Ross Douthat, "Germany on the Brink": Was Gaddafi Right?

Tweet

"We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

- Muammar Gadaffi, speech, April 10, 2006

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Germany on the Brink," Ross Douthat does not mince his words concerning the influx of Muslim immigrants into Germany. Pointing his finger at violent acts perpetrated against women on New Year's Eve in Cologne and noting that with regard to Germany "71 percent of all asylum applicants in 2015 were men," Douthat goes on to say regarding this influx of newcomers upon German demographics and culture:

"[I]f you add a million (or millions) of people, most of them young men, in one short period, you get a very different kind of shift.

In the German case the important number here isn’t the country’s total population, currently 82 million. It’s the twentysomething population, which was less than 10 million in 2013 (and of course already included many immigrants). In that cohort and every cohort afterward, the current influx could have a transformative effect.

. . . .

If you believe that an aging, secularized, heretofore-mostly-homogeneous society is likely to peacefully absorb a migration of that size and scale of cultural difference, then you have a bright future as a spokesman for the current German government.

You’re also a fool. Such a transformation promises increasing polarization among natives and new arrivals alike. It threatens not just a spike in terrorism but a rebirth of 1930s-style political violence."

Douthat's politically incorrect conclusion: "Angela Merkel must go."

So, will the swelling Muslim population of Europe contribute to the continent's science and industry and adopt its culture and democracy, or will Europe be contending with higher unemployment, swollen welfare rolls, gang violence and honor killings?

My belief is that Gaddafi was right and that Europe has signed its own death warrant. Germany? Will it return to the early Conan the Barbarian era, wedged between the Paleolithic and Neolithic periods? Stay tuned . . .

David Ignatius, "The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy": Muddle

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The big hole in Obama’s Islamic State strategy," David Ignatius writes:

"The Sunni no-show problem illustrates a deeper trauma. Across the Middle East, Sunnis are experiencing a kind of vertigo. The Sunni powerhouses — Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya — are in ruins. The people feel dispossessed and disillusioned, disgusted with the autocrats who ruled them before and the religious fanatics who want to rule them today."

Ignatius, however, is comparing apples and oranges . . . and bananas and peaches.

Libya is indeed in shambles, and its population of less than seven million is some 97 percent Sunni. In the past, Qaddafi certainly made enough noise, but a Sunni "powerhouse"?

Egypt, with a population totaling some 84 million persons of whom some 90 percent are Sunni, is still a Sunni "powerhouse," notwithstanding the chaos in the Sinai peninsula. The current regime of General Sisi, who ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi in 2013, effectively amounts to a military junta, and concern exists regarding future financial support from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and Oman, but Standard & Poor’s "outlook on Egypt’s credit rating" is rated as "stable."

Chaos prevails in Iraq, which is only some 34 percent Sunni. A Sunni "powerhouse"? Perhaps when Saddam Hussein ruled the country, but today Shiites hold sway over the government of what is left of the country, i.e. not occupied by the Islamic State and not including the Kurdish autonomous region.

Syria, which is indeed in ruins, is some 74 percent Sunni. The current civil war amounts to a rebellion of the Sunni majority against the Alawite regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Ignatius concludes:

"When we think about the future of Iraq and Syria, we should have in mind vibrant Sunni provinces that, like Kurdistan, are part of a loose federal state. In building a strategy for defeating the Islamic State, creating this 'Sunnistan' will be the long pole in the tent."

But there is already a monstrous "Sunnistan" in Iraq and Syria: It's called the Islamic State, ISIS, ISIL or Daesh.

"Vibrant Sunni provinces" in Syria forming part of a loose federation? I don't think so. Not including the Al-Hasakah Governorate in which Kurds, albeit Sunnis, are the majority, Sunnis comprise the majority of the population in 10 of Syria's 14 governorates, and going ahead, they cannot be expected to live in harmony with their former Alawite masters.

Bottom line: The artificiality of the boundaries fixed in 1916 by France and Britain pursuant to the Sykes-Picot Agreement is blatantly apparent. Syria and Iraq are finished as viable national units. Moreover, the time has come to allow the Middle East's 30 million long-oppressed Kurds, residing in Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, to declare their independence.

John Kerry, "To Defeat Terror, We Need the World’s Help": Indeed, "We Don't Have a Strategy Yet"

As reported earlier this week in a Time article entitled "Obama Says ‘We Don’t Have a Strategy Yet’ for Fighting ISIS" by Zeke Miller:

"President Barack Obama seemed to commit the worst of Washington gaffes Thursday when he updated the American people about the ongoing threat from Islamist militants wreaking havoc in Iraq and Syria.

'I don’t want to put the cart before the horse: we don’t have a strategy yet,' Obama said of the effort to combat the militant group Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) in its safe haven in Syria. 'I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggest that folks are getting a little further ahead of what we’re at than what we currently are.'"

Or is Obama, already desperate to finish his second term and go back to writing books about himself, reluctant to put the cart before the "hearse" and not the "horse"?  It's not every day that the president of the world's sole superpower acknowledges that he is clueless as to how to handle the world's premier terrorist organization.

Well, not exactly clueless. How about just plain stupid? In July, the Obama administration inked an agreement to sell $11 billion of arms (including 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Qatar, and as observed in a recent Daily Beast article by Josh Rogin entitled "America's Allies Are Funding ISIS" (my emphasis in red):

"But in the years they were getting started, a key component of ISIS’s support came from wealthy individuals in the Arab Gulf States of Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes; often, it took advantage of poor money laundering protections in those states, according to officials, experts, and leaders of the Syrian opposition, which is fighting ISIS as well as the regime."

It would take a fool to believe that the anti-tank missiles being sold by the US to Qatar will not ultimately find their way into the hands of ISIS, the al-Nusra Front and Hamas.

My suggestion: Following his "we don't have a strategy yet" remark, maybe it would be best for Obama to disappear on another Martha's Vineyard golfing holiday.

