14. OBAMA STRIVES TO "CHANGE" AMERICA

OBAMA'S FOREIGN POLICY

The "Arab Spring" breaks out in Tunisia (2011).    Part of Obama's "New Look" included his widely watched televised speech "A New Beginning" that he delivered to the Arab world during a visit to Egypt in June of 2009.  In that speech, he emphasized his commitment to helping develop a greater spirit of personal freedom, political democracy and economic development in the Middle East, not exactly a novel ideal for Americans, for that had also been part of Bush, Jr's intent in Afghanistan and Iraq.  In short, America under Obama would remain in the business of supporting nation-building abroad.  Would this work any better than it had for Johnson in Vietnam, Carter in Iran, and Bush, Jr. in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Time would soon tell.

Troubles in the streets broke out in January of 2011, when Tunisian youth came out in huge numbers to protest a broad number of social issues that had them deeply angered.  With this, the "Arab Spring" got underway.

The protest was characterized by much electronic connect through computers and cell phones, and the active involvement of the media in dramatizing the event.  By the middle of the month Tunisian President Zine ben Ali had fled the country, and it seemed that the youth had achieved a tremendous political victory, although street action continued all the way up to October, when finally elections were held to appoint those who would write Tunisia's new Constitution.

The Arab Spring comes to Egypt.  But the rest of the Arab world was watching events in Tunisia closely.  And soon the youth of other Arab states took up the same cause:  to overthrow their long-standing governments, in order to replace them with new similarly "progressive" systems.  Egypt would be hit hard with this rising mood, as Egyptian youth camped out in Tahrir Square in Cairo with the intentions of outstaying the Egyptian police until the nearly 30-year-long regime of Hosni Mubarak was brought to an end (actually the elderly and very sick Mubarak was preparing his son, Gamal, to take over his position as Egyptian president.)

As the Cairo protest dragged on, Mubarak shut down the internet, but also made some efforts to appease the protesters with changes in the Egyptian government cabinet and the appointment of a Vice President (not part of the Mubarak family!).  But this hardly satisfied the protesters, whose numbers gathered in Tahrir Square merely increased (similar to the way things had developed over the days and weeks in Tiananmen Square in Beijing).  Seeing huge troubles developing, the Egyptian military finally stepped in and in mid-February arrested Mubarak and took control of the Egyptian government, promising constitutional reforms.  But still, the protesters remained encamped in Tahrir Square ... their numbers continuing to grow.

Now Egyptians found themselves fighting fellow Egyptians as the days, weeks and then months passed, the level of violence continuing to mount through the summer and into the fall.  Sectarian or religious-cultural violence became a key part of the chaos, as, for instance, Coptic Christians (about 10 percent of the population) became objects of Muslim retribution.  Also Muslim groups themselves turned on each other, as well as against the more culturally secular of the Egyptians.   By the time that elections for the new Constituent Assembly were held in November, Egypt was on the verge of civil war.

But hope ran high that elections under the new Egyptian constitution, held in May the following year (2012), would produce the step of Egypt into the world of democracy that Obama supported so strongly.  In those elections, Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammed Morsi won 51.7 percent of the vote, his Secularist opponent Ahmed Shafik coming close at 48.3 percent.  Obama was enthusiastic about the results and congratulated Morsi on this wonderful development.  But a wiser Shafik left the country, just before Morsi put out a warrant for his arrest.  So much for Third-World democracy.

And the chaotic situation in Egypt did not improve any – "forcing" Morsi to take an ever-stronger or dictatorial hand.  The situation grew so bad that finally, with not just Tahrir Square but the very streets of Cairo filled with anti-Morsi protesters, the Egyptian military again stepped in and deposed Morsi, finally bringing Egypt back to order.

Obama was furious over this violation of "democracy."  But he could say little about matters in Egypt when another election was held (with Muslim radicals boycotting the election) and former General / now President Sisi gaining huge Egyptian civilian support for his leadership.

Then Syria.  Meanwhile by mid-March of 2011, the mood of youthful protest had moved on to Syria, where protesters gathered in Damascus with their own list of demands for political and economic reform.  But as in Egypt, the demands became increasingly confusing as they intensified, some wanting more secular reform, others more Islamic reform, but deeply divided as well over whether that should take a Shi'ite or Sunni character.  Even more than Egypt, Syria was a complex mix of all sorts of sectarian groups, not only Sunni versus Shiite Muslims, but also Druzes (semi-Muslim), Christians (from various versions of Eastern Orthodox to equally culturally diverse Catholic groups), not to mention long-standing family, clan and tribal loyalties.  And of course there were a huge number of simply Secular Syrians, diverse in character as well.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was a member of the Alawi sect, part of Shi'ite Islam, but mostly Secular in political character.  He and his father before him had been holding this fragile social mix together, at times by forceful means.  Actually, at first protests were for simple reforms, not for any end to the Assad presidency.  But with time as the protests radicalized, they did indeed take on an anti-Assad position, which merely provoked an equally militant reaction of Assad supporters.  It was everything Assad could do to keep the country from falling into bitter civil war.

