David Brooks, "The Autocracy Challenge": A Pointless Speech at West Point

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Autocracy Challenge" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/30/opinion/brooks-the-autocracy-challenge.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), David Brooks examines Obama's West Point speech. Regarding how the US should respond to chaos instigated by "thuggish radioactive autocracies," Brooks begins by complimenting the Obama administration:

"President Obama laid out his approach in a speech at West Point this week. He argued persuasively that the U.S. will have to do a lot more to mobilize democracies to take effective collective action against autocratic aggression. Moreover, his administration does champion democracy. On the same day Obama spoke, his ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, gave a great commencement speech at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government explaining why democracy promotion has to be at the core of American foreign policy."

The Obama administration champions democracy? Oh really? In his June 2009 speech at Cairo University (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-at-Cairo-University-6-04-09), Obama declared:

"So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other."

And indeed, Obama remained silent after Egyptian General Sisi staged a coup d'état in July 2013 and threw the democratically elected president of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, into prison.

Samantha Power gave a great commencement speech at Harvard concerning the promotion of democracy? Marvelous. But isn't this the same Samantha Power who wrote a book entitled "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," yet, as America's Ambassador to the United Nations, said nothing about Obama's insistence upon remaining on the sidelines as Bashar al-Assad butchered Syria's civilian population?

Brooks's conclusion:

"For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. had a two-level foreign policy. On top, American diplomats built multilateral coalitions to extend democracy. But at the bottom level, American presidents understood their responsibility as the world’s enforcer, occasionally operating according to the logic of menace and force.

If President Obama departs from that tradition and takes away that bottom level — for fear of overreach, or in a quest for normalcy, or out of an excessive belief in the limits of his own power — then he will undermine the top level that he admires. The autocrats will drag the world into an ungodly mess."

Ah yes, "menace and force," such as when Obama promised to extend "flexibility" during his second term in office to Vladimir Putin. Sorry, but Obama, who has always believed in his persuasive powers over such "misunderstood" autocrats, is incapable of acting in this manner. Moreover, the autocrats have come to understand what little lies behind Obama's "red lines."

In an editorial entitled "President Obama Misses a Chance on Foreign Affairs" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/opinion/president-obama-misses-a-chance-on-foreign-affairs.html), The New York Times was remarkably critical of Obama's West Point speech:

"President Obama and his aides heralded his commencement speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point on Wednesday as a big moment, when he would lay out his foreign policy vision for the remainder of his term and refute his critics. The address did not match the hype, was largely uninspiring, lacked strategic sweep and is unlikely to quiet his detractors, on the right or the left.

. . . .

[H]e provided little new insight into how he plans to lead in the next two years, and many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage the United States has even in a changing world. Falling back on hackneyed phrases like America is the 'indispensable nation' told us little."

The Times editorial concluded by observing "what matters ultimately is [Obama's] record in the next two and a half years." This is precisely what worries me. Without foreign policy achievements and desperate for a legacy, Obama might well seek to reach almost any agreement purportedly limiting the development of nuclear weapons by Iran. However, as reported by The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/25/irans-supreme-leader-jihad-will-continue-until-america-is-no-more/), Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei declared earlier this week in response to a question by an Iranian member of parliament:

"Battle and jihad are endless because evil and its front continue to exist. … This battle will only end when the society can get rid of the oppressors’ front with America at the head of it, which has expanded its claws on human mind, body and thought. … This requires a difficult and lengthy struggle and need for great strides."

How much more damage Obama can do to America's standing and deterrent power throughout the world during what remains of his time in office? When even Jimmy Carter is now saying of Obama that "He’s done the best he could under the circumstances" (http://parade.condenast.com/222330/markupdegrove/jimmy-and-rosalynn-carter-an-intimate-chat/), we know we're in trouble.

David Brooks, "Defending the Coup": After Obama's Foreign Policy Fiasco in Egypt, Is Turkey Next?

I am often critical of New York Times op-eds. Today, however, David Brooks has written a splendid opinion piece concerning the upheaval in Egypt.

In "Defending the Coup" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/opinion/brooks-defending-the-coup.html?_r=0), Brooks reflects upon the debate between "those who emphasize process," i.e. those backing freely elected extremist parties, and "those who emphasize substance," i.e. those who welcome the departure - even by a coup - of parties seeking to subvert the democratic processes by which they came to power.

Brooks comes down firmly on the side of substance:

"World events of the past few months have vindicated those who take the substance side of the argument. It has become clear — in Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Gaza and elsewhere — that radical Islamists are incapable of running a modern government. Many have absolutist, apocalyptic mind-sets. They have a strange fascination with a culture of death.

. . . .

Islamists might be determined enough to run effective opposition movements and committed enough to provide street-level social services. But they lack the mental equipment to govern. Once in office, they are always going to centralize power and undermine the democracy that elevated them.

. . . .

Once elected, the Brotherhood subverted judicial review, cracked down on civil society, arrested opposition activists, perverted the constitution-writing process, concentrated power and made democratic deliberations impossible.

. . . .

