Muslim Brotherhood in Cairo

While the world, including our own government, decries the Egyptian government’s efforts to clear two Muslim Brotherhood encampments in downtown Cairo, it’s important to keep a couple of things in mind, regardless of what we might think about that crackdown.

The violence, the bloodshed, is entirely on the hands of the Brotherhood.  The police went in with water cannon and tear gas, and they were met with gunfire (including mortar rounds in other cities, as the Brotherhood’s decision to riot spread).  They’re openly rioting, but they’re cynically not limiting themselves to opposition to the Egyptian police: they’re also butchering any Coptic Christians that they can reach (generally in southern Egypt, as the Christians have been hunted out in the north, by this gang and others), desecrating these Christian churches in the process.  Never mind, just kill them all, seems to be the Brotherhood’s attitude.

The Brotherhood could have kept their protests peaceful.  Think what a powerful statement that would have been in the face of the force—however gentle—the police would still have had to use to clear those encampments.  Instead, the Brotherhood demanded violence, demanded to be killed in their protests so that they could be martyred.

This is a violent movement, bent on violent destruction of all who disagree with them.

To What End?

Matthew Dunn, ex of Great Britain’s MI6, had some thoughts, in a recent Fox News op-ed, concerning President Barack Obama’s decision not to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin one-on-one at the upcoming G-20 conference.  Naturally, I have some thoughts on Dunn’s thoughts.  Here they are, in no particular order.

My take on the man is that he is a measured, calm, cerebral, individual who—despite recent evidence to the contrary—doesn’t like a fight.  I could imagine him picking up the phone to Khrushchev, speaking privately to him without the pressure of media scrutiny, and averting a crisis.

Actually, as Obama demonstrated in a private conversation with a later Russian leader concerning a much more minor missile crisis, Obama would have surrendered to Khrushchev’s bullying and allowed the offensive nuclear missiles to stay in Cuba.  After all, Obama did surrender to Putin concerning defensive, non-nuclear missiles to which Putin objected and agreed to not deploy the systems in Poland and the Czech Republic—without so much as a fare-thee-well to the Poles or Czechs before he acceded to Putin’s demands.  After having committed this, Obama then made offer of further acquiescences with his “reminder” to then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Obama would have more “flexibility” for then-Prime Minister Putin after the then-upcoming election.

The Syrian disasters getting worse—more people have died there than during the entire Bosnian War—and we need Putin fully at the Security Council negotiating table given that his support of President Assad is perpetuating the problem.

We may not like Putin’s stance on Syria, but distancing him from our thus far fruitless attempts to resolve the situation will only produce one outcome: further massacres.

This is nonsense.  The Security Council is one of Putin’s favored arenas for actively opposing us concerning Syria.  Putin already is as distant from us as he can get on this, among other matters.  He’s stonewalled and explicitly blocked every effort we’ve made at the UN and on the international scene, generally.  Based on what, exactly, does Dunn expect to change here?

Putin hasn’t only opposed us on Syria.  He’s set himself against our efforts to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program, he actively obstructed NATO’s and our efforts in supporting the Libyan people in getting rid of Gadhafi, and he’s joined the People’s Republic of China (otherwise a foe of Russia) to obstruct our efforts to bring northern Korea’s nuclear weapons program to heel.

With particular regard to Iran, Putin has gone further, actively helping the régime with its nuclear weapons program, with the latest aid coming in the form of assistance in building a nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium for bombs.

US attempts to adopt a moral high ground over human rights abuses in Russia [are] pointless and some might say even hypocritical given allegations of human rights abuse during the American War on Terror and more recently the startling revelations about PRISM and its intrusion in the lives of law abiding US citizens.

Sure.  Because PRISM and the NSA, however reprehensible they may be—and that’s not a foregone conclusion—don’t kill anyone, while Russia (no mere allegations here) routinely murders newsmen who are critical of the Russian government, jail businessmen who get too uppity and independent of that government, lock up politicians who run too independently of that government, imprison entertainers who do satirical music criticizing that government….  Yeah, these are equivalent, all right.

Earlier this year, a CIA officer was caught in Moscow, publicly humiliated, and expelled.  For sure, Russia could have been handled the episode differently, but it’s not something we should get upset about.  We spy; they spy.  It’s what we’ve always done to each other.

Yes, Putin’s given [Edward Snowden] a visa to stay in Russia, but it’s only a 1-year visa.

The expulsion was simply an effort to embarrass the US, however trivially.  Moreover, the man had little of intelligence value-add for the Russians.  Snowden, on the other hand, as an NSA “official” has quite a bit.  Certainly, Putin’s condition that Snowden stop leaking to the public as a condition of asylum looks good in the Putin shower.  However, this just guarantees Russian exclusivity of access to the intelligence value-add that is Snowden.