Then Libya.  There was also the matter of Libya, where the "Arab Spring" had hit that country in February.  Actually, in Libya the rebellion involved no more than a rivalry between the two chief cultural regions that made up the country, regions that had long competed against each other in that part of North Africa (Libya was assembled as a "nation" by the Italians in the early 1900s by lumping these mutually antagonistic regions into a single colonial holding).  Thus the Arab Spring in Libya entailed simply a civil struggle between the groups, one found mostly in the eastern part of the country with its political center in Benghazi and one in the western part of the country with its political base in Tripoli.  Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi held this together by building a strong political base in Tripoli, and keeping the country focused on foreign developments – which Gaddafi involved himself in constantly (and rather flamboyantly and recklessly) in order to keep his people distracted.

In the midst of all this confusion, Obama and his NATO allies (notably France) decided that this would be an opportune time to get rid of the very troublesome Gaddafi, and at the same time bring Libya to real democracy.  So they called for a no-fly zone over the country (meaning that Gaddafi could not use air power in the defense of his government), and then "enforced" this decision by flying their own missions in Libya to bomb his forces, and to supply his adversaries, most notably the National Transition Council (NTC).  And thus with considerable NATO (including American) support, the NTC was able to extend its position in Libya, until Gaddafi was trapped, caught and executed on the spot, all graphically displayed to the world.  In Libya, part of the country cheered; part of the country seethed.  But Obama felt well content that America and its NATO partners had just led Libya to the right kind of political dynamics.

The chaos worsens in Syria.  Meanwhile, back in Syria, there too the international community decided that it needed to get involved in helping return Syria to some kind of social order.  Shi'ite Iran decided that it needed to help fellow Shi'ite Assad in crushing the rebellion (which would also bring the reach of Iran all the way up to the Mediterranean Sea).  Russia's President Vladimir Putin noticed the same possibility of finding itself usefully stationed in Syria by offering Assad some military assistance (and thus also achieve in the process the long-sought goal of a Russian position in the eastern Mediterranean).  And the Turks next door were growing increasingly concerned about the violence spilling over into their country and wanted something done to stop the chaos.

Obama decided to "help" Syria (like the help offered Libya), demanding in August that Assad step down in order to allow his country to move to actual democracy (like Iraq?).  He was even more forceful in threatening Assad with "serious consequences" if he crossed a "red line" in the illegal use of chemical weapons and certain categories of bombs in his efforts to crush the rebellion.  But Assad was too busy trying to stop Syria's collapse into complete chaos to pay much attention to Obama's threats, and simply ignored them.  An embarrassed Obama ultimately came up with no compelling "consequences" and had to backtrack on his threats, prompting Putin to agree to step into the mess and help "mediate" between Obama and Assad.  But instead Putin moved to full support of Assad, at the same time that Obama (in cooperation with the Saudis) began sending arms, even tanks, to one of Assad's Sunni opposition groups.^[1]

But unlike Libya, Obama's intervention did not tip the balance in favor of a "democratic" group able to bring the war to a close by crushing Assad and his supporters.  The intervention simply intensified the violence all the more.

Worse, Sunni jihadists who were escaping Shi'ite dominance in Iraq, were able because of the total chaos prevailing in Syria not only to position themselves in the eastern half of the country bordering the Sunni lands of Iraq, but were even able to set up a new caliphate (Sunni Islam's highest religious-political office) as the nucleus of a new jihadist Islamic State, from which they could then cleanse the earth of unbelievers.

As for the vast majority of the Syrians, they now found themselves with only one serious alternative if they were to survive at all:  flee to other countries where they could live out at least a very minimal existence in refugee camps, or, if really lucky, possibly escape into Europe.  Millions of Syrians now took flight.  Syria was no longer a place fit for human habitation, thanks in great part to all the outside "help" the culturally-diverse country was getting.

Yet, with Russian and Iranian help, Assad was surviving.  And indeed, both Russia and Iran now found themselves positioned politically in a very strategic location along the Eastern Mediterranean coast.  Furthermore, a very violent form of Islam found itself well-based in the wastes of Eastern Syria and Northwestern Iraq, ready to take on the world.  And as for America, Obama had succeeded only in making America politically a persona non grata (unwanted personage) in what was left of life back in Syria.