Someone commented "disaster", but I don't think so. For one thing, the position of Secretary of State is not what it used to be, although it could be revived, but it would require the proper SecState and the proper President.
And, Senator Kerry moving on would free up the ice jam that is still the Democratic Party dominated Massachusetts Delegation down in DC. And, with Rep Barney Frank saying he will run again, much hope of movement there is gone.
On the other hand, Ms Vennochi quotes Senator Kerry as writing, in a New York Time OpEd:
President Hosni Mubarak must accept that the stability of his country hinges on his willingness to step aside gracefully to make way for a new political structure.She then goes on to say that was what President Obama should have said—NOT!
The President of the United States needs to stay out of appearing to meddle in the dynastic decisions of other nations. Under the counter may be OK, but with today's press and Wikileaks that is a dubious avenue.
In today's Wall Street Journal is this item, U.S. Pressure on Mubarak Opens a Rift With Arab Allies.
President Barack Obama's attempt to abruptly push aside Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in favor of a transition government has sparked a rift with key Arab allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates, which fear the U.S. is opening the door for Islamist groups to gain influence and destabilize the region.It is reported that even Israel is unhappy.
Vying to influence the outcome of events, Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. have sent public and private messages of solidarity to Mr. Mubarak and his vice president, longtime intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, diplomats said. The messages amount to support for the president and Mr. Suleiman to oversee the transition and to ensure that Islamists can't fill any possible power vacuum.
The support from Arab states has provided a measure of comfort to Mr. Mubarak, who announced he wouldn't take part in September's election. It may in part explain why the Egyptian president rebuffed Mr. Obama's call for an immediate transition that includes the opposition.
The backlash shows how the turmoil in Egypt is rapidly reshaping U.S. policy in the region. In deciding to set itself against Mr. Mubarak, a U.S. ally for decades, the U.S. is now facing the disquiet of other friendly Arab governments, who have long provided support for American policy goals. Meanwhile, Islamists in the region, including Hamas and Hezbollah, believe they are on the ascent as U.S. allies falter.
Regime change is tricky and we should not be playing our hand with our cards face up. I don't think Senator Kerry's OpEd was a good start for the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That said, if the Administration had been holding a more quiet line, Senator Kerry might have been a good stalking horse, but that is not the case here.
Regards — Cliff
4 comments:
IOKIYAR
"The rapidly deteriorating situation in Egypt leads me to the conclusion that President Mubarak needs to step down and relinquish power," said McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Arizona senator said in a statement that while he believes the Egyptian Army is the "only institution in Egypt that can restore order," he fears that doing so "on behalf of President Mubarak would only escalate the violence and compromise the army's legitimacy."
..................................
Cliff, you know damn well this isn't about party politics and who is at the helm of our ship of state.
This is about US policy in the ME potentially getting caught with it's pants down.
The deck of cards has been cobbled together for decades now. Each American POTUS adds and subtracts various cards in a constant state of peril.
..............................
What grates my onion, is FUD monger GOPer candidates, like one Mike Huckabee, pandering to the Florida swing vote:
Huckabee, who traveled to Israel this week to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials, told Van Susteren: “Their attitude here on the streets of Israel, in the newspapers of Israel, and in many quarters of government, is that Israel believes that if something happens to them, they are completely on their own.”
And if you don't think he is shooting for the nickname "Mike Maccabee," check this:
Republican Presidential front-runner Mike Huckabee was the guest of honor at the groundbreaking for a new Jewish neighborhood on the backside of the Mount of Olives on Monday.
During a visit to the Mount of Olives for a cornerstone-laying ceremony in a Jewish east Jerusalem neighborhood, likely US presidential candidate Mike Huckabee asserted that Israelis should be able to live "anywhere in Israel they wished to live."
................................
Kerry surely has his eye beyond Massachusetts. I'd feel better about it, if his state staff could properly fill the void.
SecDef? Maybe. But I figure Obama to do something stupid like picking McCain.
And 2012 is so rosie looking for Obama? Why would Kerry drop a sure gig for an 18 month tour?
"Mike Maccabee"
I love it!
Who do you see as playing "the Mother" (2 Maccabees 7), Niki, Sarah or Michelle?
No, to me this ISN'T about party politics. It is about how we should respond to events in the Near East and about Senator Kerry as SecState, or even as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
And, as this quote from the most recent Night Watch suggests, what is happening in Egypt might not be about expanding Democracy, but about who is going to be in charge. The neocon in me wants to believe it is about Democracy, but I am not sure.
QUOTE
If it is has been a proxy fight for leadership of the Arabs, at this point, it looks like the challengers lost. Mubarak stays. The Army is in charge, but the other linkages are broad and not yet clear.
The oldest leaders of the Arab world are Mubarak and Saudi King Abdallah. They come from different directions, but their interactions with Israel have created greater regional stability than the efforts of any of their predecessors. They are nearing the end, inviting leadership challenges. More instability is likely in the region, but not because Arabs want western democracy.
UNQUOTE
I do think that "stability" might be overrated. Sometimes it looks like having no idea as to how to dismount the tiger. But, we are not on the tiger, but are in the arena. Is our goal, should our goal be, to just keep things the way they are or is it to (quietly) midwife change, even if it is short term change we don't like.
This is tricky stuff. One day I was in a group discussion about our relations with the Arabs and how our relationship with Israel impacted that. I was sitting next to a real Near East expert, an Army FAO who had spent time on the ground in Lebanon and other places. At one point in the discussion I asked about how, deep down, the Arabs would respond to us abandoning Israel and he said that they would see it as the US betraying an ally—and they would view us badly. For effective long term foreign policy we have to pick a persona and stick to it.
Well, all of the above and having been nailed in a different venue for being more national focused than local focused, I liked the chance to tie the two together.
Regards — Cliff
What is confusing me, is the supposed tension between Egypt and Iran for "control" of the ME.
How does Iran have any sway in the Arab world?
When I hear it discussed, I wonder:
- What of the natural rift betweem Arab and Persian?
- What of the various rifts within Islam itself? The Sunni-Shia schism, being the most prominent.
How does Iran project itself to Arab North Africa? Iraq, I get. Egypt? Not so much.
I think, in part, is that Iran is a ready made demon. So we are quick to accept them as up to no good.
I agree that there is a natural split between the Persians (Iran) and the Arabs (everyone else west to Morocco). And, this seems to be mirrored in the split between Shia (Iran) and Sunni (almost everyone else west to Morocco). There are some funny differences, like Iraq being majority Shia and Syria being majority Sunni but run by a Shia minority. The United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria) was a short aberration.
I do see out there on the horizon a hope on the part of some for a new Caliphate, but I have my doubts that it would be able to bring Shia and Sunni together, except through conquest.
I think this conflation of Persian and Arab, Shia and Sunni is based on the agreement on the part of some in each camp on the need to eliminate Israel. Is it a real threat? Probably not, but then who read Mein Kampf in the 1920s and 30s? Of those who read it, who believed it, every jot and tidal? (Hint: Their grandchildren live in English-speaking nations today, or back in Israel.)
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment