You describe something obviously heading for disaster and then add, "What could possibly go wrong?" Such is the Middle East today.
A collective sigh of relief was almost audible across Washington and other western capitals when Sisi accomplished the mission and successfully staged his blood-drenched military coup.
Words like "empire" and "imperialism" do not appear in the mainstream media. We opt instead for the comforting euphemisms -- "exceptional," "unique," "indispensable." Neither will our leaders admit the obvious -- that we have volunteered to sacrifice our youth and our treasure to keep our right to be the world's policeman, judge, jury and executioner.
President Obama has announced a strategy for fighting ISIS that, in many respects, is at odds with the interests of the allies in the Middle East whose support he is seeking. Trying to keep his allies happy and in line with the new ISIS battle has trapped the U.S. in a policy full of contradictions.
Sen. Bob Corker told the Wilson Center last June that, looking back on more than a decade of armed conflict with al-Qaeda, Congress finds itself left with "no ownership whatsoever" of U.S. counterterrorism policy. He called the hands-off congressional approach "totally feckless" -- and he's right.
Extolling the virtues of a ceasefire in the Gaza war that collapsed barely two hours after it took effect, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry inadvertently highlighted the root cause of the failure of international efforts to silence the guns in the Palestinian territory and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On this Fourth of July weekend, as the world's greatest democracy celebrates its independence, it has an opportunity to right that wrong by reversing course and supporting the Iraqi Kurds in their road to independence.
Last year I had the opportunity to speak with former Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama White House officials about the history of efforts at diplomacy with the Iranian regime.
Ever since the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria took control of the Iraqi city of Fallujah earlier this month, critics of President Obama's foreign policy have tried to blame this new upsurge of extremist violence on his policies in the region.
No American president has ever begun a year with as many different foreign policy crises as Obama now faces. It would be understandable if he took one look at this list and remained in Hawaii playing golf.
Obama's passive foreign policy toward the Shi'a-led governments in Iran, Iraq, and Syria will ignite a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, reduce U.S. influence abroad, and further endanger global security.
The only country in the region that seems to bear much resemblance to its pre-Obama self is Iraq, where violence has reached its highest level in half a decade.
Twelve years after the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and a decade after the misguided invasion of Iraq, Washington's actual standing in country after country, including its chief allies in the region, has never been weaker.
By losing our influence with Cairo, the United States is on a path to becoming marginalized in this critical part of the world. Leaders in other American allies, including Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia are frustrated by Washington's unwillingness to assist itself in the Middle East.
Restoring some measure of balance to the Syrian civil war may be sensible, but simply supporting "acceptable" rebel factions with the vague goal of perpetuating the conflict or to achieve a "victory" over the Assad regime is short-sighted and could prove disastrous for U.S. policy in the Middle East.
Enough has been said about President Obama's speech on counter-terror last Thursday. There's a broader scope for this speech and the implied policy changes, however, which hasn't earned much comment, and that is the long and increasingly sad history of U.S. policy in the Middle East.