But wait! None other than US Secretary of State John (Assad is "my dear friend") Kerry has resurfaced, after his failed Gaza mission, to save the president's butt! In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "To Defeat Terror, We Need the World’s Help," Kerry refers to the Islamic State "threat" or "threatened" five times (my emphasis again in red):

• "In a polarized region and a complicated world, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria presents a unifying threat to a broad array of countries, including the United States."
• "ISIS (which the United States government calls ISIL, or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) poses a threat well beyond the region."
• "Its leaders have repeatedly threatened the United States."
• "Following the [Nato Summit meeting in Wales], Mr. Hagel and I plan to travel to the Middle East to develop more support for the coalition among the countries that are most directly threatened."
• "During the General Assembly session, President Obama will lead a summit meeting of the Security Council to put forward a plan to deal with this collective threat."

Okay, I think we understand: ISIS poses a threat. But what is the United States planning to do about it? Simple! Kerry explains at the end of his opinion piece:

"ISIS’ abhorrent tactics are uniting and rallying neighbors with traditionally conflicting interests to support Iraq’s new government. And over time, this coalition can begin to address the underlying factors that fuel ISIS and other terrorist organizations with like-minded agendas.

Coalition building is hard work, but it is the best way to tackle a common enemy. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first President George Bush and Secretary of State James A. Baker III did not act alone or in haste. They methodically assembled a coalition of countries whose concerted action brought a quick victory.

Extremists are defeated only when responsible nations and their peoples unite to oppose them."

Great, let's wait until the US is able to put a coalition together, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which have been funding, either directly or indirectly, ISIS on the sly.

Kerry's support for this new "strategy"? President George Bush's victory over Saddam Hussein. Of course, Kerry avoids any mention whatsoever of what happened in Libya three years ago. In 2011, Obama organized a five-nation coalition to cripple Qaddafi's defenses using airstrikes, and we all know what resulted from that intervention: chaos. As President Obama recently acknowledged to Thomas Friedman:

"I think we [and] our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you're going to do this."

The first invertebrate ever to occupy the Oval Office is now going to "come in full force" against ISIS? Get real! In fact, notwithstanding Kerry's attempt to paper over Obama's faux pas, there is still no US strategy vis-à-vis ISIS.

Go back to sleep, John.

David Brooks, "The Next Scapegoat": Benghazi? There's Enough Blame to Go Around for Everyone

The New York York Times editorial board and Times columnist David Brooks have finally woken up to their failure to relate to the Benghazi scandal. Having sought for so long to sweep Benghazi under the rug (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/david-brooks-beyond-fence-new-jg.html), the editorial board of The Times is now engaged in damage control regarding its own reputation and that of the Obama administration, which it so faithfully serves (see: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2013/05/13/all-the-banality-thats-fit-to-print/). Brooks, on the other hand, in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Next Scapegoat" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/opinion/brooks-the-next-scapegoat.html?_r=0), is seeking to defend a friend, Victoria Nuland.

Indeed, the West Wing, the State Department and the CIA are now busy pointing fingers at one another and attempting to shift the blame. President Obama would have us forget the whole thing, which he labels a "sideshow," in keeping with the attempt by White House spokesman Jay Carney to relegate the affair to ancient history, i.e. "Let's be clear, Benghazi happened a long time ago." In fact, there is enough blame to go around for everyone.

In defense of Nuland, Brooks today tells us:

"Over the past few weeks, the spotlight has turned on Nuland. The charge is that intelligence officers prepared accurate talking points after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, and that Nuland, serving her political masters, watered them down.

The charges come from two quarters, from Republicans critical of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and intelligence officials shifting blame for Benghazi onto the State Department.

. . . .

We now know, thanks to reporting by Eric Schmitt, Helene Cooper and Michael Schmidt in The Times, that Benghazi was primarily a C.I.A. operation. Furthermore, intelligence officers underestimated how dangerous the situation was. They erred in vetting the Libyan militia that was supposed to provide security."

The article by Schmitt, Cooper and Schmidt (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/world/africa/attack-in-libya-was-major-blow-to-cia-efforts.html), to which Brooks refers, told us back on September 23, 2012:

"'It’s a catastrophic intelligence loss,' said one American official who has served in Libya and who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the F.B.I. is still investigating the attack. 'We got our eyes poked out.'

The C.I.A.’s surveillance targets in Benghazi and eastern Libya include Ansar al-Sharia, a militia that some have blamed for the attack, as well as suspected members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in North Africa, known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb."

Note that the damage to CIA operations in Libya contradicted the Obama administration's pre-election narrative, i.e. that US involvement in bringing down the Qaddafi regime, which had been demeaned by some as "leadership from behind," had in fact been a smashing success and that al-Qaeda, with the death of bin Laden, had been dealt a mortal blow.

Brooks's conclusion regarding this disaster:

"Several things were apparently happening. Each of the different players had their hands on a different piece of the elephant. If there was any piece of the talking points that everybody couldn’t agree upon, it got cut. Second, the administration proceeded with extreme caution about drawing conclusions, possibly overlearning the lessons from the Bush years. Third, as the memos moved up the C.I.A. management chain, the higher officials made them more tepid (this is apparently typical). Finally, in the absence of a clear narrative, the talking points gravitated toward the least politically problematic story, blaming the anti-Muslim video and the Cairo demonstrations.

Is this a tale of hard intelligence being distorted for political advantage? Maybe. Did Victoria Nuland scrub the talking points to serve Clinton or President Obama? That charge is completely unsupported by the evidence. She was caught in a brutal interagency turf war, and she defended her department. The accusations against her are bogus."

First, I don't know Ms. Nuland. More to the point, I am not blaming her. I don't even blame Susan Rice, an Obama devotee, who thought she was doing her job.

As far as I am concerned, there are two primary aspects to the Benghazi debacle. First, a US ambassador in the Middle East was murdered, and the Obama administration never lifted a finger to protect him while the assault was underway. Even if the US presence in Benghazi primarily involved intelligence gathering, the murder of a US ambassador, the American retreat from the city with its tail between its legs, and the failure to carry out retribution against those who perpetrated the attack, have dealt US overseas prestige a stinging blow.

