Gina Loudon, Ph.D., is host of "The Dr. Gina Show" and a national speaker, analyst and author. She has appeared or been cited by the BBC, ABC, Vanity Fair, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post, CNN, New York Times, Time magazine, Fox News, Fox Business, The Hill, "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart and many others. Loudon is credited as one of the "100 founding members" of the tea-party movement, founder of ArizonaMore ↓Less ↑
What is the Obama foreign policy doctrine? If you cannot identify it, is that because there isn’t one? Or is there?
Could it be that this administration doesn’t want you to know its foreign policy doctrine, when in fact it exists and is well underway?
Obama campaigned, we thought, on a platform against nation building – against endless wars. He was going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and close Gitmo. Then came the “Arab Spring,” this sickeningly romanticized notion that young, idealistic students of Arabic descent were spontaneously rising up to throw off the yoke of tyrannical regimes. The implausible effectiveness of the “organic protesters,” coupled with the consistent support by Western forces, suggests it was as spontaneous as the attack on our Benghazi consulate.
First they overthrew the weak government in Tunisia, with Obama’s tacit support. Then there was Libya, where he faced very little pushback. Who could object to overthrowing Moammar Gadhafi? While still maintaining openly that he is against nation building, Obama was very publicly and forcefully building his second nation.
The first time eyebrows were really raised was with Egypt. For 30 years, Egypt has been the one stabilizing force in the Middle East – the buffer between radical Islamic hegemony and the democratic West. Egypt was the one country that had a secure peace with Israel. Even that regime was toppled with Obama’s overt support.
In each case, the Muslim Brotherhood managed to take control, whether through elections or force and organization. Each time, the action or inaction of the Obama administration toppled three stable, nonsectarian regimes, only to see them replaced by three Islamic regimes with varying levels of support for instituting Shariah law. In all three, it was open season on women, Christians and other minorities who faced genocide even with the overt support of police and the government.
Many foreign policy experts noted that the danger of this plan (or lack of a plan) is a classic expression of the axiom that it is better to go with the devil you know. Nobody knew what devil would emerge with the collapse of the three devils we knew. Or did they?
It certainly was predictable that the Muslim Brotherhood, the most organized force in each of these countries, would be able to seize control. Pundits differed on who the Muslim Brotherhood is. Is it just a charitable group? Or is it too steeped in radical Islam to be trusted like Islam, the religion, they proclaim? Will they express a religion of peace or a religion of conquest and tyranny?
Both Libya and Egypt answered the question. The world now knows exactly what the Muslim Brotherhood is all about. When it takes over, liberty dies – people die.
A memo recently surfaced showing that Morsi, the toppled Egyptian president, actually helped plan the attack on our Benghazi consulate, while at the same time receiving $1.5 billion in dollars taxed from the pockets of liberty-loving Americans. We have seen the Muslim Brotherhood. They must be laughing all the way to the “West” Bank over our cluelessness.
So why would we continue this pattern of supporting the toppling of nonsectarian regimes knowing full well that at best, we install the Muslim Brotherhood and at worst, we install al-Qaida, as is fully under way in Syria? In this oddly “Alice In Wonderland” scenario, the Russians and Iranians are fighting against creeping Shariah while we supply arms to al-Qaida operatives and even radicalized Muslim convert American girls in an effort to expand it. Beam me up!
Syria may be the most perplexing battle because by now we have seen history, and apparently the Obama administration hasn’t learned from it. Which is worse for American interests: another brick in the Islamic caliphate wall that is spreading across North Africa, through Syria and Turkey all the way to the Black Sea, or a Syrian dictator who may or may not have used chemical weapons to keep his country from becoming another brick in the Islamic caliphate wall?
The use of chemical weapons became the latest, totally subjective red line for the president who has no overt doctrine and insists that he is not into nation building. If the real Obama doctrine is caliphate building, Egypt is his first setback.
Egypt, by God’s grace, through 30 years of stability, retains a critical mass of people not ready to fold to Shariah law, including a 20 percent Coptic Christian base. The world just witnessed the first Arab tea party in dramatic fashion. Liberty won, with no help from the Obama regime.
If Obama will stay out of the way, the world could see Egypt restored to that beautiful, stabilizing force that it was before Obama instrumented the Muslim Brotherhood takeover. We can only pray that the success of liberty-loving, Shariah-rejecting people in Egypt will inspire the Turkish people to continue their resolve to restore Turkey’s famous nonsectarian traditions. There, the people are in a similar rebellion against the government’s efforts to institute tyrannical Islamic laws.
What ought to chill most Americans and freedom-loving people around the world is that the Obama regime, and whatever doctrine it is advancing, is supported by CIA operatives conducting covert missions for purposes known to no one outside of the “most transparent administration in history.” Strong evidence supports that the Benghazi cover-up was to hide the fact that the CIA was trying to recover weapons that we provided in the Libyan rebellion and that ended up in the hands of the al-Qaida operatives. The goal was evidently to ship those weapons to Syria to use them against that regime. We know full well that the U.S. is supplying weapons that keep ending up in the hands of al-Qaida operatives.
If Obama has a geopolitical doctrine, or even a Middle East doctrine, he owes it to the American people and the world to share it. The president, who campaigned on a promise to make the world hate the U.S. less, is openly mocked on the streets across the Middle East. This is mainly because he is such an unreliable bargaining partner. No one knows where he stands. By all appearances, the Obama doctrine, by affect or design, is to construct the Islamic caliphate wall from Casablanca to the Black Sea. His record was perfect before the Egyptian setback. Arab Spring, meet Liberty Summer!