I don’t recall such a statement being made in criticism of the Mursi regime. According to Bloomburg News, “Two U.S. officials who asked not to be identified commenting on[Obama\s]private communications—I assume it was really because they were too ashamed– said the administration is concerned that some in the military may want to provoke the violence and provide a rationale for crushing the movement once and for all.”
Then comes a critical statement that explains Obama Middle East policy. Pay close attention to this: “Such a move would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere, the U.S. officials said.” What is this saying? Remember this is a White House policy statement for all practical purposes. That if the Muslim Brotherhood or perhaps the Salafists are denied power in Muslim-majority countries they cannot be defeated but that they will be radicalized so that they will launch September 11 style attacks on America. In other words, the United States must surrender and betray its allies or else it faces disaster. This is called surrender and appeasement. And, besides, such a move would fail. There is a coherent Obama policy. Inquire no more, that is it. And that’s why, for example, it wants the Turkish and Egyptian armies to accept an Islamist regime; and Syria for getting one, too; and Israel making whatever risks or concessions required to end the conflict right away no matter what the consequences. American officials say that the actually illusory demographic issue–which is simply nonsense–means that Israel better make the best deal possible now.
American allies cannot win and if they try they’ll just make the Islamists angrier. The White House, it is forgotten now, even wanted to overthrow the pro-American regime in Bahrain and might have helped them replace it if the Saudis hadn’t stopped them.
I am not joking. I wish I were.
Remember what the two NSC staffers said, in representing Obama policy because they deserve and may well go down in history:
“Such a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.” Remember what the two NSC staffers said, in representing Obama policy because it deserves ti go down in history:
“Such a move [fighting the Islamists in Egypt would fail and probably prompt a shift to al-Qaeda type terrorist tactics by extremists in the Islamist movement in Egypt and elsewhere.”
The Obama administration, on the basis of the current CIA director John Brennan’s Doctrine has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (which means not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.
The Obama Administration, on the basis of the John Brennan Doctrine—the current CIA director—has given up the battle. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists are holding the United States for ransom. The demand for releasing (not attacking) the United States is the Middle East.
Naturally, this is also involved in domestic politics since the Obama Administration will be largely judged by voters—including in the 2014 congressional elections—on whether they can prevent such (imaginary) attacks. The theme is consistent, just another way of protecting the American people while accumulating more votes.
It should be emphasized that aside from everything else, this is a ridiculous U.S. strategy because the Brotherhood and Salafists haven’t even thoughtof this tactic This isn’t just a surrender; it’s a preemptive surrender.
