Right Wing Nut House

My latest at FPM deals with the expected return of Vladimir Putin to the presidency of Russia, The stage managed announcement at the United Russia party congress on Friday, surprised few people, despite current President Dimitry Medvedev’s desire for a second term. It was apparently always going to be Putin and in the piece, I speculate about a third presidential term for him.

A sample:

Putin is supporting Medvedev for prime minister, which has caused a rift in the senior levels of government with reformers. Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, one of the only officials trusted by foreign investors in the Russian government, says he would step down if Medvedev was made prime minister. Kudrin wanted the office for himself and would chafe at serving under Medvedev again, given their disagreements over liberalization.

It is unlikely that Putin will radically change course, continuing the reforms begun by his successor, simply because he will have to. “Russians will continue down the road of privatization and diversification away from oil, not because they like to, but because they will be forced to,” said Ivan Tchakarov, chief economist for Renaissance, a Moscow investment bank.

Might economic problems at home curtail Putin’s aggressively anti-Western foreign policy? Closer to home, this might be the case. Russia will always see the former Soviet republics in its sphere of influence and open to meddling, but Eastern Europe could be a different story. It is likely that Putin will refrain from openly threatening the former Soviet satellites, as he did when he bullied Poland and the Czech Republic into refusing the offer of a US missile shield. As much as his nationalist outlook would cause him to seek to influence former Warsaw Pact nations, he will need their investment and markets in the next few years as Russia moves from an export to an import economy.

But it is in the Middle East where Putin will cause the most trouble. He will no doubt continue the current policy toward Iran, partnering with the Islamic Republic on weapons sales and the transfer of nuclear technology. This almost certainly means there isn’t much chance of Russia voting for more stringent sanctions against Iran at the UN to prevent them from building a bomb. Russia is already playing a key role in the Iranian nuclear industry, agreeing to remove used fuel rods from the now operational reactor at Bushehr and taking them back to Russia for processing. Russian technicians are also training Iranian personnel at the plant, which would make a military strike on the reactor very hazardous, as it would likely lead to the death of Russian citizens.

The White House is putting on a brave face regarding Putin’s expected return to the presidency. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said that “the reset has always been about national interests and not individual personalities.” This may be true, but it was also clear that the administration and the State Department preferred dealing with President Medvedev, he being seen as more pragmatic and reform-minded. The US also believed that it might even wean Medvedev from Putin’s control.

In truth, as the Guardian points out, this was wishful thinking:

Over the past four years Medvedev has done nothing to dispel the impression that he is anything other than a useful seatwarmer, his time in the Kremlin a legalistic blip in an epoch of endless Putin rule.

If anything, the orchestrated announcement that Putin would be a candidate for president shows that it was always Putin in the driver’s seat and Medvedev a very junior partner in their “tandem” governing arrangement.

A Republican in the White House would make a difference in our relations with Russia only at the margins. Unless it was a hard core conservative ideologue, arms control would still be a priority as would cooperation on issues relating to nuclear proliferation. These  are  so clearly in the interest of the US that only someone besotted with ideological fervor would cut off our nose to spite our face and ignore them.

I think a Republican president might have second thoughts about sponsoring Russia for membership in the WTO - or at least try to tie our support to an issue like Iran sanctions or Russian assistance with peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. But it apparently wouldn’t bother Putin that much if we refused to sponsor Russia’s membership since he doesn’t think much of the organization.

If Obama is re-elected, the danger I see with Russia is his overarching desire to leave a mark on history. This could lead to too many dangerous concessions in arms control agreements at a stage in negotiations where it is critical we maintain some semblance of a useful deterrent. Of course, this desire is not unknown among presidents from Washington to Bush. But Obama truly sees himself as a world-historical figure and his high opinion of himself may lead us into dangerous territory.

Russia hasn’t been anything like a democracy in the last 15 years. Our own diplomats, according to Wikileaks, refers to the Putin-Medvedev tandem as a “mafia government.” A third Putin term will see further consolidation of state control and an erosion of what’s left of freedom.

Very bad situation in Yemen. In what may be the only realistic chance of democratic change in all the “Arab Spring” countries, President Saleh has gone all Bashar Assad on us and begun to shell and shoot down civilians at will in the street.

