Thomas Friedman, "The New Hama Rules": Out to Lunch

Finally, a meaningful effort by a New York Times op-ed pundit to relate to the horror in Syria, which is growing worse with each passing day. Yesterday, we saw bloody bodies being tossed by the Syrian security apparatus into the Orontes River to cries of "Brother of a whore!" (see, if your stomach permits it: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/08/02/syria.video/).

In his latest New York Times column, "The New Hama Rules" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/opinion/the-new-hama-rules.html?hp), Thomas Friedman observes the link between the 1982 massacre of Hama's residents by Bashar al-Assad's father, Hafez, and the events occurring today. Today, however, Friedman contends that the people are "not afraid anymore" and will prevail over the Syrian despot.

Yes, as I observed in prior blog entries (e.g., http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/assad-is-finished-obama-again-on-wrong.html), Assad's days are numbered. His army and security forces commanded by Alawaite loyalists will ultimately not be able to put out the flames of revolt which extend far beyond Hama. But Friedman, still harboring romantic illusions about the root cause of the so-called "Arab Spring," i.e. a struggle for democracy which he now acknowledges might take considerably longer to achieve, remains out to lunch. Friedman writes:

"That is, once these regimes are shucked off, can the different Arab communities come together as citizens and write social contracts for how to live together without iron-fisted dictators — can they write a positive set of Hama Rules based not on anyone fearing anyone else, but rather on mutual respect, protection of minority and women’s rights and consensual government?

. . . .

Now Yemen, Libya, Syria, Egypt and Tunisia are all going to attempt similar transitions — at once — but without a neutral arbiter to referee. It is unprecedented in this region, and we can already see just how hard this will be. I still believe that the democratic impulse by all these Arab peoples to throw off their dictators is heroic and hugely positive. They will oust all of them in the end. But the new dawn will take time to appear."

This is nonsense. First, each of these Arab uprisings has its own unique set of underpinnings: for example, tribal in Libya as opposed to economic in Egypt. Democracy has little or nothing to do with any of this, unless one wishes to make the argument that the attempt by Syria's majority Sunni population to rid themselves of minority Alawite rule has anything at all to do with "one person, one vote."

What has "precipitated" the uprising in Syria? Actually, a prolonged drought, which has destroyed the Syrian economy and has forced hundreds of thousands of people to abandon their rural homes (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/world/middleeast/14syria.html). This grim states of affairs, coupled with dwindling oil reserves, has resulted in massive unemployment among Syria's youth (see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130222200). With nothing to lose, Syria's Sunni were primed to revolt against their Alawite overlords, whom they consider to be heretics or not even Muslims.

Where does this lead? Sorry if I can't strike a chord of optimism. Economic stagnation and unemployment in Syria will only grow worse as the population continues to grow. Democracy? Sorry, Tom, not a chance, not now, not ever.

Syria: Butchery Ignored by Arab Neighbors

Homework: Go to the home page of The Saudi Gazette (http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?) today and see if there is any mention of the violent unrest, approaching a civil war, in Syria. Although the lead story concerning the increase in prices of cucumbers and zucchinis on the first day of Ramadan might indeed be of interest to you, there is not a single mention of Syria. Why? Because when Arab despots kill their own citizens, it is considered an internal affair, which is not to be broached with foreigners, even if 1,600 persons have been slaughtered and another 3,000 have "disappeared" (see: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/07/28/syria.disappeared.website/index.html?hpt=hp_mid).

Equally astounding is the silence of the so-called "peace activists," who were intent upon creating a media stir involving their efforts to break the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza, but are unmoved when Assad's tanks attack the residents of Hama.

As I stated two weeks ago (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2011/07/assad-is-finished-obama-again-on-wrong.html), this will not continue much longer. Ultimately, elements of the Syrian army will defect, and Assad will fly with his family to Iran. All that remains to be seen is whether Syria's Sunnis will be intent upon inflicting revenge upon the ruling Alawite minority.

