Former National Security Advisor: WH Was Not Central to Events in Egypt

MSNBC, in its eternal quest to make us all feel a thrill up our legs while pondering the great achievements of President Obama, interviewed Former national security adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Morning Joe program regarding whether the President's critics are right in claiming he "blew it" in his handling of events in Egypt. Clearly the interview, led by MSNBC co-host and Brzezinski daughter, Mika, was set up for Brzezinski to debunk the criticisms and state, as definitively as a failed national security advisor can, that no, Obama did not blow it in Egypt.  MSNBC displayed a photo of the cover of Newsweek Magazine, which bears the headline, "Egypt: How Obama Blew it" and Mika asked Brzezinski if he agreed with that assessment.

To his credit, Brzezinski did not take that bait.  He sidestepped the question deftly by reminding the disappointed MSNBC hosts that it is still too early to tell what will happen in Egypt.  Then he went on to make an observation that surely took the thrill right out of Chris Matthews' leg, assuming he was watching.  As you will recall, Matthews recently made the audacious and wildly inaccurate claim that "it took Obama to have this happen" when discussing the protests and Mubarak's ouster, giving the President all the credit for inspiring Egyptians to seek reform.  Of course Matthews never observed of the purple-fingered voters in Iraq, "It took Bush to make this happen," but that's another topic for another day.  In today's interview, Brzezinski burst that MSNBC and White House self-importance belief bubble by declaring, "The fact is the U.S. and the White House weren't all that central" to what happened in Egypt, giving the credit to Al Jazeera's coverage of events, the Egyptians themselves, and widespread use of American social networking technology that spread news and helped protesters organize.  The cameras panned back to Mika and Joe Scarborough, who fumbled for words trying to ask a follow-up question to a sound byte they obviously had not anticipated.

Next time, Mika, you might consider asking "dad" what he will answer before you bring him on the air.  Your colleague Chris Matthews will now spend a great deal of his time trying to get that thrill back in his leg instead of focusing on reporting to us nothing significant can occur in the world without President Obama making it happen.  Most importantly, the White House, through its surrogates at MSNBC, needs to stop seeking to take credit for an uprising in Egypt that the President did precious little to inspire.

Hillary Tougher Talk on Iran than Commander in Chief

Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton.  When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally.  During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq.  She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength.  I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.

Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt.  Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities.  President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year.  To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel.  One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.

Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran.  Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.

Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs:  Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government

Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due.  Hillary made the right comments today about Iran.  The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009.  Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House.  Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best.  Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears. 

More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide.  We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran.  Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled.  The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces.  We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran.  Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority.  Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.

"Spread Democracy" or "Spread the Wealth" Revolutions?

Before stepping down as Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the Obama administration's vocal support for democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and the entire Middle East.  Mubarak warned former Israeli cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer:

We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.  They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.

Ben-Eliezer told Haaretz that on the eve of Mubarak's stepping down as Egypt's President, Mubarak shared his prediction for what will follow in the Middle East:

He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf.  He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances -- dramatic changes and upheavals'.

Will Mubarak's warning prove prophetic, or was it merely the parting bluster of a man who believed, with good reason, that he alone held the religious radicals in his nation at bay for more than 30 years?  Events in other Arab nations offer an immediate opportunity to observe the accuracy of Mubarak's predictions.  In Yemen and Algeria, protests are creating fertile ground for radical Islamist elements to merge their long-term goals with the short-term protesters' goals of toppling their existing governments. 

Photo by Reuters

When the many thousands of Algerian protesters claim they are marching for liberty and freedom, are they actually demanding self-determination - a worthy goal consistent with America's democratic values - or are they seeking to level the economic or social playing field because others within their culture have more opportunity and wealth?  Reports out of Algiers suggest that many ingredients that led to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are also influencing the street protests in Algeria: (1) high unemployment; (2) Growing gap between rich and poor; and (3) large and restless youth population.  All of these ingredients, if not also motivated by a desire for self-determination and common law, will lead to the same half-baked confection: redistribution of wealth, and, in the case of the French and Soviet revolutions, purging of the wealthy and influential classes in mass bloodshed.

At this point, the ultimate goals and democratic desires of the Algerian and Yemeni protesters remains undefined and frighteningly fluid.  Protests nearly always begin by riding rapidly on a wave of emotion that crests when it appears the initially specific goal has been reached.  In Egypt's case, that initial specific goal was to oust Mubarak.  That goal has now been reached, but what goals beyond the ouster do the protesters have in common?  Iraq proved that toppling a dictator and gleeful celebrations are not the end of political upheaval.  The devil is in the details, and the "details" that established a democratically elected government in Baghdad included much bloodshed, radical Islamist terrorism to discourage the people, and eventually a constitution.  The purple-stained index fingers of voting Iraqis came with a price paid long after the statues of Saddam Hussein were jubilantly dismantled. 

