An Egyptian protester throws a gas canister away during clashes near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo Sept. 13. (AP)
Right now, following the attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt, Libya and now Tunisia and Yemen, the most predictable crisis of the last several years is occurring in real time in the Middle East.
The Arab Spring, billed as a democratic revolution in an area which is anything but democratic or revolutionary, has violated a crucial tenet of American foreign policy: the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t. Sure, Hosni Mubarak or Muammar Gaddafi were far from good leaders, but at least they had been around long enough that the U.S. government knew what to expect from them. In the case of Mubarak, his Egypt was even allied with us.
For the administration to support Mubarak’s overthrow was truly naive, in no way would a government run by the Muslim brotherhood be an improvement over the current situation. The Gaddafi situation was slightly different, but the same principle applied: It can’t be assumed that the government which replaces Gaddafi would be an improvement over Gaddafi.
Further complicating the issues of the last several days has been President Obama’s failed response to the crisis. In perhaps the greatest triumph for Clint Eastwood’s empty chair metaphor, Obama did not attend the intelligence briefing on Wednesday: the day after the first wave of attacks which resulted in the first death of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty since 1979.
He attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas instead.
On Thursday, he said that he did not consider Egypt an ally. Then he immediately and tepidly walked that statement back with a rather weak declaration of support for the Egyptian government. The State Department always did consider them an ally, but it’s pretty hard to justify that position in light of what happened at our embassy on Tuesday.
On a semi-related point, Obama has given an appearance on Letterman higher priority than a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In just a few years, we’ve managed to weaken our relationships with stable, allied governments in the most unstable and antagonistic region in the world. I couldn’t think of a more irresponsible foreign policy.
As is common in political campaigns, the incumbent is held responsible by the challenger in the event of preventable crises like this one. This point seems to have been missed by the media, who on Wednesday seemed much more interested in talking about Romney’s response (to criticize Obama for the failures and lack of leadership which lead to the events on Tuesday), than about the situation itself.
Of course, if you’re going to cover responses to the event instead of the event, wouldn’t it be more important to talk about the president’s response? He’s the one who has actual power in the world. He’s also the one who refused to clarify to the press exactly what happened by refusing to take questions.
It is times like this that America needs real leadership. To this point, Obama’s popularity on foreign policy has been based largely on killing Osama bin Laden. I suspect in the days to come, Americans will realize how bad the situation Obama’s administration has created over in the Middle East truly is.
Keene is a junior majoring in political science, economics and public policy.