My FPM article today recounts the horrors of this past weekend:

Violence exploded across Yemen over the weekend and through Monday, as protesters throughout the country were met with live fire from military units loyal to President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

The number of dead in just three days is at least 75, with 26 killed and more than 350 wounded in the capital city of Sanaa alone. Hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into the streets in several cities, demonstrating as they have for eight months against the oppressive Saleh regime, while rebel military units fought pitched battles in the streets with regime forces. Major General Ali Mohsin Saleh Ahmar’s 1st Armored Division, an opposition mainstay since he defected in March, exchanged artillery fire with Saleh’s Republican Guard in the streets of Sanaa, causing many casualties among the protesters.

Yemen has been placed on the backburner for the last several months by the US and its allies, as first the Libyan operation and then the violence in Syria overshadowed the struggle in Yemen for political change that has dragged on since the early months of 2011. The chaos has opened the door for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to dig in and strengthen its hold in the south. The terrorists have also been able to expand their operations outside of Yemen, thanks to the lack of  control in the region by the government. And there is no end in sight to the conflict despite efforts by Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to find a political solution that would satisfy President Saleh, the protesters in the streets, and the largest opposition bloc, the Joint Meeting Parties (JMP).

Some of the demonstrators want the rebel army to stop shooting because it is mostly civilians who are getting caught in the crossfire. One young revolutionary said, “I am upset and angry. My friend has been severely injured. I curse Ahmar’s soldiers and I curse the troops of the regime.” He added, “The demonstrators wanted this revolution to be peaceful, but the soldiers on both sides want this to turn into a civil war.”

Snipers took aim at the civilians from rooftops near Change Square, the epicenter of the revolt, gunning down children as young as 4 years old and exacting a fearful toll on the unarmed demonstrators.

Satisfying Saleh appears to be a near impossibility. Three times since the outbreak of the “Arab Spring” began last February, Saleh has promised to step down and make way for a transitional government. And three times he has reneged, or the opposition has objected to his conditions. His ploy to delay and muddy the waters of any deal that has been proposed has worked — Yemen has fallen out of the headlines and the US moved on to deal with other crises. This has left Saudi Arabia to try and work out a deal that would be acceptable to both sides.

But, as Marc Lynch points out in his blog at Foreign Policy, Saudi interests are definitely not those of the protesters. The US and the international community “essentially delegated the Yemen file to Saudi Arabia and the GCC, which quickly proved that it was either not up to the task or not interested in finding a real solution.” The last thing that King Abdullah wants to see is a democratic revolution on his doorstep. Instead, he has sought to guide the two parties to reach an agreement that would leave Saleh in power for a period of time, while elections were scheduled. Saleh has deputized his vice president to negotiate a deal with the JMP using the GCC framework as a basis for an agreement. But significantly, he is refusing to step down until elections could be held. And the way his negotiators are talking, it could be six months or more before that eventuality occurs.

The US hasn’t covered itself in glory with regards to pushing for Saleh to leave. In fact, we’re talking out of both sides of our mouth. While we give lip service to the protestors, we are working very closely with Saleh’s government to battle Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Penninsula. Obama has increased drone strikes on AQAP  targets and the CIA is constructing a base to better facilitate our attacks.

Not a satisfying turn of events.

Here’s my latest up at FPM: Israel’s carefully wrought diplomacy has fallen apart over the last few months.

A sample:

It is surprising how quickly Israel’s relations with Turkey have gone south. They had been slowly deteriorating since Prime Minister Erdogan’s Islamist party took over the government in 2003. But the Mavi Marmara incident last year, where Turkish radicals tried to run the Gaza blockade by sea and 9 activists were killed, has accelerated the decline dramatically. A UN report released last week blamed Israel for actions that were “excessive and unreasonable,” while also blaming Turkey and organizers of the blockade runners for the deaths. The report also called the blockade “legitimate,” while criticizing Ankara for not warning activists of the consequences of trying to run the blockade.

On the heels of the report’s release, Prime Minister Erdogan demanded that Israel apologize. Prime Minister Netanyahu, while offering his regrets at the loss of life, refused, saying that Israel would never apologize for defending itself.

This was not good enough for Erdogan, who expelled the Israeli ambassador and cut military ties with the Jewish state. And in an interview with Al Jazeera television, Erdogan stated that the Gaza flotilla raid was “a cause for war” and that future Gaza-bound aid ships would be accompanied by Turkish war ships. He has since walked back from that last statement, saying that Turkey would not deploy its ships as long as Israel did not intercept the aid vessels in international waters. But the threat is there, and a clash between the Israeli and Turkish navies is a possibility if Erdogan carries through on his threat.

