Header Image (book)


Saturday, May 21, 2011

What Obama Believes?

Note to readers: Due to my work and caregiving schedules, I will be posting as time allows until my schedule eases.

I was looking through some magazines that had piled up and found this essay by Fareed Zakaria in Time. From "When Terror Loses Its Grip":
...There are, of course, many differences between Hitler and bin Laden. But one great similarity holds. Hitler's death marked the end of the Nazi challenge from Germany. And bin Laden's death will mark the end of the global threat of al-Qaeda.


[Al Qaeda's] founding rationale has been shattered by the Arab Spring of this year. Al-Qaeda believed that the only way to topple the dictatorships of the Arab world was through violence, that participation in secular political processes was heretical and that people wanted and would cheer an Islamic regime. Over the past few months, millions in the Arab world have toppled regimes relatively peacefully, and what they have sought was not a caliphate, not a theocracy, but a modern democracy.


Along the way, the efforts at nation building have tarnished the image of the American military. The world's greatest fighting force was shown to be unable to deliver stability to Iraq and Afghanistan, had to deal with scandals like the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and saw its soldiers losing their once high morale. May 1 changed all that. The image of a smart, wise and supremely competent U.S. has flashed across the globe. The lesson should be clear. An America that uses its military power less promiscuously, more intelligently and in a targeted and focused manner might once again gain the world's respect and fear, if not affection. And an America that can provide a compelling picture of a modern, open society will be a far more attractive model for Arabs than Osama bin Laden's vision of a backward medieval caliphate.
Apparently, Fareed Zakaria, to some extent, advises Obama with regard to foreign policy:

Newsbusters has more information, including a backpedaling statement from Zakaria.

But here's my point: If you read the article in Time Magazine, you will note similarities between what Zakaria has written and Obama's foreign policy.

Also note Zakaria's reaction to Obama's speech of May 19:
It was his role as educator in chief that came out today. He provided a kind of world view, almost a historical interpretation of the causes and consequences of the Arab Spring. He began in the beginning with Tunisia and moved forward. And he tried to present a way in which he saw America's interests and values as squarely aligned with this Arab revolution.

He touched on the places that we don't like - the regimes we don't like that are having trouble dealing with people, Tehran and Damascus. He also talked about Bahrain and Yemen. But you are right, of course, he didn't talk about the 800-pound gorilla that is Saudi Arabia.

But he also then went on to talk about ways to consolidate these revolutions; he talked about the Arab-Israeli peace process. He was tougher on Syria than he's been. He was more explicit in his - in his support for two states, Israel and Palestine on 1967 borders, plus mutually agreeable land swaps, so very comprehensive.

So, I thought he was quite even-handed while calling for a Palestinian state on '67 borders, plus or minor land swaps. He also recognized Israel's legitimate security needs, so I'd be surprised if there is too much criticism out of Tel Aviv tonight....
Please take time to watch the video of Zakaria's statement:

Ace of Spades on Zakaria and Obama:
Zakaria has the worst conflict of interest possible -- ego. If an egotistical, ambitious "reporter" thinks his opinions are being considered by the president (and no, I don't believe this was just the White House telling Zakaria stuff; I think they flattered him by asking advice), then he's flattered, and he thinks he's on the team, and therefore he is invested in His Team's success (or perception of such).


Gee, no wonder Zakaria thinks that every move of Obama's is brilliant. Obama's got him thinking he's implementing the Zakaria Agenda for Success. Of course Zakaria approves of Zakaria.
Should we care what Zakaria says, what Zakaria believes? Only insofar as Zakaria is often read by those leaning left. After all, in many circles, Zakaria is a respected journalist and does exert at least some influence on the American electorate.

And if Zakaria is advising Obama to any extent whatsoever, we should care very much about what Zakaria believes.


  1. I believe that the President seeks policy advice from the unions and from journalists because he doesn't neither he nor his cabinet have a clue about what to do about world events. One of the most chilling examples of this was Obama's ludicrous statement that Israel should return to it's 1967 borders. That would leave Israel with only eight miles between them and hostiles. With today's military hardware, that is a recipe for disaster, but Team Obama does not care. They have placed their bets with the Arabs and against Israel. Sickening.

  2. It's Amateur Night at the White House.

  3. I second what Karen said.

    They are faced with choosing between two alternatives views; either they are mindnumbingly incompetent, or they want Jews to be exterminated.

  4. read the article-
    bin Laden is not the lynch pin in the islamic terror game-he was only a pawn--it will go on ALA we allow it to go on!


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.