The second failure involves a concerted effort by the Obama administration, going right up to the top, to misinform the American electorate. Let's ignore the shameful way in which the talking points were redacted at the expense of the truth. Suffice it to say, we witnessed the over-zealous efforts of persons, many of them youngsters, whose expertise involves public relations and who know nothing - and consequently care nothing - about actual events on the ground. In short, these people were doing what they do best, i.e. spinning a nasty set of circumstances.

Instead, let's focus on what Hillary Clinton had to say. Hillary toed the Obama administration's line and tied the deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi to an absurd film concerning Mohamed. One day after the attack, she stated (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/new-york-times-editorial-republicans.html), "we are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault" and then linked the attack to "inflammatory material posted on the Internet." Months later, of course, Hillary would infamously declare:

"With all due respect, the fact is we have four dead Americans. Whether it was because of a protest or because guys outside for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?"

President Obama? In an appearance on the "Daily Show" with Jon Stewart on October 18, 2012, Obama declared:

"When a tragic event like this happens on the other side of the world, immediately a whole bunch of intelligence starts coming in and people try to piece together exactly what happened. And what I have always tried to do is to make sure we just get all the facts, figure out what went wrong, and make sure it doesn’t happen again. And we’re still in that process now. But everything we get, every piece of information we get — as we got it — we laid it out for the American people."

Needless to say, "every piece of information" was not laid out for the American people. In fact, no information was subsequently laid out for examination.

Or stated otherwise, Hillary and Obama told bald-faced lies.

Is it a "scandal" when an American ambassador is murdered and no one comes to his aid, and when America's secretary of state and president cover up the facts? I think so, but then, heck, maybe at my age, I'm no longer attuned to our brave new world.

Paul Krugman, "Europe’s Economic Suicide": Yes, but Not Owing to Austerity

Time to be politically incorrect.

In his New York Times op-ed entitled "Europe’s Economic Suicide" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/opinion/krugman-europes-economic-suicide.html?_r=1), Paul Krugman predictably takes the position that Europe needs to spend its way out of its current economic malaise:

"Europe has had several years of experience with harsh austerity programs, and the results are exactly what students of history told you would happen: such programs push depressed economies even deeper into depression. And because investors look at the state of a nation’s economy when assessing its ability to repay debt, austerity programs haven’t even worked as a way to reduce borrowing costs.

. . . .

Rather than admit that they’ve been wrong, European leaders seem determined to drive their economy — and their society — off a cliff. And the whole world will pay the price."

Well, I've got news for Paul: Europe is dying a slow death of its own making, and neither spending nor austerity are going to save it.

Do you remember Libya's eccentric dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, responsible for the Lockerbie bombing, who was captured in a roadside drain outside his hometown of Sirte in October 2011, and who was shot to death after first being sodomized by his "Arab Spring" captors? Qaddafi may be dead, but consider his plans for Europe, which are still very much alive. In a speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006 (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/qaddafi-europe-and-the-us-should-agree-to-become-islamic-or-declare-war-on-the-muslims.html):

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. . . Allah mobilizes the Muslim nation of Turkey and adds it to the European Union. That's another 50 million Muslims. There will be 100 million Muslims in Europe. Albania, which is a Muslim country, has already entered the EU. Fifty percent of its citizens are Muslims."

Europe will be become Muslim in a few decades? Is this merely the deranged prediction of a madman? I don't think so. Consider that according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (http://www.pewforum.org/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe.aspx#1):

"The number of Muslims in Europe has grown from 29.6 million in 1990 to 44.1 million in 2010.34 Europe’s Muslim population is projected to exceed 58 million by 2030. Muslims today account for about 6% of Europe’s total population, up from 4.1% in 1990. By 2030, Muslims are expected to make up 8% of Europe’s population."

Also according to this report, Muslims in France, Belgium, Sweden and Austria will comprise some 10% of these countries' populations by 2030, and Muslims in the UK, the Netherlands and Switzerland will amount to some 8%. Needless to say, 10% and 8% are distant from a majority, but these percentages could well be enough to swing elections and influence budgetary planning, particularly when they are growing from year to year.

Will the swelling Muslim population of Europe contribute to this continent's science and industry and adopt its culture and democracy, or will Europe be contending with higher unemployment, swollen welfare rolls and honor killings (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/232735/honor-killings-rise-phyllis-chesler)?

You already can guess my thoughts on the matter . . .

Obama: Libya Is a "Recipe for Success"

Three years into Obama's presidency, it would probably be deemed charitable for an objective outside observer to describe his foreign policy as "disastrous." Starved for anything to show for his overseas efforts and with the 2012 elections looming, Obama is busy showcasing US involvement in Libya, for which the president is now famous for "leading from behind." Appearing two weeks ago on the Tonight Show with host Jay Leno (http://www.npr.org/2011/10/26/141710706/obama-to-leno-libya-a-recipe-for-success), Obama would have us believe that US involvement in Libya has proven a memorable template for future American activity:

"Not a single U.S. troop was on the ground. Not a single U.S. troop was killed or injured, and that, I think, is a recipe for success in the future."

But what doesn't Obama tell us?:

• Qaddafi's stockpiles of anti-aircraft missiles have flooded into the hands of militants in Gaza, and Israel's El Al Airlines is being forced to hurriedly equip its fleet of civilian aircraft with advanced anti-missile systems (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-israel-to-equip-airliners-with-anti-missile-system-as-libyan-arms-reach-gaza-1.395057).

• The flag of al-Qaeda is now proudly flying in Benghazi (http://www.vice.com/read/al-qaeda-plants-its-flag-in-libya).

• Deadly tribal fighting in Libya continues until today (http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=245318).

A "recipe for success"? Yeah, right. However, it's certainly a beguiling attempt at "spin" by Axelrod & Co.

New York Times Editorial, "NATO's Teachable Moment": "What Would It Be Like to Have to Fight a Real Enemy?"

In an editorial entitled "NATO's Teachable Moment" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/30/opinion/natos-teachable-moment.html?hp), The New York Times lavishes praise upon Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama for intervening in Libya:

"The Western allies, especially the British and French forces backed up by the United States, can be justly proud. So can Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and President Obama, who ignored the naysayers who claimed that Libya was a quagmire and the battle not worth fighting."