Meanwhile, Italy has recalled its ambassador to Damascus for consultations, owing to Assad's onslaught against the civilian population. Why has Obama not recalled US ambassador Ford? Yet another instance of leading from behind?

Paul Krugman's "The President Surrenders"

Thank goodness, this time I was right: A compromise settlement involving the debt ceiling was indeed reached. However, many liberal commentators are enraged by this bargain and leveling scathing criticism on President Obama.

In his column in today's New York Times entitled "The President Surrenders" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-president-surrenders-on-debt-ceiling.html?hp), Paul Krugman intersperses venom directed at Republicans with bile aimed at the president. Krugman's anger at Republicans could be anticipated; however, his furor with the president is unprecedented:

"And then there are the reported terms of the deal, which amount to an abject surrender on the part of the president.

. . . .

In fact, Republicans will surely be emboldened by the way Mr. Obama keeps folding in the face of their threats.

. . . .

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

. . . .

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists. Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite."

Now consider what the New York Times's token conservative, bad boy columnist, Ross Douthat, has to say in his op-ed entitled "The Diminished President" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/opinion/the-diminished-president.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fopinion%2Findex.jsonp):

"But winning a debate on points isn’t a substitute for looking like a leader. It’s one thing to bemoan politics-as-usual when you’re running for the White House. It’s quite another to publicly throw up your hands over our 'dysfunctional government' when you’re the man the voters put in charge of it.

. . . .

This leaves Americans to contemplate two possibilities more alarming than debt-ceiling brinkmanship. First, that we’re living through yet another failed presidency. And second, that there’s nobody waiting in the wings who’s up to the task either."

In essence, this is one of those rare instances where Krugman and Douthat are in agreement: Obama lacks the leadership skills to take the US forward.

Where have you previously heard someone bemoan this lack of leadership? Have another look at "Official: Obama Worst President in U.S. History" (http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/08/official-obama-worst-president-in-us.html), written almost a year ago, in which I labeled an absence of leadership as the hallmark of the Obama administration. Sadly, nothing has occurred to make me change my opinion.

Maureen Dowd's "Tempest in a Tea Party": Maybe Obama Just Wants To Be Loved

In her latest New York Times column entitled "Tempest in a Tea Party" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/dowd-tempest-in-a-tea-party.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), Maureen Dowd justifiably rips into those in the Tea Party, who, blind like Samson, are attempting to bring the temple down upon themselves. But whereas her criticism of the Tea Party was to be anticipated, her scalding criticism of Obama breaks new ground:

"Amid the chilling anarchy, there’s not a single strong leader to be seen — not even a misguided one. All the leaders are followers. You have to wonder if President Obama at some level doesn’t want to lead. Maybe he just wants to be loved.

. . . .

Democratic lawmakers worry that the Tea Party freshmen have already 'neutered' the president, as one told me. They fret that Obama is an inept negotiator. They worry that he should have been out in the country selling a concrete plan, rather than once more kowtowing to Republicans and, as with the stimulus plan, health care and Libya, leading from behind.

. . . .

The laconic president emerges from the sidelines periodically to warn about economic default, but we’re already in political default."

Maybe Obama "just wants to be loved"? Given that Obama was abandoned by his father at the age of two and sent away by his mother at the age of 10, this should sadly come as no surprise. Likewise, Obama's inability to foresee the debt ceiling crisis, his abrupt about-face on deficit spending, and his incapacity to broker a deal, all stemming from an arrogance which in turn might be attributed to an absence of parental love, were also to be expected.

Bottom line: We are witnessing the ultimate game of "chicken," where both Republicans and Democrats are demonstrating their willingness to jeopardize the future of the US as they pursue partisan political advantage: Republicans fearful of compromise which could cause them to be jettisoned in favor of persons further to the right in contested primaries; Democrats unable to consider any agreement that might require further consideration of the debt ceiling prior to the November 2012 elections.

Maddening and sickening, yet unless all of these politicians are truly insane, someone will flinch before the onrushing train squashes the economy.