Erdogan’s government has now completely turned away from the West and is facing toward Iran and the Middle East. Some observers believe Erdogan wishes to supplant President Ahmadinejad of Iran as the number one champion of the Palestinians in the region. To that end, Erdogan has embarked on a tour of Arab nations, including Egypt, where he arrived to cheering throngs who chanted “Egypt-Turkey: one fist” and “brave Erdogan welcome to your second home.” His goal is to isolate Israel even further by developing a strategic partnership with Egypt, Tunisia, and other Arab countries. Given his anti-Israeli stance, he has become very popular on the Arab street and especially in Egypt, where the Israeli embassy was overrun by a mob of protesters over the weekend, forcing a harrowing evacuation of embassy personnel, including the ambassador.

The attack on the embassy was the second in less than a month. The first incident occurred following a terrorist attack in Israel that killed seven civilians and two soldiers. The attackers infiltrated into Israel from the Egyptian side of the Sinai border crossing, and in hot pursuit of the terrorists - who were reportedly dressed in Egyptian police uniforms - three members of Egyptian security were accidentally killed by the IDF. The incident resulted in a crowd of several thousand besieging the Israeli embassy, with one man ascending to the roof of the building and tearing down the Israeli flag and replacing it with the Egyptian standard, while police and military members stood by and watched.

The second incident occurred on Friday, when thousands of Egyptians broke through the wall surrounding the embassy, trapping the ambassador and other personnel inside the building while the mob vandalized several rooms. Repeated calls to the Egyptian head of state, Field Marshal Tantawi, by US defense secretary Leon Panetta went for naught when the authorities claimed the field marshal couldn’t be found. Panetta wanted to urge the Egyptians to launch an immediate rescue operation, but Tantawi’s mysterious disappearance intensified speculation that Egypt’s generals had deliberately failed to protect the embassy for political gain.

Eventually, Egyptian commandos rescued the Israelis, but only after Panetta warned the Egyptian government of “serious consequences” if any Israelis were killed.

There are some analysts who believe that a general Middle East war is becoming more possible as a result of Israel’s growing isolation and her enemies becoming emboldened because of it. There is also the question of instability in Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, and Yemen that is throwing up leaders who are not only hostile to the Jewish state, but lead populations that wish to destroy her. Many of those leaders are going to be Islamists or beholden to the radicals for their election victories. This spells nothing but trouble for Israel.

This is going to put Israel on a hair trigger defense posture. It is not inconceivable that conflict could break out in any number of areas as new leadership in the Arab world is driven to war by populations that desire Israel’s destruction.

A dangerous couple of years are ahead for Israel and its Arab neighbors.

A troubling disconnect between Assad’s brutality and the Arab League’s “peace plan” and the Red Cross efforts to visit detainees as I point out in my latest at FPM.

A sample:

Despite the Red Cross finally being allowed to visit some detainees held in an Interior Ministry prison outside of Damascus, there appears to be a disconnect between the brutal actions of the Syrian government, and the efforts by the Arab League and Red Cross to deal with the crackdown. In statements made by the representative of the Red Cross, Jakob Kellenberger, it appears that the pacifist organization is unable to grasp the enormity of the crimes against humanity being committed by Assad and his generals.

After expressing the hope that the Red Cross would be able to visit other prisoners being detained by the regime, Kellenberger said of the ICRC’s visit, “This is an important step forward for our humanitarian activities in Syria.” He also met with President Assad and discussed “the rules governing the use of force by security forces in the current situation and the obligation to respect the physical and psychological well-being and human dignity of detainees.”

For five months Assad has been using tanks against civilians and the Red Cross bureaucrat is lecturing Assad about “rules” and “obligations?”

Nobody has any idea how many Syrian civilians have been detained so far. Human rights groups put the number of detainees in the “tens of thousands.” Desperate families have no idea where their loved ones are being held, or even if they are still alive. Those few who have been released have told stories of torture and murder in the prisons. Amnesty International recently released a report detailing the deaths of 88 civilians who were detained by the army. Fifty-two of the bodies showed signs of torture. Amnesty International researcher Neil Sammonds said, “The accounts of torture we have received are horrific.” He added, “We believe the Syrian government to be systematically persecuting its own people on a vast scale.”

