A Perspective … in the end it’s all about disclosure & transparency
…THE POSITION PAPER BELOW BY DICK MORRIS OFFERS AN INTERESTING PERSPECTIVE THAT AMERICA MIGHT CHOOSE TO CONSIDER …
… AMERICA IS NERVOUS THAT …“OTHERS” … APPEAR TO BE LAYING IN WAIT FOR EGYPT TO FALL ALLOWING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SWOOP IN AND TAKE OVER …
…THIS IS THE M.O. THAT AMERICA SUCCESSFULLY UTILIZED FOR YEARS …
…AS OUR LEADERS SOUGHT TO IMPOSE OUR VERSION OF DEMOCRACY AND FREE-ENTERPRISE CAPITALISM ON NATIONS WE COVERTLY UNDERMINED TO SEE FALL …
…LOOKS LIKE THE SHOE IS ON ANOTHER’S FOOT AND WE DON’T LIKE IT…?
WHO LOST EGYPT … ? ….By DICK MORRIS… Published on DickMorris.com on January 29, 2011 …http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/
In the 1950s, the accusation “who lost China” resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt?
The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.
… THE POSITION PAPER BY JEFF COHEN TO FOLLOW OFFERS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE ABOUT EGYPT & AMERICAN INTERVENTION …
US Cynicism Explodes in Egypt … By Jeff Cohen … January 29, 2011
Editor’s Note: As a popular uprising challenges the pro-U.S. dictatorship in Egypt, Washington’s cynical strategy of talking about democracy while relying on repressive Arab regimes to maintain order is entering a dangerous moment.
The course of this history could have been quite different, as Jeff Cohen notes in this guest essay:
In the last year of his life, Martin Luther King Jr.questioned U.S. military interventions against progressive movements in the Third World by invoking a JFK quote: “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
Were he alive to have witnessed the last three decades of U.S. foreign policy, King might update that quote by noting: “Those who make secular revolution impossible will make extreme Islamist revolution inevitable.”
For decades beginning during the Cold War, U.S. policy in the Islamic world has been aimed at suppressing secular reformist and leftist movements.
Beginning with the CIA-engineered coup against a secular democratic reform government in Iran in 1953 (it was about oil), Washington has propped up dictators, coaching these regimes in the black arts of torture and mayhem against secular liberals and the Left.
In these dictatorships, often the only places where people had freedom to meet and organize were mosques — and out of these mosques sometimes grew extreme Islamist movements. The Shah’s torture state in Iran was brilliant at cleansing and murdering the Left – a process that helped the rise of the Khomeini movement and ultimately Iran’s Islamic Republic.
Growing out of what M.L. King called Washington’s “irrational, obsessive anti-communism,” U.S. foreign policy also backed extreme Islamists over secular movements or government that were either Soviet-allied or feared to be.
In Afghanistan, beginning before the Soviet invasion and evolving into the biggest CIA covert operation of the 1980s, the U.S. armed and trained native mujahedeen fighters — some of whom went on to form the Taliban. To aid the mujahedeen, the U.S. recruited and brought to Afghanistan religious fanatics from the Arab world — some of whom went on to form Al Qaeda.
(Like these Washington geniuses, Israeli intelligence — in a divide-and-conquer scheme aimed at combating secular leftist Palestinians — covertly funded Islamist militants in the occupied territories who we now know as Hamas.)
This is hardly obscure history. … Except in U.S. mainstream media.
One of the mantras on U.S. television news all day Friday was: Be fearful of the democratic uprisings against U.S. allies in Egypt (and Tunisia and elsewhere). After all, we were told by Fox News and CNN and Chris Matthews on MSNBC, it could end up as bad as when “our ally” in Iran was overthrown and the extremists came to power in 1979.
Such talk comes easy in U.S. media where Egyptian victims of rape and torture in Mubarak’s jails are never seen. Where it’s rarely emphasized that weapons of repression used against Egyptian demonstrators are paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Where Mubarak is almost always called “president” and almost never “dictator” (unlike the elected president of Venezuela).
When U.S. media glibly talk about the Egyptian and Tunisian “presidents” being valued “allies in the war on terror,” it’s no surprise they offer no details about the prisoners the U.S. has renditioned to these “pro-Western” countries for torture.
The truth is that no one knows how these uprisings will end.
But revolution of some kind, as King said, seems inevitable. Washington’s corrupt Arab dictators will come down as surely (yet more organically) as that statue of Saddam, another former U.S.-ally.
If Washington took its heel off the Arab people and ended its embrace of the dictators, that could help secularists and democrats win hearts and minds against extreme Islamists.
Democracy is a great idea. Too bad it plays almost no role in U.S. foreign policy.
Filed under: Blogroll | Comments Off on …LOOKS LIKE THE SHOE IS ON ANOTHER’S FOOT AND WE DON’T LIKE IT…?