"Backed up by the United States"? Indeed, this was another instance where Obama was "leading from behind," and Obama does not deserve the same credit accorded Cameron and Sarkozy, who entered the fray without knowing whether Obama would assist them. On the other hand, the Libyan rebels could not have overcome Qaddafi's forces without low-flying US AC-130 flying gunships and A-10 attack aircraft, which pounded Qaddafi's ground troops and supply convoys into submission.

The Times editorial concludes with a question:

"In June, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointedly told European NATO allies that they risked becoming militarily irrelevant unless they stepped up investment in their forces and equipment. His successor, Leon Panetta, needs to drive that message home.

European leaders need to ask themselves a fundamental question: If it was this hard taking on a ragtag army like Qaddafi’s, what would it be like to have to fight a real enemy?"

Indeed, let's not beat around the bush and ask outright whether Europe could contend with Syria, which in past months has been busy murdering and torturing thousands of its citizens. Unlike the conflagration in Libya, which was primarily tribal in nature, the uprising in Syria represents an attempt by the majority Sunni population to wrest control from the ruling Alawite minority, which dominates the upper echelons of Syria's armed forces and security agencies.

There have been embarrassingly belated denunciations from Obama, again leading from behind, regarding Assad's atrocities, and both the US and the EU have been delinquent in imposing sanctions upon the purchase of oil from Syria. Syria's economic outlook, dismal even before the insurgency, is buckling under the strain: exports, tourism, trade, manufacturing and foreign investment are all failing (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-syria-economy-idUSTRE77S1W420110829), and the likelihood remains that even without Western intervention, Assad will be forced to depart for Iran.

The bottom line, however, remains: Europe is not prepared to contend with Syria's army, which is the repository of the world's largest arsenal of chemical weapons, and Obama, who several times sent Senator John Kerry to woo Assad and appointed an ambassador to Damascus without Senate approval, has demonstrated his reluctance to acknowledge his flagrant error in judgment, and is again procrastinating with respect to a future course of action.

Thousands more Syrian civilians will die before Assad is ultimately forced to flee Damascus, but in the mean time, the US and EU, which were reluctant to effect economic and diplomatic sanctions, will do little to assist those seeking to dethrone Assad.

From a humanitarian standpoint, the conduct of Obama and the EU has been disgraceful. On the other hand, it is unclear what will emerge from the chaos in Libya, as evidenced by the rebels refusal to extradite the Lockerbie bomber (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/08/libyan-rebels-refuse-to-extradite.html), and the post-Assad outlook for Syria is even more abstruse, given the possibility that the Muslim Brotherhood, will rise from the ashes of Hama, and vie for control of the government, as in Egypt.

Today's news: Iran is inviting the chairman of Libya's National Transitional Council to visit Teheran. Perhaps the omniscient editorial board of The New York Times would care to explain what this should teach NATO.

Arab Spring, my eye!

New York Times Editorial: "Qaddafi's Final Hours"

From an editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/opinion/qaddafis-final-hours.html?hp) in today's New York Times:

"For more than 40 years, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi has dominated and terrorized Libya — his image plastered on what seemed like every wall and his goons posted on every corner."

Now I ask you, is it appropriate for President Obama to extend a warm handshake to a person who has terrorized his own country and the world for almost half a century?

By the way, I was present when Obama greeted Qaddafi with a toothy grin at the G8 summit in L'Aquila, Italy on July 9, 2009, and I overheard Qaddafi whispering to the president: "You know, Barack, it's the clothes that make the man."

More from the Times editorial:

"There were times when the United States and Europe should have committed more assets. But Mr. Obama made the right decision to let Europe take the lead."

Translation: Obama made such a mess of Afghanistan - simultaneously announcing a surge and a withdrawal date - that he was again best off "leading from behind."

From the editorial's conclusion:

"It will be up to the Libyans to build their own future. The rebels’ victory — if followed by the democracy they promise — should inspire others to believe that the battle is worth fighting."

The "democracy they promise" in Libya? What have you folks been smoking in far away Manhattan? It's a tribal conflict, there will ultimately be winners and losers, and it's not going to be pretty. My expectation: One man, one AK-47.

Nevertheless, I wish to thank the editorial board of The New York Times for introducing a bit of comedy into my morning.

New York Times "Talking Truth to NATO": More Hypocrisy from Obama

In an editorial entitled "Talking Truth to NATO" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html), The New York Times commends outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates for publicly criticizing America's allies which have not done their fair share in the struggle against Qaddafi. The editorial states:

"Fewer than half of NATO’s 28 members are taking part in the military mission. Fewer than a third are participating in the all-important airstrikes. British and French aircraft carry the main burden. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, despite limited resources, have made outsized contributions. Turkey, with the alliance’s second-largest military, has remained largely on the sidelines. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has done nothing at all."

Well, this didn't stop President Obama from hosting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a gala Rose Garden dinner on Tuesday and presenting Merkel with the Presidential Medal of Freedom before more than 200 VIP guests.

I suppose freedom doesn't apply to Libya.

But Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and what has he achieved?

Then, too, Obama presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson in 2009, despite her meetings with Hamas, her historic antagonism to the U.S., and her involvement in the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate fest.

Roger Cohen's "My Libya, Your Libya, Our Libya": Indeed, Let's Shine a Light

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "My Libya, Your Libya, Our Libya" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01cohen.html?hp), Roger Cohen describes his visit to Qaddafi's bunker in Bayda, Libya:

"I descended 55 steps into the labyrinth of Muammar el-Qaddafi’s mind. The glow of cellphones and a feeble flashlight lit a passage into the darkness. A netherworld unfolded — bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens, even saunas — linked by tunnels with six-inch-thick metal doors agape at their mouths."

Cohen proceeds to construct an analogy between his bunker visit and the need to illuminate the Middle East:

"So, having been in Tunisia and Egypt and now Libya during this Arab Spring, I say, Shine a light — into Qaddafi’s bunkers and everywhere. Let people out of their dark houses. Allow them to participate in the making of their societies."