Meanwhile, the plan created by the Arab League is completely unacceptable to the protestors, never mind it being heavily criticized by the Syrian government. According to AFP, the document asks Assad to hold elections within three years, move toward a pluralistic government, and immediately halt the crackdown. SG al-Arabi said it was necessary “to carry a clear message to the Syrian authorities about the situation in Syria and the need to stop the violence and launch immediate reforms.” The League’s proposal also includes a requirement that most of their own governments don’t even follow: Assad must “separate the military from political and civil life.”

What makes this statement so surreal – and the effort behind it – is that opposition to the Assad regime has moved far beyond these paltry efforts to “reform” the political process. The protestors want Assad gone one way or another. One activist expressed the hope that the army would take the initiative and overthrow the dictator. “We think the army will one day make a coup. It would make the situation much easier,” he said. So far, that seems a forlorn hope. And the prospect of allowing Assad to serve another three years waiting for elections is a total non-starter with the opposition. In short, most elements in the plan are not based on the reality of what is happening in the streets.

The Arab League’s plan is not only unacceptable to the opposition, the Syrian government has all but rejected it out of hand. Hence, the request that SG al-Arabi cool his heels in Egypt and wait for a more propitious time to make his pitch. The semi-official Syrian news agency SANA reports that Damascus told al-Arabi, that the delay was necessary “due to circumstances beyond our control.” The agency added, “He [al-Arabi] has been informed of those circumstances and a new date will be set for his visit.”

Given the vagueness of the Syrian government’s statement about when that might be, one could assume that an invitation will be a long time coming.

The Arab League is a joke - always has been - but this effort is just gobsmackingly dumb. None of them really want to do anything because someday, they might be forced into the same situation as Assad and want to keep their options open as far as slaughtering their own citizens. They don’t want to intervene in Syria, just as they didn’t want to intervene in Libya. But the conscience of the world shamed them into supporting (or at least giving lip service) to the NATO mission.

The Red Cross seems truly oblivious to the manifestation of evil found in Assad’s Syria. To believe that Assad cares what they think about “rules” of behavior or “obligations” to respect the “dignity” of detainees is just plain weird. I suppose an organization like the ICRC is necessary but they make fools of themselves when injecting themselves into tragedies they simply can’t understand.

The Security Council is being blocked from extending sanctions by Russia and China who don’t think the game is up for Assad quite yet and are hedging their bets that he will find a way to survive. Those are pretty long odds from where I’m sitting. The protestors aren’t going away, the opposition is getting better organized by the week, and the military is becoming less reliable with every killing in the streets. There’s nothing Assad can do to “reform” the political process that would put the genie back in the bottle and stop the demonstrations, so he’s going to have to continue trying to suppress the revolt using terror tactics.

How long that can continue before the world, the Syrian army, or his own inner circle move to stop him is anyone’s guess.

This is a below the radar story that is getting some traction in the western press, but not much here in the US. Black sub-Saharan migrant workers - as well as black Libyans who make up about a quarter of the population - are suffering what has the makings of a real tragedy as rebel soldiers (and anyone with a gun) is terrorizing just about anyone with a black face.

There have been massive roundups of black males in Tripoli and they are being held in primitive, unsanitary conditions. There are reports that some of the prisoners have been brutalized while others have been shot dead.

The NTC is saying all the right words but it is doubtful if they have much control of the situation.

From my piece at FPM this morning:

There is no firm number of blacks being held in Tripoli, but one rebel commander said that about 5,000 prisoners were being detained in several locations around the city. Human rights groups believe the number is much higher and have raised the alarm about the conditions in which prisoners are being held, as well as concern over the safety of all blacks in Libya. The African Union has withheld recognition of the National Transitional Council, taking them to task for what they view as a racist detention policy. And the NTC has rejected a UN offer of peacekeeping troops to “monitor” the situation.

The NTC has called on its soldiers not to abuse the prisoners, saying those charged with crimes will be given a fair trial. But there are many young men with guns roaming the streets, some of them robbing and beating innocents, with many reports of summary executions. Amnesty International has documented one gruesome atrocity outside of a hospital where 30 bodies, all of them black, were found to have been massacred.

And the rebels’ racism is not confined to black Africans. PJ Media’s John Rosenthal documented dozens of examples of anti-Semetic graffiti in Benghazi after that city fell into rebel hands, as well as many examples of black Africans being singled out for brutal treatment.