This week’s military coup may merely bring Egypt back to where it was: a bloated and dysfunctional superstate controlled by a self-serving military elite. But at least radical Islam, the main threat to global peace, has been partially discredited and removed from office."

Regarding Obama's role in this American foreign policy catastrophe, Brooks writes:

"The Obama administration has not handled this situation particularly well. It has shown undue deference to a self-negating democratic process. The American ambassador to Cairo, Anne Patterson, has done what ambassadors tend to do: She tried to build relationships with whoever is in power. This created the appearance that she is subservient to the Brotherhood. It alienated the Egyptian masses. It meant that the United States looked unprepared for and hostile to the popular movement that has now arisen."

Not handled "particularly well"? The names of Obama and Patterson have become intertwined with that of Morsi in the minds of tens of millions of Egyptians, and it will take years to undo the damage.

Brooks's conclusion:

"It’s not that Egypt doesn’t have a recipe for a democratic transition. It seems to lack even the basic mental ingredients."

Allow me to be politically incorrect and far more blunt than Brooks: Egypt, which is characterized by intolerance (84% of Egyptian Muslims believe that those who abandon Islam should be excuted, see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), abuse of women (some 90% of Egyptian women have undergone female genital mutilation, see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/evelyn-leopold/female-circumcism----90-p_b_822283.html) and widespread adult illiteracy (some 28%, see: http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/egypt_statistics.html), is nowhere near ready for democracy.

And then there is the "small" matter of Egypt's shipwreck economy (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/new-york-times-editorial-crisis-in.html), which could lead to widespread hunger (see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100863687). Starving people don't give a damn about democracy.

But more to the point, is Turkey next?

In May of this year, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and President Obama held a joint press conference at the White House. Inasmuch as the Obama administration was already engulfed in domestic scandal, Erdogan was pretty much ignored during the question and answer session. A pity, however, that American reporters didn't ask why Turkey is considered the world's worst jailer of journalists by the Committee to Protect Journalists (http://cpj.org/2013/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2012-turkey.php).

The White House press corps might also have asked why more than 30 million Kurds in the Middle East, some 55% percent of whom live in and are oppressed by Turkey, are not entitled to their own state.

In addition, they might have asked Obama about his pre-election promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide by Turkey.

But heck, Erdogan is one of Obama's best overseas friends (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2013/05/16/Erdogan-and-Obama-Best-friends-no-more.html), and the journalists decided not to embarrass this pompous potentate in the presence of America's Procrastinator-in-Chief.

Obama got too close to Morsi, and he has also gotten too close to his dear Islamist friend Erdogan, who appears intent upon reviving the sultanate in Turkey.

We haven't seen the end of the recent rioting in Turkey (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-postcard-from-turkey.html), and the question looms whether the military in Turkey will take heart from events in Egypt and also act to overthrow an increasingly authoritarian regime in Ankara, as was done on more than one occasion in the past (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/us-turkey-protests-military-analysis-idUSBRE95B0XK20130612).

Of course, Erdogan is aware of this threat, and one-in-five Turkish generals (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/14/one-in-five-turkish-generals-now-in-prison/) and more than half of the country's admirals (see: http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21571147-once-all-powerful-turkish-armed-forces-are-cowed-if-not-quite-impotent-erdogan-and-his) are now sitting in prison.

One thing, however, is certain: We will see more mud in America's face as a result of Obama's shortsighted courtship of Islamic oppressors.

Thomas Friedman, "The Amazing Energy Race": Friedman's Gas Problem

Definition of RED HERRING

1 . . . .

 

2 [from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

- Merriam-Webster online dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/red%20herring)

A new JG Caesarea challenge round! Sorry, no chocolate bars this time to the winners. Last time after buying more than five pounds of chocolate at the supermarket, the prizes never went out in the mail, and my weight rose by more than five pounds almost overnight. On the same outing to the supermarket, I bought vodka and herring in sour cream sauce - not red herring - which also mysteriously disappeared from the freezer and refrigerator, respectively. Only the empty bottles and wrappers, randomly dispersed around my recliner, were to be found.

But back to business! Which three well-known Americans are currently in hiding?

Edward Snowden, who is still busy seeking asylum, is a no-brainer.

Immersed in multiple domestic scandals that refuse to go away, and floundering in a sea of overseas crises, President Barack Obama hightailed off to the wilds of Tanzania, but not before declaring war on . . . coal.

And then there is . . . a drum roll please . . . Thomas Friedman. You will recall how this would-be Middle East expert, together with Times columnists Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof, camped out in Tahrir Square in 2011 and sang paeans to the virtues of the "Arab Spring." Well, as all hell is currently breaking out in Egypt and demonstrators demand the departure of Obama's "Main Man," Mohamed Morsi, Friedman - as well as Cohen and Kristof - are keeping thousands of miles away from Cairo.

