An interesting analysis has appeared, written by the American geopolitical prodigy Ryan Mauro, in which he suggests that (like many Marxists before him), American President Barack Hussein Obama (a.k.a. Barry “Red Barry” Sotero) is now a convert to neoconservatism. Here is an excerpt:
Everyone was so focused on the part of President Obama’s Middle East speech about a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders that his transformation into a democracy-spreading, regime-changing neocon was missed. He proclaimed the goal of American foreign policy in the Middle East is “to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.” Those are more polite words for incremental regime changes of all the undemocratic governments.
The beginning of President Obama’s term was marked by a concerted effort to convince the Iranian regime that the U.S. does not seek its removal. An “outstretched hand” was offered to rogue states and funding was cut to organizations undermining the Iranian regime. The Obama administration reversed course over time, especially since the advent of the Arab Spring. Human rights was always vocally supported, but not in such a loud fashion. Now, policy is being overhauled to make promoting freedom its central component. What a George W. Bush thing to do.
The Obama administration first began warming up to regime change in Iran, even if it did not have a strong strategy to accomplish it. The Green Revolution forced President Obama to begin altering his language and in September, Secretary of State Clinton let it be known that she desires regime change.
“I can only hope that there will be some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state,” she said. She denied that she was calling for regime change, but it is obvious that is what she meant. The lack of a coherent strategy in support of this objective can be criticized, but it’s apparent that this is the hope of the administration and some small actions have been taken to help the Iranian protesters.
The Obama administration then supported regime change in Egypt after it became clear that President Mubarak was on his way out. Vice President Biden initially said Mubarak should not step down and that he is not a dictator, but this soon changed as the strength of the revolution was realized.
Up next was Libya. The Obama administration called on Muammar Gaddafi to give up power, but began a confusing policy by not making this an objective of the military campaign. The stated goal was to prevent Gaddafi from bloodily massacring the rebels in Benghazi at the very last moment and to stop the attacks on civilians. President Obama continues to speak in support of Gaddafi’s removal, but says military resources will not be used for this purpose. This is a policy of regime change, even if its implementation sends mixed signals.
Yemen followed. The U.S. initially refrained from coming against President Saleh, but the resilience of the uprising and the ongoing violence exercised by his forces resulted in a similar reversal in policy. The U.S. began workingbehind the scenes with the Gulf Cooperation Council to push Saleh to step down to no avail. President Obama is now calling for his resignation. Saleh’s rhetoric has taken an anti-American turn and his forces are permitting al-Qaeda to advance. On Sunday, his loyalists trapped ambassadors from the U.S. and Europe inside the embassy of the United Arab Emirates. Clashes between his supporters and opponents are escalating after he bailed on another agreement. These developments make it certain that the U.S. policy of regime change towards Yemen will sharpen.
U.S. policy towards Syria is now just shy of regime change. Secretary of Defense Gates initially responded to the revolution by saying the military should “empower a revolution” as was done in Egypt. He denied calling for regime change, just as Clinton did earlier in regards to Iran, but that’s exactly what he did. In President Obama’s speech last week, he said: “President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that [democratic] transition, or get out of the way.” The official U.S. stance is that Assad still has time left to change his ways but the “window is narrowing.”
In the case of Bahrain, President Obama did not call for regime change but he did call for reform. This reflects the top-down approach towards democratic transition (and therefore, regime change) that he will exercise towards governments whose quick collapse is feared. Obama’s approach towards creating a democratic Middle East may differ from Bush’s, but the goal is the same and just as grandiose and idealistic.
Under the influence of the “human rights” snake oil saleswoman Samantha Power – wife of the “animal rights” snake oil salesman Cass Sunstein –, President Obama has – without the permission of the Congress – committed American troops to a NATO invasion of Libya in an act of unprovoked aggression that serves the interests of the Ikhwan-Iran Axis.
