President Barack Obama's comeback since the November elections has been very impressive professionally, if not always politically. What has not been at all impressive is how far behind the curve his administration has been on Egypt, a distressing development over the past few weeks that reached a nadir of sorts on Thursday with an epic level of confusion.
There are clear limits to American power. The failure of neoconservative adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan make that obvious. But there should not be many limits to American knowledge. Especially given the limits to American power.
Speaking Friday afternoon, after delaying his remarks for 90 minutes, Obama hailed the victory of the Egyptian protesters, saying: "There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place. This is one of those moments. This is one of those times. The people in Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.''
Longtime Egyptian spymaster Omar Suleiman announced the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, saying the country will be run by the military.
But for all Obama's trademark rhetorical finery, deposing Hosni Mubarak may have been the simplest and most obvious move in the Egyptian Revolution. For, as the man who actually announced the change, veteran Egyptian spymaster Omar Suleiman, put it: "President Hosni Mubarak has decided to relinquish the office of the presidency and has instructed the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to take over the affairs of the country."
The real power games have only just begun. And, this administration -- stunningly, given Obama's choice of Cairo for his great address to the Muslim world in 2009 -- has been behind the curve repeatedly throughout the crisis thus far.
In the four weeks since Tunisia overthrew its president, the Obama administration has gone from solidly supporting Hosni Mubarak, to suggesting he depart, only to back him again until the fall, then reverse not long after when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, declaring Egypt to be "stable" announced U.S. backing for Egypt's longtime spy chief and master of "renditions," Omar Suleiman.
There it sat with protests continuing and growing all the while, with widespread strikes spreading as the movement for political reform turned to a movement for economic justice. Anger about pervasive poverty coupled with rage over reports of the Mubarak family's billions in ill-gotten gains. On Thursday, it became apparent that the administration really didn't know what was going on.
President Barack Obama spoke Friday afternoon about the momentous change in Egypt, so far.
In Washington, as fate would have it, Thursday was the day of the annual Threat Assessment Hearings of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. CIA Director Leon Panetta said that he thought Mubarak was leaving office that day.
Oops.
On Air Force One on his flight to Michigan to tout a new national wireless initiative, Obama watched events unfold on television.
Pool reports from a gaggle with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs give a sense of the lack of clarity in the infosphere around the president.
"I am watching much of what you're watching. We're watching I think a very fluid situation. What we're looking for and what the president spoke about many days ago remains our priority: an orderly transition to a free and fair election. What we're looking for remains unchanged."
Gibbs would not comment on Leon Panetta's comments on whether Mubarak is stepping down. "I don't know what question elicited what testimony so I want to, without having seen that I think that would be tough for me to come at," he said.
Later Gibbs said that, "We are in contact with our embassy obviously in Cairo. We are watching the reports that you are. I don't know what the outcome of what is happening today will be." Asked if Vice President Suleiman would indeed take control, Gibbs said he was "not going to get in over the tips of my skis on this one." "I will endeavor to get us the best information throughout the day. But I don't want to get into a series of hypotheticals," he said.
On Thursday, Hosni Mubarak stunned the Obama Administration with his announcement that he would not step down. The Egyptian people took care of that with more massive demonstrations on Friday.
How on earth did the Obama administration get caught so far behind the curve on Egypt in the first place?
Obama had a string of major successes in the lame duck Congress and delivered an elegant, moving speech in the wake of the Tucson tragedy that reminded people of why they liked him so much following his great keynote address at the 2004 Democratic national convention. His State of the Union address was, as expected, quite successful. And his Republican opponents for the 2012 presidential race are, not to put too fine a point on it, unimpressive.
Then came Tunisia, and Egypt. Obama had gotten his job approval up in the Gallup Poll into the 50s; now it's back in the 40s.
It was clear to many after the uprising in Tunisia that tectonic plates were beginning to shift in the Arab world, with people stirring against poverty, inflation, corruption, and decades of authoritarian rule.
But the Obama administration was caught flat-footed by the uprising in Egypt, which is merely America's longest standing ally in the Arab world and the site of Obama's landmark address to the Islamic world in 2009.
President Hosni Mubarak's only plan for succession to his regime was his son. Which was not flying even before the uprising, with the Egyptian military, the most admired and stable institution in the country, frowning mightily on the notion. Egyptian political culture was deracinated by autocratic design, with the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood the only coherent non-Mubarak political force in the country.
The calls for regime change in Egypt grew this week despite half-hearted promises of reform from Mubarak and longtime Egyptian intelligence chief-turned-Vice President Omar Suleiman.
On January 20th, in an Arab League summit in Egypt largely overlooked on account of the Tunisia story, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, the former Egyptian foreign minister, warned that the Middle East is being "broken" by declining economic conditions for the vast majority of the populace which is low and no income. Tunisia, he said, was the indicator of a vast and growing discontent in the Middle East.
But just a few days later, the State Department's sub-cabinet official for the region said that the revolt in Tunisia was unique to Tunisia, and not applicable to Egypt. In reality, Tunisia-style protests had spread not only to Egypt but also to Yemen and Jordan.
On January 27th, NewsHour host Jim Lehrer asked Vice President Joe Biden if the time has "come for President Mubarak of Egypt to go?" Biden answered: "No. I think the time has come for President Mubarak to begin to move in the direction that -- to be more responsive to some... of the needs of the people out there."