Aluf Benn, "Israel's Lost Chance": A Call for "Creative Diplomacy"

Aluf Benn, editor-at-large of Haaretz, Israel's uber-left newspaper with a miniscule circulation of some six percent of Israeli newspaper readership on weekdays (see: http://972mag.com/the-political-line-of-israeli-papers-a-readers-guide/), was again given the opportunity to publish his views on the uber-left op-ed page of The New York Times. In his latest "contributor" op-ed entitled "Israel's Lost Chance" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/opinion/netanyahus-missed-opportunity.html?hp), Benn alleges that Netanyahu sought a confrontation with Obama during his last visit to the US and needs to engage in "creative diplomacy" in order to stave off a third Palestinian intifada in September:

"When he visited America in May, Mr. Netanyahu picked a fight with Mr. Obama over a formula for peace proposals. That raised his popularity at home and pleased Republicans in America. But in the long run, it could cost Israel dearly.

. . . .

It isn’t too late for Mr. Netanyahu to change course. He has reaped diplomatic fruits from the regional crisis, but has refrained from taking political risks at home. His timidity and cynicism will prove costly for Israel when the Arab storm reaches its shores. Before time runs out, he must leverage Israel’s new strength to join Mr. Obama in creative diplomacy to avert a diplomatic debacle in September and pursue a stable peace with the Palestinians."

Netanyahu picked the fight with Obama? Regardless of whether you are a fan or detractor of Netanyahu, Obama's May 19, 2011 speech calling for peace between Palestinians and Israelis premised upon the "1967 lines" blindsided Netanyahu, who was on his way over to the US. Sometimes it's not a matter of what you say, but how and when you say it -- a lesson Obama has yet to learn.

Personally, I support the creation of an independent Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps, and this has been the basis for the peace proposals proffered in the past by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert. However, there can also be no denying that both Arafat and Abbas steadfastly refused to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state within any borders whatsoever, and there can be no peace agreement without such acknowledgement.

Netanyahu should engage in "creative diplomacy"? How does one engage in "creative diplomacy" with a party unwilling to recognize your right to exist? That would indeed demand a kind "creativity" falling within the realm of "delusional thinking."

A third Palestinian intifada in September along the lines of the Arab protests and insurrections in Israel's neighboring states? Maybe. On the other hand, this would also jeopardize significant economic growth (real GDP growth of some eight percent in 2010) and declining unemployment (17 percent in 2010) in the West Bank, where economic prospects are superior to those existing in Egypt, whose youth unemployment is considered a ticking time bomb by the IMF (http://www.cnbc.com/id/41363921/Egypt_Youth_Unemployment_Was_Time_Bomb_IMF_Head), and Syria, which also suffers from severe unemployment among youth (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130222200).

Will Abbas and Fayyad be willing to jeopardize this progress and potentially lose American aid to boot in another month's time? Or are they playing brinkmanship, intended to ingratiate themselves with a potentially restive Arab street? Stay tuned.

Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to Hire My Wife As Senior Adviser

Yes, it's true: Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has announced that he will be hiring my wife as a senior political adviser effective immediately.

The decision to hire my wife was precipitated by a number of international developments. Earlier this month Erdogan again demanded that Israel apologize for the death of Turkish nationals during the attempt, over a year ago, by the Mavi Marmara to break the Israeli maritime blockade of Gaza. Erdogan threatened that if the Israelis did not apologize, he would conduct an official visit to Gaza to meet with its rulers from Hamas, who have been declared terrorists by the US, Canada, EU and Japan (see: http://www.businessturkeytoday.com/pm-erdogan-to-visit-gaza-if-israel-refuses-to-apologize-to-turkey/). Thus far, Israel has ignored his demands.

If Erdogan's visit to Gaza occurs, it will come at a time when Turkey is experiencing new tension with its Kurdish minority, which has long sought autonomy (see: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=231192).