Now, he is on the verge of “supporting regime change” in Syria, which has taken in a steady stream of Christian refugees from American-occupied Iraq. And Westerners study in Syria routinely, as is no longer possible in “newly liberated” Egypt. At the same time, Obama is fighting the neocons’ wars of national liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as fighting the decidedly Leftist Mrs. Sunstein’s war in Libya.
However, we should recall that President Obama taught “critical race theory” at the University of Chicago, and that he spent his career as a Gramscian community organiser in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. Gramscians see nothing wrong with democracy, as long as it leads to what they call “counter-hegemony” (i.e., control of society by an all-embracing anti-capitalist united front). Further, neo-Gramscianism extends this view to foreign policy. Thus, it is “good” to empower the Ikhwan-Iran Axis, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and the New Black Panther Party, because they are all anti-capitalist, and can be counted upon to supposedly “liberate the oppressed” from the imaginary “neoliberal hegemony” of the Trilateral Commission.
Getting rid of Obama and the Royals is not enough, as no foreseeable development will save us from the sixty-eighters who dominate our way of living and thinking. The KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov was right when, thirty years ago, he warned the John Birch Society that many Americans had long since been brainwashed by the Soviets through a programme of demoralisation, and that it was in the ’60s that the first generation of brainwashed children reached maturity and went haywire, due to a lack of systematic patriotic education. England appears to have undergone a similar process.
President Bush II dreamt of a “free”, “democratic” (i.e., pro-Western) Middle East. President Obama likely dreams of a Middle East dominated by proles, and empowering the Ikhwan-Iran Axis is a means to that end. Superficially, Presidents Bush and Obama both appear to be neocons, but the motivations driving their neocon-like support for jihadist rebels are radically different.
1st July, 2011 Update:
Srdja Trifkovic wrote in Libya: A Non-Hostile War:
A hundred days into the war, the justification for the Libyan intervention remains unclear. The UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized military action “to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack.” A week into the operation the White House strongly denied that regime change is part of its mission in Libya. Six days later, on March 28, Obama declared that the intervention was necessary so that “democratic impulses” are not “eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship.” So it was about spreading democracy, after all—but in the same address the President denied this by saying that “broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.”
Within days, however, American cruise missiles were launched against Gaddafy’s compounds with the obvious intention of killing him and thus deciding the issue in favor of the rebels. The objective of removing him from power, once openly acknowledged, soon became non-negotiable. “Would this be an example of a President misleading the nation into an (illegal) war? Or did the goal of the war radically change oh-so-unexpectedly a mere few weeks after it began?” wondered Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com on June 25. “Everyone can make up their own mind about which is more likely.”
Many members of Congress did just that on June 24 by rejecting the poisoned chalice in the form of a misnamed “de-funding” bill. In fact that bill would have stopped spending for some war purposes, but explicitly authorized it for others. That is why dozens of anti-Libya-war members in both parties voted against the “de-funding” bill. Had it passed, the White House legal alchemists would have used it to claim that the Congressional approval of some funds for the Libyan operation was tantamount to its effective authorization of the war itself. As Greenwald points out, the outcome was no victory for Obama:
After all, the Clinton administration—after the House failed in 1999 to authorize bombing for the Kosovo war—continued the bombing anyway by claiming the House had ‘implicitly’ authorized that war by appropriating some funds for it, and Obama White House lawyers would have almost certainly made the same exploitative claim here. As Ron Paul—echoing the spokesperson for House progressives—said in explaining his NO vote on ‘de-funding’, the bill “masquerades as a limitation of funds for the president’s war on Libya but is in fact an authorization for that very war… instead of ending the war against Libya, this bill would legalize nearly everything the President is currently doing there.”
A particularly galling reason for what the President is doing there was cited by the outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates: intervention in Libya “was considered a vital interest by some of our closest allies… that have come to our support and assistance in Afghanistan.” In other words, America was obliged to attack Libya not because that country threatened U.S. security but because the politicians in Paris and London decided that it would be a good idea—and America owed them one for helping out in Kandahar. By the same token, the U.S. Air Force should be on standby whenever one or another American ally from the Coalition_of_the_Willing is in need of some aerial firepower.