Dear America,so welcome back.
welcome to a new day -- or is it?
Just link the last blog with this blog, and vow to never break the chain.
Via Fox News, just yesterday:
"I know it's tempting
inside of Egypt
to blame the United States
or the West
or some other outside actor
for what's gone wrong.
We've been blamed by
supporters of Morsi.
We've been blamed by
the other side
as if we are supporters of Morsi --
That kind of approach
will do nothing
to help Egyptians
achieve the future
that they deserve."
Acknowledging the "incoherent" policy under this administration -- the mixed messages, the playing to both sides, the contrived presidential pause to pose a few measured remarks on the chaos in Egypt even in the midst of his seasonal, highly elitist, retreat (escaping the pressures of commanding over the "ordinary people," of course) -- even the president admits he's a textbook case.
But the truth of the matter is, we are still sending billions of dollars in aid to Egypt -- and for what? To who? How is this money, provided by the American taxpayer, being used or, perhaps more appropriately, abused?
From a place called Defense One -- under the post written by Stephanie Gaskell, The Pentagon Has Lost Its Leverage With Egypt, Now What?:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has been on the phone with his Egyptian counterpart, Gen. Abdul Fattah al-Sissi, almost every day since the July 3 military ouster of President Mohamed Morsi. And every day he has urged the Egyptian defense minister to find a peaceful resolution to the political turmoil. He’s called al-Sissi at least 15 times since the military booted Morsi from power, a Pentagon official told Defense One.
By all accounts, al-Sissi had agreed. Just last week, Hagel hung up the phone with Cairo and was reassured that the Egyptian military wanted a peaceful transition. "Minister Al-Sisi underscored his commitment to peaceful resolution of the ongoing protests, and thanked Secretary Hagel for U.S. support,” the Pentagon said, in a description of the Aug. 5 phone call.
This is a peaceful resolution, a peaceful transition, a peaceful Egypt?
And isn't all of this something -- considering the highly suspect, and extraordinary premature, liberal elitist response in wishing the president's vision for hope and change would be hastily masterminded, translated, and manufactured out of thin air, simply by virtue of awarding a Nobel Peace Prize before he even completed his first year of office. Oh the hopes! -- "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" -- to come true!
We jinxed it.
From BBC News, US credibility 'in tatters' Over Egypt Crisis...
Since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, the US has struggled to strike a balance between support for the tenuous progress towards democracy and protection of its national security interests.
Is the goal really to strike a balance? Seriously?
How about we try standing on principle with regards to international and national security interests?
How about we just try being consistent? We meddled and intervened with Hosni Mubarak...we didn't leave it for the people of Egypt to decide way back when... we kinda set this scenario up, didn't we? didn't we?
By the way, if you so choose to link into that BBC post -- a photo showing President Obama with an Ayatollah beard attached is embedded about half way down, with the caption "President Obama has faced criticism from both sides in the Egypt crisis." I wonder if the NAACP, or the Justice Department, will investigate it as a hate crime (pick a side)? [And while we're at it -- snaps to Michelle Malkin here and here.]
The BBC post ends with nothing but emphasis upon international policy meeting clarity :
"I think it's time for the United States to recognise that what we have here is the restoration of a military dictatorship in Cairo," said Tamara Wittes from the Brookings Institution, and a former State Department official working on Middle East democracy issues during the first Obama administration.
"That means that the United States needs to call these events what they are - under American law it needs to suspend assistance to the Egyptian government because this was a military coup and it is a military regime."
No gray area there: "under American law it needs to suspend assistance to the Egyptian government because this was a military coup and it is a military regime." Besides -- as Mr. President "America cannot determine the future of Egypt" Obama and Mr. Press Secretary "this is up for the Egyptians to answer" Carney have outright said -- the Egyptians can handle things all on their own.
Maybe, just maybe, we need to leave it alone.
Which reminds me of this great nations first intentions when it comes to international relations, encapsulating the ideals of our founding fathers who magnificently recognized that this day would come.
From my favorite book in the whole wide world, The 5000 Year Leap, by W.Cleon Skousen -- quoting Washington:
Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence.
In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than the permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded, and that in place of them just and amicable feelings toward all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
At the close of the chapter, Avoid Entangling Alliances, Skousen poses this:
Looking back, one cannot help wondering how much happier, more peaceful, and more prosperous the world would be if the United States had been following a policy of "separatism" as the world's great peacemaker instead of "internationalism" as the world's great policeman.
Something to ponder, isn't it...
In any event, what the times require is to stand on principle -- even if we must go back 238 years to find it.
But then there's this --
and now returning to the "Incoherent" Obama policy post from Fox News (yes, back to where we began the day) -- which positions John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under W, for argument support:
Bolton said the wisest thing for the president to do would be to not say much at all. He claimed that the reality for the U.S. is that the best option is for the Egyptian military to stay in control, "ugly as it may be." The Muslim Brotherhood, he said, is an "armed militia" and not a political party.
Indeed. "Ugly as it may be" -- there is that; with a bloody Nile to prove it.
But Oh "to not say much at all."
What are the chances?
Make it a Good Day, G