And then there was the recent rioting in Turkey, to which Friedman devoted a "postcard" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/thomas-friedman-postcard-from-turkey.html). No mention by Friedman of Tuesday's anti-Semitic outburst by Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay declaration that the "Jewish Diaspora" was behind the Gezi protests (see: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/jewish-diaspora-behind-gezi-protests-turkish-deputy-prime-minister-says.aspx?pageID=238&nID=49858&NewsCatID=338). But heck, some of the things that Friedman has said about Israel have also been anti-Semitic (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2011/12/thomas-friedman-newt-mitt-bibi-and.html).

Guess what, Tom? It turns out that Israel is not the source of all tension in the Middle East. Not even remotely so.

But rather than examining the nature of the riots in Egypt, Friedman would turn our attention to natural gas, which both the US and Friedman have in abundance. In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Amazing Energy Race" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/opinion/friedman-the-amazing-energy-race.html?_r=0), Friedman writes:

"'In reducing coal’s historic dominance, the president is formalizing a market trend that was already taking shape,' remarked Andy Karsner, who was an assistant secretary of energy in the last Bush administration. His bigger message, though, was 'no matter where you find yourself on the political spectrum, it’s useful for the nation to discuss, debate and consider a strategy for climate change. The consequences of inaction are potentially greater than all the other noise out there.'

Sadly, many Republican 'leaders' rejected Obama’s initiative, claiming it would cost jobs. Really? Marvin Odum, the president of the Shell Oil Company, told me in an interview that phasing out coal for cleaner natural gas — and shifting more transport, such as big trucks and ships, to natural gas instead of diesel — 'is a no-brainer, no-lose, net-win that you can’t fight with a straight face.'

But, remember, natural gas is a fine gift to our country if, and only if, we extract it in a way that does not leak methane into the atmosphere (methane being worse than carbon dioxide when it comes to global warming) and if, and only if, we extract it in ways that don’t despoil land, air or water. The Environmental Defense Fund is working with big oil companies, like Shell, to ensure both."

Hmm, Shell Oil Company. Of course, they have no significant interest in gas . . . not. As reported by CNNMoney (https://www.google.co.il/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=cnnmoney&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4NDKB_enIL520IL520&q=cnnmoney&gs_l=hp..0.0l5.0.0.0.3530...........0.lNBnZDT5bZg):

"Shell, for example, has purchased and developed tons of natural gas assets, even though the commodity sells for cheap in the current market. To get some insight into Big Oil's strategy for the future of energy, Fortune spoke with President of Shell Oil Company, Marvin Odum. Odum filled us in on the long-term natural gas outlook, drilling in the Gulf after BP muddied the industry's reputation and why Shell feels like oil sands are cleaner than you think.

Fortune: Energy as we know it is changing, how will Shell adapt?

Odum: One of the interesting things about our portfolio is that Shell, by 2012, will actually produce more gas than it does oil. And that's done with intent. We see increased demand for gas. Economies around the world are growing, and we see gas as being a big part of the solution with a lower environmental impact."

Yup, Shell just might be an interested party.

Friedman continues:

"Such a [national clean energy standard for electricity generation] would say to every utility: 'Your power plants can use any fuel and technology you want to generate electricity as long as the total amount of air pollutants and greenhouse gases they emit (in both fuel handling and its electricity conversion) meet steadily increasing standards for cleaner air and fewer greenhouse gases. If you want to meet that standard with natural gas, sequestered coal, biomass, hydro, solar, wind or nuclear, be our guest. Let the most cost-effective clean technology win.'"

I'm sorry, Tom, what's that you're saying about nuclear power? No danger there? Talk to the Japanese.

Coal? It still provides America with some 37% of its energy. Obama and Friedman want to go to war against coal at a time when America still suffers from massive unemployment and the onset of Obamacare threatens to dampen US economic prospects even further (see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2013/07/01/the-insiders-democrats-are-trying-to-suppress-the-confusion-and-hide-the-cost-of-obamacare/?hpid=z3)? Good luck.

Responding to General Douglas MacArthur's proposal to expand the Korean War into China, General Omar Bradley stated before Congress on May 15, 1951 that MacArthur's idea amounted to folly:

"Frankly, in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, this strategy would involve us in the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."

A war on coal? This is also "the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and with the wrong enemy."

Unfortunately, Obama and his lackey, Friedman, are incapable of confronting the "right enemies,"  of which - as illustrated by Snowden's flight from justice - there are more than a few.

Where Won't Obama Be Visiting in Africa? Egypt!

Where won't Obama be visiting during his current trip to Africa?

As reported by DEBKAfile in an article entitled "Nasserist-nationalist, anti-US slogans unexpectedly dominate anti-Morsi protests in Cairo" (http://www.debka.com/article/23086/Nasserist-nationalist-anti-US-slogans-unexpectedly-dominate-anti-Morsi-protests-in-Cairo), concerning yesterday's rioting in Egypt:

"In Cairo, placards of US Ambassador Anne Patterson, accused of currying favor with the Muslim Brotherhood, were hoisted alongside those of President Morsi – both defaced with large red exes."

Egyptians are furious with Obama and Patterson for supporting Egyptian President Morsi and remaining silent as the Muslim Brotherhood consolidated power and stifled opposition to its rule.