These are indeed bold words from a journalist who spent some six months writing op-eds from Iran in 2009, yet never deigned to "shine a light" on the brutal oppression of Iran's Baha'is, while declaring that Iran is "not totalitarian".

Similarly, Cohen failed to "shine a light" on Iran's persecution of its Kurdish minority, its stoning to death of alleged adulterers (mostly women), or its hanging of homosexuals.

Yes, Cohen was recently in Egypt, but did he "shine a light" on the violence perpetrated upon Egypt's Coptic Christian minority, which has persisted even after the uprising?

Did Cohen "shine a light" on the brutal subjugation of women in Egypt, where 97% of its women have undergone female genital mutilation?

Did Cohen "shine a light" on the vile practice of honor killings perpetrated against women in Egypt and elsewhere throughout the Muslim Middle East?

Then, too, there are the statistics released by the Pew Research Center on December 2, 2010 (http://pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/), which also deserve scrutiny:

"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."

As per the Pew data, unshackled Egyptian "democracy" would see the ongoing brutalization of women, who are inevitably the primary victims of stoning, and hordes of limbless waifs. Also without freedom of religion, this brave new world, expressing the will of the majority emerging from "their dark houses" and actively "participat[ing] in the making of their societies," would be distant from anything approximating Western ideals.

Cohen writes:

"Take the disgruntled and give them opportunities."

But what of women, Baha'is, Kurds, Christians, homosexuals and so-called "apostates" (i.e. persons who have abandoned Islam) in Cohen's "evolving Middle East"? Don't they also deserve their freedom and dignity?

I have never understood why he has chosen to ignore them, and in order to arrive at the reason, perhaps we would need to descend 55 steps into the labyrinth of Roger Cohen's mind.

NATO Threatens to Bomb Libyan Rebels

We are told in a New York Times article entitled "NATO Warns Libyan Rebels Against Attacking Civilians" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=1&src=twrhp&pagewanted=print), written by Thom Shanker and Charlie Savage, that NATO is threatening to bomb the rebels in Libya if they harm civilians from tribes allied with Qaddafi:

"Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.

As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya, and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that if they endanger civilians, they will not be shielded from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the government’s forces have been punished."

This should come as no surprise. Notwithstanding protestations from pundits such as Nicholas Kristof that we are witnessing the dawn, albeit "messy" (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/03/nicholas-kristofs-democracy-is-messy.html), of democracy in the Muslim Middle East, Libya is a tribal conflict, and the rebels are capable of revenge and also adept at barbarism.

Yes, intervention was correct, as was the warning issued to the rebels: Qaddafi, who orchestrated the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, must go, and there is every reason to seek to prevent the massacre of civilians.

On the other hand, what emerges from this conflict, i.e. the devil we don't know, has yet to be seen. Democracy in Libya? Forget it.

Nicholas Kristof's "Hugs From Libyans": A New Benchmark for Naivete

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Hugs From Libyans" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/opinion/24kristof.html?hp), Nicholas Kristof writes:

"This time my reporting persuades me that most Libyans welcome outside intervention."

It is hard to imagine that reporting from Egypt, as opposed to Libya itself, provides a credible basis for "persuasion". Moreover, Kristof's determination that "most" (51%?) Libyans support intervention rings hollow. There is still no description by Kristof of the opposing tribes involved in this conflict, but then how could such details find their way into Kristof's op-ed, given that Kristof is to be found in Cairo?

As observed in prior blog entries, Qaddafi's tribe, the privileged Gadaffa, are fighting those seeking a larger share of the pie. The Gaddafa, out to preserve their entitlement, couldn't give a fig about Qaddafi's sponsorship of terror or human rights atrocities. I can authoratively inform Kristof that "most" Gaddafa oppose intervention, and on my next journey to Tripoli, I will be certain to arrange a scientific poll.

However, I agree with Kristof that Qaddafi would have shown no mercy to those living in Benghazi, and intervention was mandated to avert a bloodbath.

"Hugs from Libyans"? Get real, Nicholas. This is still a tribal war, and when the fighting is over and the Gaddafa, Warfalla, Zawiya, Bani Walid and Zintan patch up their differences, my bet is that "most" Libyans will have forgotten this noble gesture and will revert to their prior hatred of the U.S.

Obama: Out of Control in the Middle East

I care little for truisms and refuse to live my life according to adages; however, there is indeed one which has set me to thinking of late:

"You are either in control, or out of control."

Make no mistake about it, in the Middle East Obama is "out of control".

After Obama refused to back, even vocally, the dissidents in Iran in 2009, their street rebellion was destined to failure.

More recently, Obama called for, and received, the head of Mubarak, a long-time U.S. ally.

Now, after Obama claimed that the United States is "slowly tightening the noose" on Qaddafi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110311/ap_on_re_us/us_obama) and Hillary declared that "nothing is off the table" regarding a possible U.S. response to the Libyan crisis (http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2011/02/28/clinton-no-option-off-table-in-libya-crisis-2/), we now know that the U.S. is refusing to back the no-fly zone sponsored by France and the U.K. (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/14/un.libya.no.fly.talks/index.html?hpt=T2). We also know that on Monday Qaddafi's forces had retaken the town of Zuwara from the rebels (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/15/libya.civil.war/index.html?hpt=T2). Apparently that noose around Qaddafi's neck is tightening very, very, very slowly.

Saudi Arabia is furious with Obama, and without consulting the U.S., which has shown itself to be impotent in Saudi eyes, it has sent, together with the United Arab Emirates, 2,000 troops to Bahrain in support of its Sunni leadership. Bahrain's king, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, is facing opposition from the island's majority Shiite population, and the entry of Saudi and UAE soldiers has in turn raised the wrath of Iran, which is labeling the troop movement an "invasion" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/middleeast/16bahrain.html?hp).

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is reeling from the recent refusal of Saudi Arabia to play host to Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Clinton, who were both forced to cancel their visits to the desert kingdom. According to The New York Times, "American officials were left wondering whether the cause was King Abdullah’s frail health — or his pique at the United States" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15saudi.html?hp).