“Libyan people don’t like people with dark skins,” one militiaman said in reference to the arrests of blacks. That is certainly one reason for the indiscriminate nature of the round ups. But the rumors — apparently overblown, or downright false — that Gaddafi had hired black African mercenaries from Chad and elsewhere to act as executioners of Libyan civilians, gunning them down in cold blood during protests, has particularly poisoned the minds of many Libyans and has contributed to the racial tensions in the post-Gaddafi era. Representatives from both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch say they have investigated the claims by rebels of African mercenaries committing atrocities and have been unable to verify any of the rumors about them. This may be a case of rebel propaganda blowing back and putting thousands of innocents in danger.

There is also an historical context to be considered when talking about racism in Libya. As Stephen Brown pointed out in FPM last April, since the 7th century, 14 million blacks have been sold into slavery in Arab countries. This has resulted in a kind of racism not seen in America for decades, where blacks are considered sub-human and not fit for any task except those that an Arab considers beneath him. One African columnist writes, “In Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Mauritania and the rest of the Arab world, Africans are treated like scum.” In marketplaces, Arabs throw stones at blacks, while preventing them from achieving any positions of authority in Arab countries. “There are hardly any Africans in high government positions in Arab governed countries…It is simply a way of life that’s all. Blacks do not really exist or at best are not human.”

With history — both recent and ancient — working against the black African workers that Gaddafi exploited and discriminated against, the mass arrests have angered the African Union to the point that they are refusing to recognize the NTC until they are assured that their citizens are protected by the new government. “NTC seems to confuse black people with mercenaries,” AU chairman Jean Ping said.”All blacks are mercenaries. If you do that, it means [that the] one-third of the population of Libya, which is black, is also mercenaries. They are killing people, normal workers, mistreating them,” he said.

The AU has also not withdrawn its “roadmap” that called for Gaddafi to remain in power while a transition to a new government was undertaken. This has not enamored the organization with rebel leaders who deny claims of mass roundups and racially motivated killings.

But several western news organizations would disagree with those denials. Reuters reports on a camp that desperate black Africans have set up along the sea shore where refugees tell grim stories of murder, robbery, and beatings at the hands of young Libyans who accost any male with a black face and are likely to haul them off to one of dozens of detention centers in the Libyan capitol.

The NTC won’t even allow UN observers to help, much less peacekeepers. And no one knows what’s happening in the hinterlands where there are few western reporters and even fewer human rights watchers.

It appears that unless the NTC can somehow get a grip on the security situation that something very ugly is going to happen in Libya that will expose western pretensions about how “successful” the “Responsibility to Protect” mission in Libya actually was.

My latest from FPM is up and I look at Libya as the nation transitions from Gaddafi’s murderous rule.

A sample:

How much more fighting needs to be done is unknown, but despite the army’s disintegration, there is still a hard core of several thousand militiamen bound to Gaddafi by tribal and clan ties who might be expected to fight to the end. Most have left Tripoli and either melted back into civilian society, blending in among their relatives and tribe or, as some have speculated, headed toward Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte where clashes between loyalists and rebels broke out following the apparent capture of Tripoli.

The Tripoli operation had been in the works for months. Ex-pat Libyans who fought in the war with Chad back in the 1980s, but had a falling out with Gaddafi, formed “The Libyan Salvation Front,” taking raw recruits, training them in the western mountains, and then deploying them along the road to Tripoli. Qatar also sent troops to train these “Tripoli Brigades,” who were the vanguard in the assault on the capital.

The NTC, with NATO’s help, also formed irregular armed units inside the city limits of Tripoli itself. They were activated when the Tripoli Brigades approached the city, probably using mosques to pass messages from the TNC to the “sleeper cells.” An amphibious assault from Misrata delivered hundreds of the rebels’ most experienced fighters. The months-long siege of that port city forged troops experienced in urban fighting, and this stood the rebellion in good stead when it began to systematically clear neighborhoods of armed resistance.

[...]

But regardless of what fate befalls Gaddafi, the TNC has a monumental job ahead of it. The council announced that several TNC officials had arrived in Tripoli to oversee the transition. Meanwhile, the US will ask the UN Security Council to immediately release $1.5 billion in frozen assets by the end of the week. This should set the stage for the release of another $5 billion requested by the TNC who face a humanitarian crisis without an immediate infusion of cash.