As reported today by CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/01/world/meast/egypt-protests/index.html?hpt=hp_t2), following the death of 16 persons Egyptians since Sunday:

"Last week, Defense Minister Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi said the army would, if necessary, 'prevent Egypt from slipping into a dark tunnel of civil unrest and killing, sectarianism and the collapse of state institutions.'

His remarks raised the specter of a return to the powerful role the military played in domestic politics under Mubarak.

'Egypt,' the government-run newspaper Al-Akhbar said, 'is on the brink of a volcano.'"

Not to worry about a thing: Obama likes to watch . . .

Geller and Spencer Refused Entry into the UK: Is Bill Maher Also Persona Non Grata?

As reported by the BBC yesterday (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23064355):

"Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said.

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer co-founded anti-Muslim group Stop Islamization of America.

They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich, where Drummer Lee Rigby was killed.

A government spokesman said individuals whose presence 'is not conducive to the public good' could be excluded by the home secretary.

He added: 'We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.'

Ms Geller, of the Atlas Shrugs blog, and Mr Spencer, of Jihad Watch, are also co-founders of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, best known for a pro-Israel 'Defeat Jihad' poster campaign on the New York subway."

On his website, "Jihad Watch," Spencer shows us the letter he received from the UK's Home Office, which bars his entry into the UK. The letter, dated June 25, 2013, states in relevant part:

"You are reported to have stated the following:

• '. . . it [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal mode that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.'

. . . .

You are therefore instructed not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival."

Query: Is Bill Maher also being banned from entering the UK? Consider Bill Maher's interchange with Brian Levin, director of the Center for Study of Hate and Extremism, following the Boston Marathon bombing. "Could they do the 'Book of Islam' on Broadway?" No way.

Now consider the hate speech of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi, who calls Jews "blood-suckers" and "descendants of pigs and apes."

Hate speech? You bet! There is no way of knowing if Morsi's regime will survive the protests planned for this coming Sunday (see: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Two-killed-in-Egypt-street-clashes-as-Mursi-readies-speech-317848), but was there ever talk of banning his entry into the UK?

And ignoring the belief system of Islam for just a moment, what does the home secretary have to say about Patrick Mercer's shameful description of a young girl serving in the Israeli army? "You look like a bloody Jew." My goodness, she was wearing open-toed sandals! Hate speech? No doubt. But Jews today are fair game, whereas Islam is off limits.

Have I also been barred from entering the UK? Am I also "not conducive to the public good"? I can only wonder . . .

Thomas Friedman, "The Arab Quarter Century": 90% of Egyptian Women Have Had Their Clitorises Removed

Would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is back with more هراء, i.e. balderdash.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Arab Quarter Century" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/opinion/friedman-the-arab-quarter-century.html?_r=0), Friedman belatedly gets around to acknowledging that "the Arab Spring" is more akin to the Thirty Years' War than the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Yeah, who would have ever guessed . . .

But wait, Friedman is ready with a rejoinder for me:

"Some will say: 'I told you so. You never should have hoped for this Arab Spring.' Nonsense. The corrupt autocracies that gave us the previous 50 years of 'stability' were just slow-motion disasters. Read the U.N.’s 2002 Arab Human Development Report about what deficits of freedom, women’s empowerment and knowledge did to Arab peoples over the last 50 years. Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are not falling apart today because their leaders were toppled. Their leaders were toppled because for too many years they failed too many of their people. Half the women in Egypt still can’t read. That’s what the stability of the last 50 years bought."

Well actually, Tom, Egyptian President Morsi is telling us that 61% of Egyptian women are illiterate (see: http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tahir-square-tales-egypt/2013/apr/8/egyptian-president-morsis-iniative-support-womens-/). Okay, what difference does another 4 million illiterate Egyptian women make? Actually, a lot.

And then Friedman doesn't mention that 90% of Egyptian women have had their clitorises removed, i.e. undergone female genital mutilation.

Yup, the killing and chaos were coming, and Obama's "lead from behind" strategy in Libya, Egypt and Syria have allowed events to spin out of control. In Egypt, notwithstanding the barbarism being perpetrated against Christian Copts (some 10% of the population), oppression of women, attempts to rein in free speech, and pervasive anti-Semitism, the Obama administration has sought to continue to provide the Muslim Brotherhood regime with $1.5 billion in annual aid (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/world/middleeast/kerry-announces-millions-in-us-aid-for-egypt.html).

Friedman admits that he has been surprised by "two things":

• "The first is how incompetent the Muslim Brotherhood has been."
• "The second surprise? How weak the democratic opposition has been."

The Muslim Brotherhood's incompetence? Tom, just read about their stance on women's rights (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/03/you-just-wont-believe-what-obama-is.html). It was all in the cards, but you were having too good a time in Tahrir Square with Roger Cohen and Nicholas Kristof to take notice.