I cannot believe how daft and obtuse the Obama administration can be, but in any event, so as to leave no stone unturned, I picked up the phone earlier today to King Abdullah, and he is indeed livid with Obama. I don't think I've ever heard this 87-year-old monarch so angry.

As I stated at the outset, "You are either in control or out of control." In the Middle East, as elsewhere, Obama is out of control.

Libya: Hillary Also "Likes to Watch"

As you already learned when failing to answer correctly Question No. 5 of the patented JG Caesarea Middle East IQ Intelligence Test (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/jg-caesarea-middle-east-iq-test.html), Obama's foreign policy is guided by his passion for sitting on the sidelines and contemplating events as they roll past him. In a nutshell, Obama "likes to watch." Yesterday a senior administration official acknowledged that the U.S. president had excused his own inertia with respect to the crisis in Libya by claiming "the best revolutions are completely organic" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html?hp).

Now we learn that Hillary shares Obama's passion: She also "likes to watch". On Tuesday, she declared that any no-fly zone over Libya must be internationally backed and not a U.S.-led effort, i.e. the U.S. is unwilling to assume a leadership role. Moreover, when asked about the possibility of lifting the arms embargo on Libya and providing support to the rebels, she responded:

"Everything is being looked at. It is difficult in the midst of this civil conflict that's going on now to even know how you would do that, because right now it's not clear what part of the country is actually under rebel control."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110309/pl_nm/us_libya_clinton

Let's dissect this pearl of wisdom from the U.S. Secretary of State:

"Everything is being looked at."
What could be more reassuring coming from an administration that is famous for doing . . . nothing. But why should we be surprised? Remember Obama's response to the oil spill in the Gulf and his failure to extricate the U.S. from Afghanistan.

"It is difficult in the midst of this civil conflict that's going on now to even know how you would do that".
Excuse me, Hillary, but what the heck are you saying here? It is difficult to know how you would do what? Find the rebels and provide them with aid? Yeah, this is "Mission Impossible", and these are indeed reassuring words of wisdom from America's most senior diplomat.

"[I]t's not clear what part of the country is actually under rebel control."
Of course it's not clear when you're watching from afar and the rebels are getting their noses bloodied and losing ground to Qaddafi's armor and aircraft.

Not to worry, one of these weeks or months Obama and Hillary will get it together and formulate a response, or, more likely, a non-reponse.

Meanwhile, in furtherance of the Obama administration's policy of watching and waiting, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell tells us that the Pentagon is "preparing a list of military options regarding Libya, and that [Defense Secretary Gates] would outline the risks of taking action as part of those discussions" (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates-libya-20110310,0,5816685.story). Maybe Morell can tell us whether he expects the insurrection in Libya to have ended by the time the list is ready.

Roger Cohen's "Libyan Closure": The West Should Not Intervene Owing to "Moral Bankruptcy"

A condensed version of the following blog entry, which was submitted as an online comment in response to Roger Cohen's op-ed, "Libyan Closure", was censored by The New York Times:

Regarding his opposition to Western military intervention in Libya, Roger Cohen writes today in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Libyan Closure" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/opinion/08iht-edcohen08.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss):

"But the deepest reason is the moral bankruptcy of the West with respect to the Arab world. Arabs have no need of U.S. or European soldiers as they seek the freedom that America and the European Union were content to deny them. Qaddafi can be undermined without Western military intervention. He cannot prevail: Some officer will eventually make that plain."

There is no mention in this op-ed of the Lockerbie bombing, which killed all 243 passengers and 16 crew members on Pan Am Flight 103. Libya's ex-justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, has acknowledged what all the world already knew: Qaddafi personally ordered this bombing in 1988. When weighing "moral bankruptcy", why has Cohen omitted this horror?

Moreover, given Cohen's line of reasoning, should the U.S. also avoid any intercession in the Congo, where 5 million people have been slaughtered, or in Darfur, where another half million people have been murdered, inasmuch as slavery was once legal in the U.S.?

Or given that England expelled the Jews in 1290, did this justify the decision not to bomb the railroad lines leading to Auschwitz during World War II?

Wait until "some officer" ultimately disposes of Qaddafi? How many thousands of innocents will die in the interim?

Personally I prefer immediately making deep holes in Qaddafi's airfields, thereby leveling the playing field for the rebels, and I am embarrassed to note that for once, John Kerry and I are in agreement.

But it need be noted that Roger is in fact echoing the thoughts of President Obama (Surprise, surprise!), who likes "to watch" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/jg-caesarea-middle-east-iq-test.html). As reported in an excellent New York Times article entitled "Discord Fills Washington on Possible Libya Intervention" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html?hp), David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker tell us:

"Of most concern to the president himself, one high-level aide said, is the perception that the United States would once again be meddling in the Middle East, where it has overturned many a leader, including Saddam Hussein. Some critics of the United States in the region — as well as some leaders — have already claimed that a Western conspiracy is stoking the revolutions that have overtaken the Middle East.

'He keeps reminding us that the best revolutions are completely organic,' the senior official said, quoting the president."

"Organic"? The president appears to be confusing revolutions with Michelle's garden. Last I remember, the 13 American colonies received no small amount of vital assistance from France during their war of independence, but heck, that was so many years ago.

Nicholas Kristof's "Here’s What We Can Do to Tackle Libya": Clueless Advice from a Neophyte

In a op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "Here’s What We Can Do to Tackle Libya" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/opinion/03kristof.html), Nicholas Kristof provides a ridiculously short laundry list of suggestions how to dislodge Qaddafi. The sum totality of Kristof's advice:

"The dispatch of American naval vessels to the sea off Libya is a useful step to show resolve. So are sanctions. A no-fly zone would have only a small impact on the fighting, but it would be a powerful signal to the Libyan military to stand down. Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, said Wednesday that the Arab League and African Union might work together to impose a no-fly zone, and Western countries should cooperate closely with them on the idea. We could also try to disrupt Libya’s military communications.

One possible solution to the crisis being discussed within Libya is for Colonel Qaddafi, who isn’t actually president or prime minister, to retire with his sons to his hometown of Sirte and relinquish power to his longtime friend, Mohamed al-Zwai, who is technically head of state. Mr. Zwai, the former ambassador to Britain, has a reputation as a pragmatist and might then be able to bring in rival groups and tribes and stitch the country back together again in a more democratic way. It’s a long shot but worth exploring — and it’s feasible only if Colonel Qaddafi and his friends believe that otherwise they are going down."