Surprising opposition to the release of more funds is coming from South Africa, which does not object in principle to releasing money for humanitarian concerns, but is balking at recognizing the TNC as a legitimate government. The South Africans want to confer with the African Union and wish to delay the release of the bulk of the funds. “Every other member of the council is supportive so we’re hopeful things will progress,” one Western diplomat said. All told, there are $160 billion in frozen assets being held up by the UN and Western banks.

But the major immediate concern for the TNC is security. To that end, they have asked the police to remain at their posts, although those wanted for crimes during the crackdown will be arrested and tried.

Of great concern is the fact that there are thousands of ill-trained young men walking around the city of Tripoli with automatic weapons and setting up make-shift checkpoints. The task of organizing security will be done in conjunction with several other nations including Jordan, Britain, France, and Qatar. Western troops are not expected to take part in securing the country.

The really big challenge facing the TNC is unity. Secularists, Islamists, democrats, socialists - they don’t seem able to agree on much of anything. How that shakes out over the next few months will determine Libya’s ultimate fate.

My latest at FPM is up and its about the Egypt-Israel diplomatic row over the border incident last Thursday where 5 Egyptian policemen were killed by the IDF as the Israelis were in hot pursuit of Hamas terrorists who killed 8 civilians near Eliat. The subsequent rocket attacks by Hamas and air strikes by Israel in Gaza is also discussed.

A sample:

Opposition leader Tzipi Livni said on Friday, “The border with Egypt is no longer a peaceful border and we need to change the way we treat it.” Egypt denies claims that the terrorists infiltrated into Israel from the Sinai, and also scoffs at the notion that the border security has weakened in the region since the fall of Mubarak. Israel thinks that the Egyptian army doesn’t see guarding the border with Israel as a top priority anymore. Indeed, attacks on the gas pipeline that supplies Israel and Jordan proves the Israeli’s point. No doubt, the government will be forced to address this additional threat to Israel by beefing up security along the 250 mile-long border.

The deaths of the Egyptian policemen who engaged Israeli forces in hot pursuit of the terrorists has angered the Egyptian people and government. The Egyptian government threatened to recall its ambassador to Israel if the Israelis didn’t apologize for the killings. Late Sunday, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak issued a formal statement saying, “Israel is sorry for the deaths of Egyptian policemen during the attack along the Egyptian-Israeli border,” while a foreign ministry spokesman said in another statement that “Israel expresses deep regret” over the incident. Barak also called for a joint investigation of the incident with the Egyptian military.

The Egyptian cabinet refused to accept the apologies because it was “not in keeping with the magnitude of the incident and the state of Egyptian anger toward Israeli actions.”  But even though it appears Israel’s statements of regret was rejected, there are conflicting reports whether or not the Egyptian ambassador has been recalled. The Israelis claim they have received no information from the Egyptian government that any kind of rupture was imminent.

A statement issued after a second cabinet meeting on Saturday was much more provocative, saying in part, “Egyptian blood is not cheap and the government will not accept that Egyptian blood gets shed for nothing.”

The incident provided a ready pretext for venomous street demonstrations, as thousands of protesters gathered in front of the Israeli embassy. In an incident illustrative of the Egyptian military’s changed attitude toward Israel since the fall of Mubarak, a young man climbed to the roof of the Israeli embassy, tore down the Star of David flag and hoisted an Egyptian standard. The act electrified the crowd of demonstrators and, soon thereafter, the entire Arab world, as the news was spread via Twitter and other social media. The incident occurred despite hundreds of Egyptian soldiers and police watching the demonstrators and supposedly guarding the embassy.

As the crowd cheered the act and fireworks went off, the symbolism could not be ignored; the Egyptian people, having thrown off the despotic yoke of the Mubarak regime, felt free to give full voice to their anti-Semitic sentiments without fear of repercussions. The burning of Israeli flags, the protesting in front of the embassy, and outward shows of animosity to the Jewish state, were unheard of in Mubarak’s time. And the military government, cognizant of deep-seated Egyptian Jew-hatred and what was seen as the weakness of the Mubarak regime in not being more hostile to Israel or the United States, feels obliged to allow the outward manifestations of this sentiment.

You don’t have to advocate for military intervention to be terribly disturbed by our Syrian policy these last few months. The UN report detailing what’s been going on in Assad’s charnel house shows the moral bankruptcy of a policy that isn’t predicated on preventing civilian deaths but rather the cynical notion that the rest of the world hates us because we can be too aggressive in standing up for what we believe is right.