"How weak the democratic opposition has been"? Friedman truly is an imbecile. He honestly expected to see a strong democratic opposition in a country in which 95% of Egyptian Muslims believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics, and in which 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe that persons abandoning Islam should be executed (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

Friedman's conclusion:

"Given all this, America’s least bad option is to use its economic clout to insist on democratic constitutional rules, regular elections and political openness, and to do all it can to encourage moderate opposition leaders to run for office. We should support anyone who wants to implement the Arab Human Development Report and oppose anyone who doesn’t. That is the only way these societies can give birth to their only hope: a new generation of decent leaders who can ensure that this 'Arab Quarter Century' ends better than it began."

What a naif! Obama reads this poppycock? God help us.

Thomas Friedman, "Democrats, Dragons or Drones?": Poison Gas, Natural Gas and Farting

Want to earn a degree at home in Middle Eastern studies after seven minutes of course work? Sorry, I'm not in that business and can't help you. However, if you read today's blog item - a bit longer than usual - I promise that you will know more about the Middle East than President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman rolled into one.

Yes, I know that's not setting the bar very high.

The Middle East today? If you take anything at all away from this blog entry, remember: The Middle East is all about poison gas, natural gas and farting.

Poison gas? Chemical weapons were indeed used on Tuesday against civilians near the northern Syrian city of Aleppo by either the rebels or forces still loyal to Syrian mass murderer Bashar al-Assad. You remember Bashar al-Assad? He's the guy who was visited by Kerry almost a half dozen times at the behest of Obama, and who, after dinner with their wives and an intimate motorcycle ride through the streets of Damascus, was labeled "my dear friend" by Kerry.

Kerry, you will recall, not long ago told us that "Americans have the right to be stupid." Well, Kerry continues to exercise that right. Following the deaths of more than 70,000 innocent persons over the past three years in Syria, Kerry declared on Monday that the United States does not oppose arms shipments to the rebels from . . . the UK and France. As reported by the VOA (http://www.voanews.com/content/syrian-opposition-meets-to-pick-prime-minister/1623489.html):

"'President Obama has made it clear that the United States does not stand in the way of other countries that made a decision to provide arms, whether it is France or Britain or others,' said Kerry.

Kerry said there is a military imbalance in Syria, with President Bashar al-Assad receiving help from Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. That imbalance is creating what he called a 'global catastrophe' of Syrian refugees fleeing to Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey."

Yup, a "global catastrophe," so let the English and the French deal with it. You know, more of the Obama doctrine of leading from behind. But wait, out of the mouth of babes . . . . Wasn't it indeed the UK and France that created the artificial borders of the modern Middle East pursuant to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Treaty, when the two allies were busying fighting the Ottoman Empire?



As the old saying tells us, "You break it, you buy it," even if it happened almost a century ago.

Natural gas? As observed by David Brooks, in a recent New York Times op-ed entitled "The Axis of Ennui" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/opinion/brooks-the-axis-of-ennui.html):

"Daniel Yergin, an energy guru, noted in Congressional testimony last month that the revolution in oil and gas extraction has led to 1.7 million new jobs in the United States alone, a number that could rise to three million by 2020. The shale revolution added $62 billion to federal revenues in 2012. At the same time, carbon-dioxide emissions are down 13 percent since 2007, as gas is used instead of coal to generate electricity.

Most of us have grown up in a world in which we assumed that energy was scarce, or even running out. We could now be entering a world of relatively cheap energy abundance.

Most of us have grown up in a world in which oil states in the Middle East could throw their weight around because of their grip on the economy’s life source. But the power of petro-states is on the wane."

Moreover, Brooks failed to mention that Israel also has huge deposits of oil shale. As reported by Amiram Barkat for Globes (http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000686073&fid=1724):

"'Within a few years, Israel will become one the largest producers of oil and gas in the world.' That is the belief of Dr. Harold Vinegar, who until three years ago was Chief Scientist, Physics, of energy giant Royal Dutch Shell. Talking to 'Globes', Vinegar says that he estimates that exploration for gas will yield impressive results, but that Israel's true future lies in oil. He believes that the chances of finding regular oil are not high, but that huge quantities of oil shale will make it possible to produce oil in quantities approaching the production of Saudi Arabia"

Can you imagine tiny Israel rivaling Saudi Arabia as one of the world's energy giants? Yes, there is still a glimmer of hope for this world.

In a nutshell, the Muslim Middle East will soon no longer be able to hold the United States over an oil barrel.

And now we come to the matter of human flatulence.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Democrats, Dragons or Drones?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/opinion/friedman-democrats-dragons-or-drones.html?_r=0), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman writes:

"Given its history of brutal dictatorship, Iraq might seem to be the last place in the Middle East we should have tried to help give birth to a self-governing democracy. In fact, it was the most important. Just look at Syria and you’ll understand why. Iraq was made up of all the sects that populate the different Arab countries and have been held together over the last 50 years by iron-fisted dictators. If Iraqis could demonstrate that, once their dictator was removed, the constituent communities of Iraq (Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkmen, Christians) could forge their own social contract for living together peacefully — rather than being ruled brutally from the top down — then some kind of democratic future was possible throughout the Arab world.