More recently, Erdogan is demanding that Armenia apologize to Turkey for filling its youth with hatred, after Armenian Prime Minister Sarkisian, asked whether Western Armenia, today part of Turkey, will ever be united with Armenia, responded, “everything depends on the young generation” (see: http://asbarez.com/97287/erdogan-asks-sarkisian-to-apologize-for-western-armenia-remarks/). Erdogan, of course, refuses to acknowledge Turkey's massacre of Armenians in 1915 and is now threatening to deport 100,000 Armenians who are allegedly working illegally in Turkey (see: http://asbarez.com/78347/erdogan-threatens-to-deport-armenians-from-turkey/).

So why will my wife be advising Erdogan? Apparently, Erdogan learned from his security services that my wife is expert at extracting apologies from me almost every day.

In case you were wondering, my wife doesn't read this blog. But in case she gets wind of this latest entry, allow me to go on record as saying, "Sorry, dear, I was only joking."

Maureen Dowd's "Not O.K. at the O.K. Corral": Still Blaming Bush and Cheney

Maureen Dowd, in her latest New York Times op-ed, "Not O.K. at the O.K. Corral" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/27/opinion/27dowd.html?hp), uses the opportunity to blame the Republicans, specifically Bush and Cheney, for all of America's ills. According to Maureen, an independent Obama, willing to compromise at the drop of a hat, has fallen victim to the morass created by his predecessors:

"The last century was the American century. But this one will not be, thanks to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who used their boots and spurs to ride roughshod over the globe and American economy. They spent eight years and trillions of dollars either barging into stuff they should have left alone or leaving alone stuff they should have intervened on.

. . . .

The White House feels that its foes not only want to stomp on any reasonable compromise; they want to make sure that Obama never has the presidency he dreamed of, one that isn’t about digging out from W.’s intractable messes; one that helps the parties reason together and move into the future.

. . . .

You could argue that Obama created his own nightmare by failing to read the class rage of the public and aggressively cut government fat as soon as he came into office. His passivity allowed the Tea Party to rise, fed by fury over Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats stuffing pork into the 2009 stimulus package.

But whatever the criticisms of Obama, it’s Republicans who are overtly playing politics. Even though Obama compromises ridiculously easily, the Republicans are showing no willingness to compromise at all."

Only the Republicans are playing politics? I suppose that is why Obama has been rejecting any temporary agreement ending before November 2012, which would allow the parties to hammer out a better reasoned arrangement without the exigencies of time bearing down upon them.

Only the Republicans got us into this mess? Peculiar. I thought it was Obama who decided to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which will cost the US a record $120 billion in 2011. This is now Obama's senseless war.

Obama is the "great compromiser"? Observe what David Brooks had to say yesterday in "Congress In the Lead" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss), concerning Obama's negotiating style:

"[T]he White House negotiating process was inadequate. Neither the president nor the House speaker ever wrote down and released their negotiating positions. Everything was mysterious, shifting and slippery. One day the president was agreeing to an $800 billion revenue increase; the next day he was asking for $400 billion more."

Obama merely failed to trim government fat when entering office? Read "Toying With Default" in "Review & Outlook" of The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903999904576465843244525786.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h):

"Then again, it has long been clear that Mr. Obama isn't interested in spending reform. In February he proposed a budget that spent more than any in U.S. history. In April he demanded that Congress pass a 'clean' debt ceiling hike that included no spending cuts whatsoever. Only after House Republicans unveiled their own sweeping budgetary reforms did the White House rush to also claim it wanted deficit reduction as part of the debt-ceiling debate."

And if you think for one moment that the president's nascent desire to cut spending is anything other than an unscrupulous political ploy designed to win him reelection, read Paul Krugman's "Messing With Medicare" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?ref=opinion):

"So why is the president embracing these bad policy ideas? In a forthcoming article in The New York Review of Books, the veteran journalist Elizabeth Drew suggests that members of the White House political team saw the 2010 election as a referendum on government spending and that they believe that cutting spending is the way to win next year."

Don't get me wrong: Bush was indeed profligate in his spending. However, I had always thought that Obama was swept into office in order to correct these excesses. Instead, in July 2011, as we coast toward November 2012, absent any meaningful achievements attributable to the Obama administration, economic or otherwise, we are stuck in a "blame game."

Let's see if the American electorate is willing to buy it.