Unfortunately, entirely absent from Kristof's discussion of how to remove Qaddafi is a discussion of Libya's tribal structure and loyalties.

There is no mention in Kristof's op-ed concerning the allegiance between Qaddafi's tribe, the Gaddafa, and the Warfalla, and their fealty to Qaddafi, which overrides any human rights concerns that they might feel.

Sadly, there is no indication whatsoever in Kristof's piece how these tribal loyalties and jealousies can be managed in order to dislodge this maniacal tyrant.

Libya's tribal structure is incomprehensible to much of the West, and Nicholas still has years of homework to do before proffering advice how to "tackle" Qaddafi.

Okay, Jeffrey, if you're so smart, what is your advice how to handle this situation? I'm not so smart, but the answer in a nutshell: Work the tribal divisions. Immediately assist in establishing and recognizing an alternative government. And if called upon to do so by this alternative government, destroy, with the Arab League's approval, Qaddafi's military airfields. This will also send a much needed, tacit message to Ahmadinejad. Are you listening, Langley? Susan and Samantha lack the necessary gumption.

Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad and the Bomb

Imagine for a moment that Libya's Qaddafi had an atomic weapon at his disposal. Faced with his current predicament, would Qaddafi choose to launch the weapon at his domestic enemies, Israel or Europe? Under the present circumstances, I believe that there would be an excellent chance that he would let a nuclear tipped missile fly.

Fortunately for the world, Qaddafi was defanged. In an excellent article entitled "In U.S.-Libya Nuclear Deal, a Qaddafi Threat Faded Away" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/middleeast/02arms.html?hp), David Sanger of The New York Times recently wrote:

"Senior administration officials and Pentagon planners, as they discuss sanctions and a possible no-flight zone to neutralize the Libyan Air Force, say that the 2003 deal removed Colonel Qaddafi’s biggest trump card: the threat of using a nuclear weapon, or even just selling nuclear material or technology, if he believed it was the only way to save his 42-year rule. While Colonel Qaddafi retains a stockpile of mustard gas, it is not clear he has any effective way to deploy it.

'Imagine the possible nightmare if we had failed to remove the Libyan nuclear weapons program and their longer-range missile force,' said Robert Joseph, who played a central role in organizing the effort, in the months just after the invasion of Iraq.

'You can’t know for sure how far the Libyan program would have progressed in the last eight years,' said Mr. Joseph, who left the administration of President George W. Bush a few years after the Libya events, partly because he believed it had gone soft on nuclear rogue states. But given Colonel Qaddafi’s recent threats, he said on Monday, 'there is no question he would have used whatever he felt necessary to stay in power.'”

Query: Is Iran's Ahmadinejad any less crazy than Qaddafi? Although their symptoms might be different, both men are dangerously psychotic.

Now consider Roger Cohen's April 8, 2009 New York Times op-ed "Israel Cries Wolf" (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/opinion/09iht-edcohen.html), in which Cohen wrote:

"What’s critical right now is that Obama view Netanyahu’s fear-mongering with an appropriate skepticism, rein him in, and pursue his regime-recognizing opening toward Tehran, as he did Wednesday by saying America would join nuclear talks for the first time."

Cohen's prattle was consistent with the views of other left-leaning commentators: If Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn't Iran be given the same rights, which might force Israel to make peace?

As we watch Qaddafi in his death throes, the need to control Iranian nuclear ambitions has never been clearer.

Kristof's "On the Line With Libya": An Unwavering Refusal to Criticize Obama

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "On the Line With Libya" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/opinion/24kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Nicholas Kristof writes:

"Skeptics will note that none of these moves would convince Colonel Qaddafi to be any more genteel. And these are uncertain levers, creating some risk that he would respond by going after citizens of the United States."

Qaddafi might "respond by going after citizens of the United States"? Excuse me, but hasn't Qadaffi already murdered U.S. citizens? Libya's ex-justice minister, Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, has just acknowledged what all the world already knew: Qaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing that killed 270 people in 1988 (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-12552587).

Of course Qaddafi's involvement in the Lockerbie bombing did not prevent President Obama from shaking the Libyan tyrant's hand with a warm smile. These photographs will yet come back to haunt Obama.

Kristof concludes:

"So let’s not sit on our hands."

Who is this "we"? What Kristof really means, but is unwilling to say explicitly (we mustn't criticize Obama), is that it is high time for the president, who in the past embraced Qaddafi, to do become proactive as this tragedy unfolds.

Unfortunately for the world, Obama "likes to watch" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/02/jg-caesarea-middle-east-iq-test.html).

Roger Cohen's "The Arab Gdansk": More Penetrating Wisdom from The New York Times's "Globalist"

In an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled "The Arab Gdansk" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18iht-edcohen18.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Roger Cohen writes:

"Islamist parties must commit to democracy rather than exploit democracy for despotic ends."

A remarkable thought! Imagine: If only Mr. Cohen had been around to tell Hitler in 1932, after the Nazis became the largest party in the Reichstag, that his National Socialist Party must "commit to democracy rather than exploit democracy for despotic ends," perhaps World War II could have been avoided.

Never mind. World War II is water under the bridge. Meanwhile, I spent last night soliciting the opinions of various Islamist parties around the Middle East regarding Cohen's demand that they commit to democracy.

Hamas, which came to power in Gaza by way of democratic elections in 2005, is not willing to hold new elections. Instead, they are still busy consolidating power in the Gaza Strip by imprisoning and executing Fatah opponents, while persecuting Christians and gays.

I spoke with acquaintances in the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, who can't wait for the opportunity to take power once 82-year-old Hosni Mubarak departs the scene. Meanwhile, however, they stay busy by persecuting Egypt's Christian Copt minority, as evidenced by the massacre outside a church in Alexandria earlier this month, which left 25 persons dead.