That possibility is yet to be fulfilled."

Oh really? Still no "self-governing democracy" in Iraq? Who would have ever imagined that Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds wouldn't be able to let bygones be bygones? Not Thomas Friedman. A decade ago, Friedman wrote (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/opinion/thinking-about-iraq-i.html?ref=thomaslfriedman):

"It is not unreasonable to believe that if the U.S. removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a positive, transforming effect on the entire Arab world -- a region desperately in need of a progressive model that works."

Sorry, Tom, but it was unreasonable.

And if cheerleading the Second Gulf War was not sufficiently inane, Friedman more recently was to be found in Cairo's Tahrir Square, ballyhooing the Arab Spring, which brought us the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohammed Morsi.

Now I know that this blog item is inordinately long and you are growing tired, but before saying goodbye, please note, kind reader, that the US is still providing Egypt with $1.5 billion in aid each year. What is this aid buying America? See what the Muslim Brotherhood has to say in its own words in its official English website (http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731):

"The 57th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), taking place from March 4 to 15 at UN headquarters, seeks to ratify a declaration euphemistically entitled ‘End Violence against Women’.

That title, however, is misleading and deceptive. The document includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution.

This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries, eliminating the moral specificity that helps preserve cohesion of Islamic societies.

A closer look at these articles reveals what decadence awaits our world, if we sign this document:

1. Granting girls full sexual freedom, as well as the freedom to decide their own gender and the gender of their partners (ie, choose to have normal or homo-sexual relationships), while raising the age of marriage.

2. Providing contraceptives for adolescent girls and training them to use those, while legalizing abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, in the name of sexual and reproductive rights.

3. Granting equal rights to adulterous wives and illegitimate sons resulting from adulterous relationships.

4. Granting equal rights to homosexuals, and providing protection and respect for prostitutes.

5. Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger.

6. Equal inheritance (between men and women).

7. Replacing guardianship with partnership, and full sharing of roles within the family between men and women such as: spending, child care and home chores.

8. Full equality in marriage legislation such as: allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and abolition of polygamy, dowry, men taking charge of family spending, etc.

9. Removing the authority of divorce from husbands and placing it in the hands of judges, and sharing all property after divorce.

10. Cancelling the need for a husband’s consent in matters like: travel, work, or use of contraception.

These are destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution; they would subvert the entire society, and drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance.

The Muslim Brotherhood urges the leaders of Muslim countries and their UN representatives to reject and condemn this document, and to call upon this organization to rise to the high morals and principles of family relations prescribed by Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood also calls on Al-Azhar (the highest seat of learning for Muslims) to take the lead, condemn this declaration, and state clearly the Islamic viewpoint with regard to all details of this document.

Further, we urge all Islamic groups and associations to take a decisive stand on this document and similar declarations.

In conclusion, we call on women's organizations to commit to their religion and morals of their communities and the foundations of good social life and not be deceived with misleading calls to decadent modernization and paths of subversive immorality.

God Almighty says: "God wants to forgive you, but those who follow whims and desires want you to deviate far away from the Path). {Quran 4 : 27}

The Muslim Brotherhood

Cairo: March 13, 2013"

Enough said. As promised at the onset, if you have read this blog entry from beginning to end, you now know more about the Middle East than President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman rolled into one. Yes, I know that's not much of anything, but it's a start.

Ahmadinejad and Morsi: Two Jew-Haters Meet in Cairo

Currently, the US is attempting to isolate Iran as it proceeds pell-mell with its nuclear weapons development program. In parallel, Obama is attempting to paint the transition of Egypt from the Mubarak regime to a government headed by the extremist Muslim Brotherhood as a success ("You know, when it comes to Egypt, I think, had it not been for the leadership we showed, you might have seen a different outcome there," http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57565734/obama-and-clinton-the-60-minutes-interview/?pageNum=5).

So, it should come as no surprise that Egyptian president Morsi ("the Jews are descendants of apes and pigs") yesterday hosted Iranian president Ahmadinejad ("Israel must be wiped off the map") in Cairo, representing the first visit by an Iranian leader to Egypt in decades.

Meanwhile, the US continues to provide Egypt with more than a billion dollars of military aid annually (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-approves-1-3-billion-dollars-in-military-aid-to-egypt-1.420447).

Will the Obama administration continue to fund the Egyptian army as Egypt draws nearer to Iran? Was there ever any doubt?

Morsi, Runner-Up for Time's Person of the Year: Zionists Are "the Descendants of Apes and Pigs"

As you might recall, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi was a runner-up for Time Magazine's 2012 Person of the Year. (Obama, of course, won the award "For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union." Yeah, right.)

You might not know, however, that in an interview broadcast on Lebanon's Al-Quds TV on September 23, 2010 and recently translated by MEMRI, Morsi declared (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=298434):

"Either [you accept] the Zionists and everything they want, or else it is war. This is what these occupiers of the land of Palestine know – these blood-suckers, who attack the Palestinians, these warmongers, the descendants of apes and pigs."

Charming.