And there’s the small matter of Dunn carefully eliding the fact that Russian one-year asylum visas are easily and routinely renewed.

In sum, Putin has no intention of cooperating with the United States, and he never has had.  Russia is our enemy, and Putin will do what he can to defeat his nation’s enemy, even if particular steps amount to little more than sticks in the eye.  Petulance, or legitimate diplomatic symbol, the refusal to meet will have no detrimental impact on relations with a nation or a man who has no interest in cooperation.

Obama, Ho, and Words

Last week in his press conference with Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang, President Barack Obama had this to say:

…we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.

Obama waxed on in this vein for quite a bit in that press conference.

Here’s how Ho used his…inspiration:

  • October 1945…Ho ordered the slaughter of his political opponents, including 50,000 of the then-powerful Trotskyist communists.
  • butchery of peasant farmers who resisted his brutal taxation in the early days of Ho’s regime.
  • …killing of landlords and bourgeois-class merchants….
  • Estimates…as high as half-a-million killed in Ho’s effort to consolidate power….
  • Following…US retreat from Vietnam, untold thousands of Vietnamese, deemed collaborators by the regime, were put to death.
  • [Ho]…used VI Lenin’s tactics: murder, terror and “reeducation” to obtain, maintain, and expand power.

Keep in mind that Obama is a highly trained lawyer and politician.  In the former capacity, knowledge of history was part of his training (he went to Harvard, after all), and in both capacities, words are his stock in trade.

Obama knew exactly what he was saying in the press conference.

Hmm….

The Impotence of Bluster

President Barack Obama’s sharp talk on what other countries ought to do with our own Edward Snowden is having no effect.

[T]he State Department pointedly warn[ed] a defiant Ecuador there will be “grave consequences” if the foreign government grants Snowden asylum.

And Obama expressed his disdain for Snowden the “29-year-old hacker,” saying he wouldn’t be “scrambling jets” to catch him.  But then, as Power Line put it, Obama couldn’t be bothered to scramble jets for Benghazi, either.

Just to demonstrate the effectiveness of Obama’s very stern finger wagging, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa

thumbed [his] nose…by offering the US $23 million a year in aid…in order to improve the humanitarian situation in the United States.

Yeah.  Obama showed him.

Obama and Laughingstocks

I’ve written before about this.

Bret Stephens has more in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

The Obama administration has decided it wants out from nettlesome foreign entanglements, and now finds itself surprised that it’s running out of foreign influence.

That is the larger significance of last week’s Afghan diplomatic debacle, in which the Taliban opened an office in Doha for the “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”—the name Mullah Omar grandiloquently gave his regime in Kabul before its 2001 downfall. Afghan President Hamid Karzai responded by shutting down negotiations with the U.S. over post-2014 security cooperation.

Now the U.S. finds itself in an amazing position. Merely to get the Taliban to the table for a bogus peace process, the administration agreed at Pakistan’s urging to let Mullah Omar come to the table on his owns terms: no acceptance of the Afghan Constitution, no cease-fire with international forces, not even a formal pledge to never again allow Afghanistan to become a haven for international terrorism. The U.S. also agreed, according to Pakistani sources, to allow the terrorist Haqqani network—whose exploits include the 2011 siege of the U.S. Embassy in Kabul—a seat at the table.

Yet having legitimized Haqqani and given the Taliban everything it wanted in exchange for nothing, the U.S. finds itself being dumped by its own client government in Kabul, which can always turn to Iran as a substitute patron. Incredible: no peace, no peace process, no ally, no leverage and no moral standing, all in a single stroke. John Kerry is off to quite a start.

And

Iraq? The administration made the complete withdrawal of our troops a cornerstone of its first-term foreign policy, and now finds itself surprised that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki won’t lift a finger to prevent Iranian cargo planes from overflying his airspace en route to resupplying Bashar Assad’s military.

Syria? President Obama spent two years giving the country’s civil war the widest berth, creating the power vacuum in which Iran, Hezbollah and Russia may soon achieve their strategic goals.

And Iran: In 2003, Tehran briefly halted its secret nuclear-weapons work and agreed to suspend its enrichment activities, at least for a few months. Yet since then, every U.S. effort to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear course has failed. Is it because the Obama administration was insufficiently solicitous, patient, or eager for a deal? Or is it that Tehran believes that treating this administration with contempt carries little cost?

RTWT.

The damage of the last five years and the coming three years will take far longer to redress.  We need to get started; 2014 is only a few months off.