Asked if he would characterize Mubarak as a dictator, Biden responded: "Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things. And he's been very responsible on, relative to geopolitical interest in the region, the Middle East peace efforts; the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with -- with Israel... I would not refer to him as a dictator."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had weighed in just before that, calling Mubarak's regime stable. "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people,"
Then on February 5th, at the annual Munich Security Conference, Clinton denigrated the protest movement and placed the administration firmly behind Suleiman.
Said Clinton, just six days ago:
"There are forces at work in any society, particularly one that is facing these kind of challenges, that will try to derail or overtake the process to pursue their own agenda, which is why I think it's important to follow the transition process announced by the Egyptian government, actually headed by vice-president Omar Suleiman."
Well, that certainly looks wildly off-base, doesn't it?
A new day has dawned in which America, while still the most powerful country in the world, cannot dictate events. But it cannot continue to even influence critical events, for good or ill, if it's going to be so embarrassingly wrong in its assessments of them.
You can check things during the day on my site, New West Notes.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: Obama, Who Refused to Lead, Is the Big Loser on Egypt
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-bradley/if-obama-loses-it-wont-be_b_827977.html
Legislation: so what. People don't see a difference.
Obama is not fighting for people in the current situation. He is always a "long term" guy and he is upfront that he is one. People should listen more carefully to him. On every issue, foreign and domestic, he projects 20-30 years, and that is what drives his decisons. Thing is he can't predict the future 3 years let alone 30. To me it is an indication of arrogance and poor judgment.
But that doesn't make what you are saying at all true ...
Nevertheless I have no interest in becoming the Buddha on The Huff Post Road. I come here to learn from others, and to express my opinions on what I believe and know now.
My humor says it would be fun to have a "knowledge bee"....you present half the topics, and I will present the other half. Youmight be in for a surprise. Oh.....and your critical thinking skills could be appraised.
lol
The whole point of coming here is to engage in a discussion and/or debate using factual and logical arguments and some of those critical thinking skills that you mentioned. If you decide to come back, perhaps you could add to the substance of what's being discussed and debated here.
tho
I find it hard to believe Zbigniew Brzezinski is ever caught flat footed.
And he is Mr. Obama's mentor.
who knows what transpires behind closed doors.
Watch for the I M F and world bank to move in.
I hope for the best -
but powerful interests are always at work.
>>>> I find it hard to believe Zbigniew Brzezinski is ever caught flat footed.
And he is Mr. Obama's mentor.
"Said Clinton, just six days ago:
"There are forces at work in any society, particularly one that is facing these kind of challenges, that will try to derail or overtake the process to pursue their own agenda, which is why I think it's important to follow the transition process announced by the Egyptian government, actually headed by vice-president Omar Suleiman."
Those aren't the words of an administration that was on the right side of history this past week.
I do think that Obama is doing better now, as we see with Bahrain.
Where Hillary again made very embarrassing statements.
It would be nice to see him start being on the right side of the issue with the various other dictatorships he is supporting though. Saudi Arabia is a good test. There's a quite a large weapons deal in the works right now as a matter of fact
While it is possible to argue how far behind the curve the Obama administration was on Egypt, it's harder to say that the administration is on the wrong side of history. What would have had him do differently?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/friday-talking-points-154_b_822254.html
Had Obama been that argumentative ... merely talking before really hearing ... the results may have been disastrous.
Your observation would seem to suggest that you do not understand the gist of this piece and, consequently, that you would find any attempts to set the record straight in the comments section as being argumentative.
Hillary Clinton should be fired.
I want some!!
:)
lol
As for Bradley's reference to crafting a positon based on knowledge, knolwedge is not the most important factor under the circumstances (though I'm not dismissing knowledge). What was--and maybe still is--the most important factor is the stance of the US; which stance should be hands-off with watchful attention, expressions of concern, and statement of hopes. I saw in the NY Times this morning a headline about the "US pressing Egypt's military..." (I didn't read the article though). Now that the military is in charge, the focus of the US meddling shifts.
It's quite clear that USD leaders know little about freedom, but a lot about meddling, more about the influence of lobbying, and everything about bribery. The US does not really have confidence in freedom. It's too early to tell how the Egyptian outbreak and its deposing of Mubarek will play out. But it's not too early to recognize that once again the US demonstrates that it has neither confidence in people asserting their freedom in the hope of self-determination. Like the US public, the Egyptian demonstraters are seen as children needed guidance from Uncle Sam.
lol
>As for Bradley's reference to crafting a positon based on knowledge, knolwedge is not the most important factor under the circumstances (though I'm not dismissing knowledge). What was--and maybe still is--the most important factor is the stance of the US;
What I'm trying to point out is that it looks to me the US is meddling, probably out of the mistaken belief that it has more influence than it does. As I see it, the US position in Egypt--i. e., with the Egyptian authorities and the public--is likely to be weakened because of the meddling. Thus the US meddling will inevitably be counterproductive--i. e., meddling because of illusions about its power and influence (yes, carrying into the Obama administration) with the only effect that the US will see some to considerable weakening of its position because meddling usually inspires ire.
The general point of my comment was that the US can always be counted on to have a lot to say about self-determination, but when it comes to actually letting others such as the Egyptians practice self-determination, the US aims to shape the situation if not to control it. And this usually has little to do with knowledge of a culture and its history or the aspirations and abilities of its people, but practically everything to do with the application of power and reaction of US political leaders to their own fears. Afghanistan is a case in point, though it's hard to see how US political leaders could make such a farce out of Egypt. But give them time.