Thomas Friedman, "Morsi’s Moment": Delusional

Since Thursday, when Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi decreed that his decisions are no longer subject to judicial review, violent protests have swept Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. On Saturday, Egypt's Supreme Judicial Council declared that Morsi's determination was "an unprecedented attack on the independence of the judiciary and its rulings" (see: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Nov-24/196079-top-judicial-body-slams-mursis-unprecedented-attack.ashx#axzz2D5H2fjjj).

Yet none of this seems to have had any effect upon Thomas Friedman, who, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Morsi’s Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/friedman-morsis-moment.html), writes:

"It is impossible not to be tantalized by how much leverage Morsi could wield in the peace process, if he ever chose to engage Israel. Precisely because he represents the Muslim Brotherhood, the vanguard of Arab Islam, and precisely because he was democratically elected, if Morsi threw his weight behind an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal, it would be so much more valuable to Israel than the cold peace that Sadat delivered and Hosni Mubarak maintained. Sadat offered Israelis peace with the Egyptian state. Morsi could offer Israel peace with the Egyptian people and, through them, with the Muslim world beyond."

Yeah, Morsi will surely want to aggressively advance peace between Israel and the Palestinians at a time when 87 percent of Egyptians believe that Egypt should have its own nuclear bomb and 74 percent favor a break in diplomatic ties with Israel (see: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161145). Not so incidentally, 82 percent of Egyptians believe that people who commit adultery should be stoned, and 84 percent believe that those who abandon Islam should be sentenced to death (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/).

Friedman continues:

"So, as you can see, the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the future of Egyptian democracy and the U.S.-Israel-Arab struggle with Iran and Syria are now all intertwined. Smart, courageous leadership today could defuse the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, advance Egyptian democracy and isolate the Iranian, Syrian and Hamas regimes. Weak or reckless leadership will empower all three. This is a big moment."

Friedman is seeking "smart, courageous leadership" from Morsi in order to advance Egyptian democracy? This is Morsi's "big moment"? Keep dreaming, Tom.

Obama Foreign Policy: Naive and Dangerous

Those who read this blog were informed almost immediately that the deadly attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi and embassy in Cairo were anything but spontaneous. On September 12 I wrote (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/gail-collins-mitts-major-meltdown.html):

"Make no mistake about it: The movie 'Innocence of Muslims' was a disinformation exercise, timed around 9/11, intended to exacerbate Arab rioting that had been scheduled in advance. Worse still, the global media, hungry for a story, quickly cooperated by publicizing all of the story's false threads."

Nevertheless, the Obama administration chose to pretend that the attacks had been "spontaneous" in respose to this silly excuse for a film.

Well, yesterday the US Director of National Intelligence finally got around to acknowledging that the attacks had indeed been "deliberate and organized" (see: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444712904578024684208469470.html).

Concerning the attack on the US embassy in Cairo, Egypt's new Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohamed Morsi, stated to The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/egyptian-leader-mohamed-morsi-spells-out-terms-for-us-arab-ties.html?pagewanted=all):

"'We took our time' in responding to avoid an explosive backlash, he said, but then dealt 'decisively' with the small, violent element among the demonstrators.

'We can never condone this kind of violence, but we need to deal with the situation wisely,' he said, noting that the embassy employees were never in danger."

The US embassy employees were "never in danger"? Yeah, right.

So how is the Obama administration handling this affront? Simple. Obama and friends are now seeking to provide Egypt with an emergency cash grant of $450 million. As reported by The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/world/middleeast/white-house-move-to-give-egypt-450-million-in-aid-meets-resistance.html):

"In recent weeks, negotiations over the assistance picked up pace, and the administration decided to provide $450 million instead, including $190 million immediately, because the country’s economic crisis has become acute, with an estimated budget shortfall of $12 billion.

. . . .

In addition to the $1 billion in assistance, the administration is working with Egypt to provide $375 million in financing and loan guarantees for American financiers who invest in Egypt and a $60 million investment fund for Egyptian businesses. All of that comes on top of $1.3 billion in military aid that the United States provides Egypt each year."

Although Obama recently acknowledged that Egypt is not an American ally (see: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gwEQ3WzDMvnIDbKF5ZQGAyA59Qfw), and notwithstanding America's current economic crisis, the president feels compelled to shower Morsi with money?

In which fantasy world are Obama and Hillary living?

Thomas Friedman, "Morsi’s Wrong Turn": Another Obama Foreign Policy Failure

According to Iran's Mehr News Agency today (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/opinion/friedman-morsis-wrong-turn.html):

"Iran’s successful organization and hosting of the NAM summit here in Tehran has neutralized all the anti-Iran plots, and the international community is beginning to accept the idea that Iran is by no means an isolated state, but quite the contrary, actually enjoys huge international support, especially on its nuclear program."

Now read Thomas Friedman's latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Morsi’s Wrong Turn" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/29/opinion/friedman-morsis-wrong-turn.html), in which he claims:

"Excuse me, President Morsi, but there is only one reason the Iranian regime wants to hold the meeting in Tehran and have heads of state like you attend, and that is to signal to Iran’s people that the world approves of their country’s clerical leadership and therefore they should never, ever, ever again think about launching a democracy movement — the exact same kind of democracy movement that brought you, Mr. Morsi, to power in Egypt."