That is the essence of a “lead from behind” foreign policy. I might add that there is nothing inherently wrong with such a policy. The last 2 decades of American nation building and military intervention actually recommends that we walk a little softer and are more cognizant of the interests of other nations.

But events in Syria demanded we go it alone if necessary. And I don’t think we would have. History has shown that America can make a difference in bringing the rest of the world around to a specific moral position if we take the lead. Besides, the administration explanation that it took time to line up support for Assad’s ouster rings hollow and borders on fabrication. As I point out in my latest at FPM, the administration dilly dallied for 5 long months before even beginning the process of lining up support in the international  community to demand Assad step down. Then, it took less than two weeks to do so:

Why did it take so long? When the protests started in March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying, “There’s a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress of both parties who have gone to Syria in recent months have said they believe he’s a reformer.” The administration believed at the time that the protests would put pressure on the Syrian dictator to initiate changes in Syrian political society, forcing him to open a dialogue with the opposition.

This attitude turned out to be a product of wishful thinking rather than reasoned analysis. No sooner had Clinton made that curious statement did Assad begin his butchery. It wasn’t until late April that the administration issued its first set of sanctions against the Syrian regime. The second set, targeting Assad and his cronies, came two weeks later. It was shortly after that, on May 19, that Obama delivered his speech on the so-called Arab Spring, saying, “President Assad now has a choice: He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.”

Still short of calling for the Syrian strongman’s ouster, it wasn’t until July that Hillary Clinton claimed that Assad had “lost legitimacy.” This milquetoast statement by the administration stood until the beginning of this month — after 1,500 Syrians had already been massacred — when the US finally began to gather international support for Assad’s resignation.

Much has been made of the statement by an Obama national security staffer in a New Yorker article that the president was “leading from behind” on the Libya issue. The statement encompasses the worldview of the president and most of his advisers, who believe that the status of the United States as the only superpower in the world is detrimental to international relations and that we should be “first among equals” when it comes to building coalitions and consensus on world issues.

Clearly, our actions relating to Syria is another example of that policy. Rather than getting out in front of events and trying to influence them, the administration hung back, watching to see if other nations would take the lead in advocating what is clearly the moral course of action: putting pressure on Assad to leave. That it took five torturous months with Syrian tanks blasting their way into dozens of cities and towns killing thousands does not speak well of the “lead from behind” policy nor the president who oversees it. Obama’s statement roused analyst Michael Ledeen to write, “After months of slaughter, as jaws dropped all over what used to be called The Western World at the spectacle of an American leader who danced all around one of the clearest moral and strategic imperatives EVER, we finally get this [statement].”

Decline by choice? I think there’s something to that. As I’ve said on numerous occasions on this site, if America didn’t exist, the international community would have to invent us. We are a convenient whipping boy, as well as being a tremendous force  - perhaps the only force in the world - for selfless good. Nobody thinks it unusual when we send aircraft carriers to the sites of natural disasters, saving thousands of lives. And while the world might frown on us taking out a dictator like Saddam, or unredeemed mountebanks like the Taliban, they always leave a small place in their hearts where they cheer us on.

No, we shouldn’t take out a thug like Assad with our military. But our actions can create the conditions where he cannot survive in power. Yesterday, the administration finally took the first step toward that goal. That thousands of innocent Syrians died before they managed to rouse themselves and reach that conclusion is a moral failing.

My latest at FPM is about the shocking series of bombings and attacks yesterday in Iraq that claimed at least 90 lives and wounded hundreds.

Can we afford to leave Iraq? A sample:

The growing extremism is a consequence of Iraq’s drift into the orbit of Iran. If any evidence is required regarding how close that relationship is getting, one need look no further than the shocking statement by Prime Minister Maliki last week taking the side of Syrian President Assad against the protesters seeking to bring him down. While every other Arab government in the region has condemned Assad’s brutal crackdown, only Iran and Iraq have offered words of support. Maliki accused the protesters of trying to “sabotage” the state while hosting a Syrian government delegation. Maliki also welcomed Syria’s foreign minister last month. A Shia ally of the prime minister was quoted in the New York Times saying that the goal of Israel and the Gulf States “is to use the sectarian differences between the Shiite ruling family in Syria and the Sunni majority” for their own purposes. He said that if the protesters win, al-Qaeda will rule in Syria — a parroting of the official Syrian government line justifying the crackdown.

