Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Krauthammer on Obama's Cairo Doctrine Failure

Was it not hubis itself that made the man-who-would-be-king believe that by just him talking he could set the world to rights? He was as likely to affect the tides, or stop the rise of the oceans as he preferred the dream to be framed. Charles Krauthmmer apprises where we stand in all the hope and change:
It’s now three years since the Cairo speech. Look around. The Islamic world is convulsed with an explosion of anti-Americanism. From Tunisia to Lebanon, American schools, businesses and diplomatic facilities set ablaze. A U.S. ambassador and three others murdered in Benghazi. The black flag of Salafism, of which al-Qaeda is a prominent element, raised over our embassies in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Sudan.

The administration, staggered and confused, blames it all on a 14-minute trailer for a film no one has seen and may not even exist.

What else can it say? Admit that its doctrinal premises were supremely naive and its policies deeply corrosive to American influence?

Religious provocations are endless. (Ask Salman Rushdie.) Resentment about the five-century decline of the Islamic world is a constant. What’s new — the crucial variable — is the unmistakable sound of a superpower in retreat. Ever since Henry Kissinger flipped Egypt from the Soviet to the American camp in the early 1970s, the United States had dominated the region. No longer.

“It’s time,” declared Obama to wild applause of his convention, “to do some nation-building right here at home.” He’d already announced a strategic pivot from the Middle East to the Pacific. Made possible because “the tide of war is receding.”

Nonsense. From the massacres in Nigeria to the charnel house that is Syria, violence has, if anything, increased. What is receding is Obama’s America.
On the money. Read the whole thing here.


  1. According to the latest polls, this man is leading and could remain as our president come November. I shudder at the thought...

  2. According to the latest polls

    Which have curiously been bedeviled by having to rely on an over-representation of Democrats in their sample just to get a 1 point edge for Obama...

    Fear not. Yet.

    In the 1980s sometime, the first research came out showing that Democrats (more than Republicans) get bummed out when their candidate is behind and stay home.Republicans still show up to do their civic duty and fight the good fight. Many subsequent studies have produced similar conclusions. Democrats are also more likely to vote when they hear their candidate is winning in a landslide--they like to pile on and be part of "history." That is why Kos pulled that trick with Kerry, releasing "confidential" exit polls showing Kerry was carrying even Republican districts coast-to-coast 2 or 3 to 1. Didn't work, alas, but I think it made it closer than it should have been. Expect to see that sort of thing this time.

  3. The polls are trash. That fact is becoming largely known, and it underscores the general distrust of the main stream media. Doesn't seem to slow down the media from flogging these polls at us over and over, though.

    "We asked around and everybody loves Obama."

    "No, really!"

    Yeah, right.

    It's unbelievable. His numbers go up not based on events in the country, not based on events in the world, but based on where he needs to be to win the election. It's not helpful.

    Loved the way Charlie K sliced and diced though.

  4. You know Astrid has a fun little blog: Astrid's Soap Box. Little stories of life and living, and she writes with a very congenial, enjoyable style. Check it out.

  5. You know James, Astrid's Soap Box would look good in your "Fun Reads" box.

  6. Yeah, I think you're probably right about that.

  7. Just to buttress Mr. K's argument: That bastion of right-wing news, the Washington Post, today lists the lax security and other problems which led up to the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others. Worth the read, IMHO. It's almost like every American involved thought Obama's aura was going to protect people there.

  8. "The attack marked the first violent death of a serving ambassador in a generation and has become a thorn in President Obama’s reelection bid. It also raised the prospect that a country Washington assumed would become a staunch ally as it recovered from its short civil war could turn into a haven for fundamentalists."

    You don't say!

    Returnng to your theme, it would seem those in the Middle East see Obama as no different than George W. Bush, which is to say that Obama was wrong in his understanding of the situation, as apparently was ambassador Stevens. NASA outreach programs and world wide apology tours only encourage anger and violence toward the west.

    But hey, he still seemed so very clever on David Letterman. It's a statesman, he is.

  9. eforhan,

    Breitbart had this within a week of the attack and they have crucuial details that WaPo left out, like--

    Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that “at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,” the department inked a contract for “security guards and patrol services” on May 3 for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only “foreign security awardees” as its recipient.


    Blue Mountain Group was chosen by State, in part, because it was willing to accept the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya that prohibited security guards at Benghazi from carrying weapons that contained bullets.

    The Breitbart link contains links to the original Wired (Danger Room) article that really broke the story.

  10. Thanks Darrell.

    Over at HotAir they referred to this more of a confirmation than newsbreaking.

    It's just nice to have a left-leaning paper to link to when discussing things with leftists who think Fox News is the source of all-things-anti-Obama.