So whereas Friedman would have us believe that the only reason for hosting the NAM summit in Tehran is to show that the world approves of the way in which the mullahs crushed the Green Revolution, Iran's media is telling us that the NAM summit is being used to demonstrate that much of the world approves of its drive to build nuclear weapons. Big difference.

Yet another Iranian objective specified by the Mehr News Agency (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1683406), but which goes unmentioned by Friedman, is to "oppose foreign intervention in Syria," i.e. garner support for Iran's heinous ally, Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, who is busy gunning down thousands of civilians in a countrywide civil war.

Friedman, however, is also correct: Morsi should be ashamed to be "lending his legitimacy" to a regime that crushed a nascent democracy movement and murdered, imprisoned and tortured the movement's leaders.

Friedman also asks, "why is Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general, lending his hand to this Iranian whitewashing festival?"

Allow me to answer his question. Ban Ki-moon, Mohamed Morsi and all others attending the NAM summit in Tehran are basically hedging their bets. They don't believe that a weak-kneed Obama will prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons and wish to be remembered as having offered succor to Iran when it tests its first atomic bomb.

Or in other words, the United States can bankroll the United Nations and continue to provide Egypt with billions of dollars of aid each year, but cannot expect Ban Ki-moon and Morsi to respect American efforts to isolate Iran.

Chalk this up as another Obama foreign policy failure, and so much for Friedman's much vaunted "Arab spring."

Thomas Friedman, "What Does Morsi Mean for Israel?": Stretching the Boundaries of Dim-Wittedness

Today, writing from his Maryland mansion about Egypt and Israel, Thomas Friedman pompously declares in his New York Times op-ed entitled "What Does Morsi Mean for Israel?" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/what-does-morsi-mean-for-israel.html):

"I truly appreciate the anxiety Israelis feel at seeing their neighborhood imploding. But it is also striking that a people for whom the Exodus story of liberation is so central — and who for so long argued that peace will happen only when the Arabs become democratic — failed to believe that the liberation narrative might one day resonate with the people of Egypt and now proclaim that the problem with the Arabs is that they are becoming democratic."

Ah, yes, the Arabs are becoming "democratic." Of course, it never occurred to Friedman that "democracy" means one thing for Americans, and quite something else for Egyptians. Again, have a look at the results of a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center in December 2010 (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/):

"At least three-quarters of Muslims in Egypt . . . say they would favor making each of the following the law in their countries: stoning people who commit adultery, whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and robbery and the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion."

According to this report, 95% of Egyptian Muslims also believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics.

Friedman would have us believe that this is all part and parcel of Egypt's "liberation narrative," when in fact it sounds more reminiscent of the Dark Ages.

Tom goes on to say:

"Sorry, naïveté is thinking that because it was so convenient for Israel to have peace with one dictator, Mubarak, rather than 80 million Egyptians, that this dictator — or some other general — would and could stay at the helm in Egypt forever. Talk about naïve."

Actually, "naïveté" is believing that Israel can do anything to curry favor with an Egyptian Muslim majority that would destroy the rights of individuals, Christians and women and welcome the annihilation of Israel.

Question for you, Tom: In furtherance of Arab "democracy," would you also advocate that the US immediately demand the abdication of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? Is it only Israel that seeks to maintain stability by way of its relationships with autocratic regimes such as that of Mubarak? "Talk about naïve" . . .

As always, thanks for your invaluable advice, Tom. It will take us far.

Thomas Friedman, "The Fear Factor": Rarefied Rubbish

It never ceases to amaze me how Thomas Friedman can churn out rarefied rubbish, column after column, week after week.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Fear Factor" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/27/opinion/the-fear-factor.html), Friedman explains what Egypt's newly elected president, Mohamed Morsi, must do in order to "forge a workable social contract" to allow Egyptians to govern themselves. Tom writes:

"It is incumbent on the Muslim Brotherhood to now authentically reach out to the other 50 percent of Egypt — the secular, liberal, Salafist and Christian elements — and assure them that not only will they not be harmed, but that their views and aspirations will be balanced alongside the Brotherhood’s. That is going to require, over time, a revolution in thinking by the Muslim Brotherhood leadership and rank-and-file to actually embrace religious and political pluralism as they move from opposition to governance."

Yeah, right. Given that 95% of Egyptian Muslims believe it is "good" that Islam plays a large role in politics, and given that some 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe that those abandoning Islam should be executed (see: http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), you can be certain that Morsi will soon be seeking new modes of cooperation with Egypt's Coptic Christian minority.

With tourism down (see: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/04/13/Number-of-Egyptian-tourists-down-in-2012/UPI-99871334347061/) and population growth unchecked (its current population of 80 million is expected to double by 2050), Egypt is headed for unmitigated disaster, and no one - not the US, not the EU - will be able to save it.