some months ago, “is about the right to make the wrong choice.” True. But foreign policy, as everyone has long known, is about dealing with the consequences of wrong outcomes and trying to prevent them if possible.

We are told that Abdul Moniem Abul Fotouh is the “moderate Islamist” candidate for president of Egypt whom the West should support. He promises that Egypt will be an Islamic but civil state with equality for all of its citizens. The problem is that Abul Fotouh keeps making statements that belie that image, statements never mentioned by those who ridicule fears about Egypt’s new government.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 29,206. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
------------------------

One ignorant neoconservative wrote in a Canadian newspaper as his main argument for there being no problem that the regime couldn’t be dangerous because in the presidential debate the question of Israel was only raised near the end. Naturally, the debate structure wasn’t determined by Fotouh and what he said about Israel was quite threatening, namely that it is a racist enemy based on occupation and threatening Muslims with 200 nuclear weapons. At any rate, the main problem is not what the new regime will do to Israel but what it will do to Egypt, eventually followed by what it will do to Israel.

This follows, of course, the national security editor of the National Journal explaining that there's no danger of a radical Islamist Egypt because he could find one (neo)conservative who agreed with him on that issue. What's truly funny here is that I'm not exaggerating in describing their best arguments.

Here is a new statement by Abul Fotouh. In an interview on an Egyptian television station, Abul Fotouh said he was against “terrorism” but then explained that Usama bin Ladin was not a terrorist, that the United States only called him one in order to “hit Muslim interests,”  and that the killing of bin Ladin was an “act of state terrorism.” In other words, he’s saying September 11 wasn't an act of terrorism but that Obama’s policy is anti-Muslim and terrorist.
I’d agree that he’s better than the official Muslim Brotherhood candidate but there are lots of other problems with this “moderate Islamist”:

--Does he mean to keep liberal promises that contradict his previous (and current) statements on many issues?

--Can he deliver on these promises even if he wanted to do so? The Islamist non-moderate parliament and the Constitution it will write is unlikely to be along the lines he claims to advocate.

--While the other leading candidate, Amr Moussa, would resist Islamization of Egyptian society and policy, Abul Fotouh would support it, believing he can stop at a certain point, having both Sharia rule and a tolerant liberal approach.

Yet what he would actually be doing is to preside--whatever his intentions--over the Islamization process that cannot be easily stopped or reversed. --If he does resist the radical parliament it will just limit his power in the Constitution. Remember that the role of the president has not yet been defined and Abul Fotouh will have no rule in legally defining it.

--How many supporters does Abul Fotouh have in parliament? Answer: Zero. Yes, the Salafists (25 percent of parliament) support his candidacy but they are more extreme than the Brotherhood. Will he alienate this base so that every Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist in parliament votes against him on every issue?

--Can a civil state be run under Islamic law. He says that he will give equality to women and Christians, to liberals and socialists. Is he going to appoint such people to high offices? Remember that non-Islamist regimes found a way to balance on this issue by appeasing the Islamists and traditionalist clerics up to a point but then using their dictatorial powers to do other things (grant more  a bit more rights to women; ally with the United States and make peace with Israel; implement civil law imported from Europe, etc). A democratic state dependent on a pro-Islamist electorate cannot do that.

--What would he do when Salafists--the people who voted for him—attack churches, women not wearing “proper” clothing, and secularists? Call out the army and repress them? Remember what is key is not just what the government does itself but what it allows others to do.

Monday, May 21, 2012

President Obama Demands a Meeting to Discuss His Grade

By Barry Rubin

Janice Fiamengo’s brilliant article, “The Unteachables: A Generation that Cannot Learn,” fits my past experience teaching at American universities. But I realized that her account applied perfectly to…something else.
Fiamengo writes that students are upset when teachers get tough on grading, “Offended pride and sulkiness replace the careless cheer of former days.”

They don’t get it when the professor points out the shortcomings in their papers . “But my work has always been praised before! Your criticisms are exaggerated!” And they may boast: “The general idea was good, wasn’t it? I’m better at the big ideas. On the details, well…”

And then if you don’t give in they become belligerent. As Fiamengo puts it:

“Their tendency is,…not to confront the problem directly but to hit back at its perceived source.…These students experience a range of negative reactions, including anger, anxiety, and depression.”

They are incapable of learning because they are can't deal constructively with criticism orr learn from failure.

Now does this sound familiar? It sounds exactly like President Barack Obama. So I wondered. Suppose I was Obama’s professor in a class called, “Being President 1” and I gave him an “F.” If he fails to improve his grade he won’t be allowed to continue for next term. Here’s how such a meeting might play out:

Me: Barack, I’m happy to discuss the grade  on your paper, `How to Fundamentally Transform America and Make It Fair' with you but I hope you listen carefully and learn how to improve."

Obama: There must be some mistake! I’ve always gotten an A+ from the media. I was admitted to Harvard! I was editor of the law review! And in 2008 I won the presidency and then the Nobel Peace Prize! I'm the smartest man in the world! The mass media--which can't find any occasion where I was everr wrong--and millions of people can't stop raving about how wonderful I am!