As Roger himself can tell you today, after trying to explain to us for the better part of 2009 that Iran is "not totalitarian", Iran is indeed totalitarian, and there is no place for political moderation or freedom of speech in that country, where murder and torture of Baha'is, Kurds, Sunnis, homosexuals, women, journalists and political dissidents is the name of the game.

I tried to speak with Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon, whose Hezbollah party (i.e. Party of God) just brought down the Lebanese government, owing to a forthcoming indictment by a UN tribunal, pinning Hezbollah with responsibility for the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Unfortunately, Nasrallah was not willing to emerge from his bunker to answer my call.

Finally, I did manage a word with Libya's dictator, Muammar Qaddafi, who voiced avid support for Cohen's suggestion. Qaddafi referred me to his speech broadcast by Al Jazeera on April 10, 2006 in which he stated:

"Some people believe that Muhammad is the prophet of the Arabs or the Muslims alone. This is a mistake. Muhammad is the Prophet of all people. He superseded all previous religions. If Jesus were alive when Muhammad was sent, he would have followed him. All people must be Muslims. . . . We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests."

At least Qaddafi, the butcher of Lockerbie, able to perceive the hidden value of democracy, was willing to listen to Cohen's voice of reason.

[The New York Times refused to post this comment online in response to Cohen's op-ed.]

Obama's Middle East Policy: The Big Lie (I)

The revelations resulting from the publication of U.S. State Department documents by WikiLeaks as they pertain to the Middle East have proven an eye opener. Although some of what was disclosed by WikiLeaks has already been hinted at here, WikiLeaks has provided the hard evidence.

Among those leaders from the region with egg smeared all over their faces is Turkey's Prime Minister Erdoğan. As reported by Hürriyet Daily News, there have been allegations of eight secret bank accounts in Switzerland:

"Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s financial assets and the way he made 'his fortune' were the subjects of two of the cables sent by the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, documents leaked as part of a release late Sunday by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.

'We have heard from two contacts that Erdoğan has eight accounts in Swiss banks; his explanations that his wealth comes from the wedding presents guests gave his son and that a Turkish businessman is paying the educational expenses of all four Erdoğan children in the U.S. purely altruistically are lame,' Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, wrote in a cable sent to Washington on Dec. 30, 2004.

Edelman, who has been outspoken in his criticism of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP, argued that the widespread corruption would be an important factor that could degrade Erdoğan’s ability to run the country.

In a separate cable sent in July 2004, Edelman claimed that 'an anonymous source told [him] that Erdoğan and [the source] benefited directly from the award of the Tüpraş privatization to a consortium including a Russian partner.'”

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=us-cables-argue-erdogan-has-eight-accounts-in-swiss-banks-2010-11-29

If this is not enough, according to Der Spiegel the cables leaked by WikiLeaks warn of the tendencies and dependability of Ankara's policy makers:

"US diplomats have grave doubts about Turkey's dependability. Secret or confidential cables from the US Embassy in Ankara describe Islamist tendencies in the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The US diplomats' verdict on the NATO partner with the second biggest army in the alliance is devastating. The Turkish leadership is depicted as divided, and Erdogan's advisers, as well as Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, are portrayed as having little understanding of politics beyond Ankara.

The Americans are also worried about Davutoglu's alleged neo-Ottoman visions. US diplomats quote one high-ranking government adviser as saying that Davutoglu would use his Islamist influence on Erdogan, describing him as 'exceptionally dangerous.' According to the US document, another adviser to the ruling AKP party remarked, probably ironically, that Turkey wanted 'to take back Andalusia and avenge the defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683.'

The US diplomats write that many leading figures in the AKP were members of a Muslim fraternity and that Erdogan had appointed Islamist bankers to influential positions. He gets his information almost exclusively from newspapers with close links to Islamists, they reported. The prime minister, the cables continue, has surrounded himself with an 'iron ring of sycophantic (but contemptuous) advisors' and presents himself as the 'Tribune of Anatolia.'"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,731590,00.html

In short, with friends like Turkey, who needs enemies, but this didn't stop Obama from embracing his friend Erdoğan at the recent G-20 summit in Seoul (observe the picture in Der Spiegel).

Note the special warmth that Obama reserves for the likes of Erdoğan, Chavez (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30271562/ns/world_news-americas/) and Qaddafi (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/07/09/obama_shakes_hands_with_gaddaf.html). You will never see him in a picture hugging with Netanyahu, although you will see him bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fd425zfw5Ew).

Erdoğan's response to the WikiLeaks disclosures? You guessed it: Blame it on Israel:

"Israel could have engineered the release of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents on WikiLeaks as a plot to corner Turkey on both domestic and foreign policy, according to a senior ruling party official.

'One has to look at which countries are pleased with these. Israel is very pleased. Israel has been making statements for days, even before the release of these documents,' Hüseyin Çelik, deputy leader of the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, and the party’s spokesperson, told reporters at a press conference Wednesday.

. . . .

Though government officials like Deputy Prime Minister Cemil Çiçek avoided naming Israel in their public statements Wednesday, Çelik, a close aide to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, singled out the country with his comments Wednesday.

'Documents were released and they immediately said, ‘Israel will not suffer from this.’ How did they know that?' Çelik said.

Turkey and Israel have had bitter relations since the flotilla crisis, in which Israeli commandos killed eight Turkish and one American-Turkish citizen. 'Turkey, with its efficiency and foreign policy, has treaded on someone’s fields. The prime minister is known as a dominant leader not only in Turkey but also in the world,' Çelik told reporters.

Yasin Doğan, a columnist for the pro-government Yeni Şafak newspaper, also named the Israeli lobby in the U.S. as the source of the cable leaks. 'Some people from the U.S. want to drive the [Barack] Obama administration in a different direction. They also want to adjust the relations of many governments with the U.S.,' he said in his article Wednesday. Doğan is the penname of Yasin Akdoğan, who is one of Erdoğan’s political advisors."

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=akp-hints-israel-as-8220behind-the-wikileaks-conspiracy8221-2010-12-01

Obama wants to cuddle with a vain, self-serving Erdoğan, who is creating a special relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran while steering Turkey away from the West? The U.S is headed for an iceberg.