But Maliki owes everything to the Iranians and Syrians. They engineered his selection as prime minister following elections last year despite his secular rival, Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya party, winning the election. “Maliki is very reliant on Iran for his power and Iran is backing Syria all the way. The Iranians and the Syrians were all critical to bringing him to power a year ago,” said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group.

The real disease that afflicts the Iraqi government is indecision. With 40 ministers in the cabinet, a fractious parliament, and beset on all sides by extremists, the Maliki government gets very little done. For example, the speaker of the Iraq parliament — a Sunni — is not following the government line on the crackdown in Syria, issuing a statement saying, “For the sake of the Syrian people we demand the government, out of its responsibility to safeguard the lives of its people and their property, take the bold and courageous steps to stop the bleeding.” Indeed, as Hiltermann points out, the Syrian crackdown is serving as a wedge issue, with Shias supporting Assad, and Sunnis sympathizing with the protestors. Maliki is caught in the middle, making feeble attempts at reform, but as the bombings today show, he has very little room to maneuver. People are angry and are laying the blame at his doorstep.

There is also the depressing reality that questions the loyalty of the Iraqi army to the state, and the machinations of the Interior Ministry that has always been a hot bed of Iranian influence in the government. A professor of political science at Baghdad University, Hamid Fhadil, points out that the security forces are often more loyal to al-Qaeda or the Shia militias. “It’s hard to talk about the existence of an Iraqi Army and a Ministry of Interior without them being loyal to Iraq,” he observed.

Iraq is broke and we can’t fix it. Time to leave and accept the consequences of a failed policy and failed experiment.

My take, up at FPM, on the debate last night:

The debate, sponsored by Fox News, the Washington Examiner, and the Iowa Republican Party, saw sparks fly early and often. Candidates directed most of their fire at President Obama, but Mitt Romney came in for his share of criticism and the two Minnesotans, Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Governor Tim Pawlenty, had several testy exchanges with Pawlenty criticizing Bachmann for what he termed her lack of a record while Bachmann charged that Pawlenty supported some of the policies of President Obama.

Pawlenty started the spat by accusing Bachmann of standing by in Congress while health care reform and other Obama proposals were enacted into law. “[H]er record of accomplishments and results is nonexistent,” said Pawlenty.

Bachmann shot back, listing issues to which Pawlenty appeared to agree with Obama. She said that Pawlenty “implemented cap and trade,” that he supported an “unconstitutional” individual mandate, and that he once said that “the era of small government is over.” The two combatants glared at each other as the exchange continued in that vein for several minutes.

Pawlenty must feel that he needs to open some daylight between himself and Bachmann, but his manner of doing so was perhaps too harsh. For her part, Bachmann more than held her own but seemed a little taken aback by the directness of Pawlenty’s assault. Both candidates righted themselves almost immediately and performed well for the rest of the debate.

Indeed, there appeared to be no clear winner for the evening. Mitt Romney made no major gaffes and seemed content to lurk in the background as the second tier candidates battered each other. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum criticized Rep. Bachmann for not going to Iowa to campaign against three state judges who ruled in favor of legalizing gay marriage, and almost everyone criticized Ron Paul for his curious stance on Iran.

Paul is expected to do well in the straw poll on Saturday, given the passionate support he receives around the country and his impressive ability to raise money on the Internet. But his stated belief that Iran should have nuclear weapons if it wants them no doubt reminded voters that many of the Texas congressman’s views are not in the mainstream of the party and indeed, are “fringe” positions.

Santorum and Herman Cain performed well but did not get to distinguish themselves as they appeared to be shorted in air time by the panel of journalists asking the questions. Former Utah governor and ambassador to China Jon Huntsman got plenty of questions directed his way, but his compatibility with much of the Republican Party is suspect. His answers showed him to be even less conservative than Mitt Romney, and he failed to adequately defend his positions on amnesty and gay marriage.

Huntsman, Romney, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich have opted out of participating in the Ames Straw Poll, each for pretty much the same reason: they don’t have a chance of winning in Ames and will not compete very well in the caucuses next January. Gingrich has drawn a line in the sand in South Carolina, while Romney and Huntsman are pointing to the New Hampshire primary for their supreme early efforts.