Balls: UN Sanctions and Dialogue.

A new Mideast policy

Same as the old Mideast policy.

(With a tip of the cap to the Who)

  

By Editorial, Published: May 19

PRESIDENT OBAMA on Thursday laid out a far-reaching and energetic new approach to the unfolding Arab revolution.

Wow…talk about burying the lead. Okay, I’ll go with it for now.

The president unequivocally stated that “it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.”

Except in the case of Isreal, where it has apparently become the policy of the United States to show such cowardice as to usurp a democratic ally’s sovereignty to surrender their territory. This is a claim not even the French can lay claim to.

Also, this whole “The role of the US is to spread democracy in the Middle East” thing sounds eerily familiar.

For the first time, he bluntly criticized several Arab rulers,

Boy, how brave of him to criticize deplorable despots who have already lost control of their country. Now. Two and a half years into his presidency. For the first time.

including U.S. allies,

Except Saudi Arabia.

who have responded to demands for change with repression; in the case of Syria, the rhetoric is being backed by sanctions.

Balls = UN Sanctions.

He outlined a major, and crucial, effort to help Arab economies, starting with Egypt and Tunisia.

Sigh. Not only was Obama late to the game in Egypt, but he missed it all together in Tunesia. Then he missed the best chance for regime change in Libya and has committed us to the dangerous and treasury-sapping mission-creep of unending aerial protection for rebels who may or may not be friendly to the United States and its interests. What’s more, Egypt is quickly turning to shit because (surprise!) it’s filled with Islamist radicals that will use the vehicle of democracy to entrench parliamentary despotism with farcical elections. So I suppose if you consider serial dithering as a “major, and crucial effort to help Arab economies,” then yes, the President is doing an excellent job giving our money away overseas.

In short, Mr. Obama gave coherence, resources and direction to a U.S. Middle East policy that had been confused and underpowered.

As opposed to the Dadaist clusterfuck of idiocy that had previously guided the Obama Administration’s foreign policy?

Though the United States cannot determine the outcome of the conflicts and attempted democratic transitions underway from Libya to the Persian Gulf,

Wait…we can’t? Then what the fuck are we doing in Libya? If we can’t determine the outcome, why is Obama’s stance on it important?

effective implementation of the new strategy could help tip what has become a seesaw battle between reform and reaction.

Jesus Christ. In other words, we can’t determine the outcome, but we can help determine the outcome. At least instead of being a complete breakdown in coherent thought, this merely qualifies as shitty writing.

Mr. Obama began by clearly stating American support for “a set of universal rights,”

He’s 200+ years late to the party. This was the function of the Declaration of Independence.

including freedom of speech, assembly and religion and “the right to choose your own leaders.” Importantly, he added that U.S. “support for these principles is not a secondary interest” but “a top priority that must be translated into concrete actions.”

This is political talk for “I’m super serious, guys. Super serious.”

If implemented, that means a historic change in a U.S. policy that —

A historic change to a US policy that is virtually identical to that of the previous president.

Does the dump I took this morning qualify as “historic” too?

including under Mr. Obama — concentrated on propping up autocratic but pro-Western regimes.

See what’s happening in Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood is the leading horse to take control of the government? That’s why we supported Mubarak. Some places aren’t ready for democratic principles.

This new formulation would not be credible to many in the region without specifics. So it was important that Mr. Obama called out rulers who are violently resisting change, including U.S. allies. He urged Yemen’s president to “follow through on his commitment to transfer power,”

Yemen. That there’s a major global power broker. Balls.

and he castigated Bahrain’s ruling family for “mass arrests and brute force.”

Boy, talk about speaking truth to marginally influential regional power! Double balls.

Mr. Obama addressed the carnage in Syria in public for the first time, saying that the regime of Bashar al-Assad had “chosen the path of murder” and rightly calling for “a serious dialogue to advance a democratic transition.”

Murderous despots must always be met with dialogue.

Yet his suggestion that Mr. Assad could still “lead that transition” is hardly credible. Mr. Obama’s alternative for Mr. Assad — that he “get out of the way” — should have been the only one offered.

How about a “or we’ll make you get out of the way?” (Just trying to offer a little productive criticism) Seriously, if there’s anything that we should have learned from these Arab revolutions and the bin Laden killing, it’s that assassination is an effective tool for foreign policy. We have really good snipers and the ability to fire GPS-guided missiles with pinpoint accuracy. Seems like a waste.

The economic assistance program Mr. Obama outlined for Egypt and Tunisia, including debt relief, funds for fresh investment and a trade initiative, appears substantial and well grounded.

Good luck getting it past the House.

The administration appears prepared to push Arab regimes to adopt economic policies that favor the proven formula of free markets, trade and private enterprise.

How is it that they can push for one set of beliefs in the Middle East and a completely different ideology here at home?

Mr. Obama concluded by recommitting himself to pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace process. He forcefully dismissed a nascent Palestinian initiative to seek U.N. recognition of Palestinian statehood. Yet the president’s attempt to lay out principles for resolving the conflict — including a reference to Israel’s 1967 borders as the basis for a territorial settlement —

Well that’s one way of putting it. Pre-emptive surrender on behalf of an ally is another.

provoked a bristling reaction from Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who, like some U.S. analysts, perceived a shift in U.S. policy by Mr. Obama toward Palestinian negotiating positions.

In other words, reversing a long tradition of American presidents, Obama has, for no discernable reason and with no known political pressure, capitulated to extremist Palestinian demands.

If the president’s promise of a new diplomatic effort is to be more than rhetoric, he will need to begin by rebuilding trust in his administration among both Israelis and Palestinians.

Yes, if only he’d give a few more rousing speeches, all the wounds of a decades-old strife would be resolved.

My word, you’re not pretty enough to be this dumb. No one’s pretty enough to be this dumb. Maybe Kate Upton, but only if she does the dougie.