In the absence of clear leadership among protest groups, confusion mounts as to the way forward in the vacuum left by the toppling of an existing government.  In Egypt, the "details" remain to be determined, but Mubarak is likely right that many devils, as it were, will work feverishly to gain strong footholds in vulnerable political climates.  Protesters in Yemen and Algeria face a similar conundrum.  Calling for "government reform" is ambiguous, carrying very different connotations for the myriad largely incompatible political, social, and religious groups united for one moment in time for the sake of "change." 

The Obama administration is in a difficult position.  The world expects America to support democracy and democratic revolutions wherever they arise.  However, the administration must recognize its limitations and avoid knee-jerk support to civil unrest, or "change" for the sake of "change", before gaining a clear understanding of the forces and motives behind Middle East protests.  Revolutions can become ugly very quickly if they are engaged in for societal or economic leveling rather than for constitutional freedoms and protection of inalienable rights. 

The governments in Algeria and Yemen are currently in a dangerous state of vulnerability.  Yemen has been a strategic ally of the United States in the War on Terror.  That term is not popular in the Obama administration, which took office pledging to purge all things Bush.  However, President Obama has slowly recognized when faced with stark reality, that this IS still a war against terrorist ideology.  In war, key allies should not be abandoned at the first opportunity, even if standing with the ally means ignoring its warts and impurities.  Stalin was murdering millions of his own countrymen before, during, and after, WWII, but in the larger was against a radical ideology, the United States turned a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities because the war against Hitler could not be won without him.  By its strategic location and past assistance in identifying and locating terror suspects and operational networks, overlooking Yemeni President Saleh's imperfections may prove the best course for America's interests in a larger struggle against radical Islam.  America's presidents are elected to serve and protect the interests of America, even if that means that at times we form temporary alliances with unsavory or even oppressive governments.  Even in these cases, however, we must never cease encouraging even the most bloodthirsty dictators or regimes to reform.




Mubarak's prediction of a snowball of unrest in the Middle East, that will leave no country untouched, is, in my estimation, accurate.  Radical Islamists will undoubtedly attempt to fill power vacuums throughout the region, attempting to expand their spheres of influence.  President Obama must walk a fine line between encouraging freedom and democratic reforms, as he must, while holding onto key alliances in the War on Terror. 

"Clap On, Clap Off": Is the light on at the DNI?

"Clap on, Clap off . . . way off on Muslim Brotherhood"

When Congress is in session, crowds in the gallery, when allowed to observe, are reminded to hold their clapping until the session concludes.  If only the White House could have held its Clapper until the end of a hearing on Capitol Hill today.  Instead, the Obama administration made the unfortunate decision to allow Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to answer questions and deliver his assessments of the situation in Egypt without the much-needed benefit of a teleprompter.  

 DNI Clapper, as widely reported, testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had worked peacefully for the "betterment of the political order" and, in a whopper that would have caused Pinocchio great nasal growth pains:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

 So far out in left field was this assessment, that the White House rushed to correct DNI Clapper's mind-boggling inaccuracy.  A DNI spokesman clarified later today that DNI Clapper was aware the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious, not secular, organization, but that it had largely operated in Egypt in a secular manner under Hosni Mubarak's rule in that country.  What he failed to explain in the hearing was WHY Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood under his thumb for 30 years.  The reason of course, is that the Brotherhood, when speaking to gullible Western media, portrays itself as a minor secular political party with no clout in Egypt, dedicated to building hospitals and other social projects to save humanity.

The peaceful hospital-building political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt welcoming Egyptian voters on election day in September 2011. 

When one speaks with Egyptians and other citizens in the Middle East, or if one watches Al Jazeera for 10 minutes, one can learn very quickly that the reason the Brotherhood builds hospitals is because the Brotherhood creates a demand for emergency medical facilities by fomenting terrorism and anti-Semitism with a violent tinge to it.  People get hurt around the Brotherhood.  Ask Anwar Sadat whether the Brotherhood "eschews violence", and it might help explain why Mubarak used an iron fist to limit the group's activities in Egypt for decades.  Read the words of the Brotherhood's supreme religious leader and decide for yourself if the "secular political party" is a benign entity as DNI Clapper testified today.  Judge for yourself if the Brotherhood, in its ideology and goals, is any different than al Qaeda, which the Brotherhood allegedly claims is an abomination of Islam.  For a group that is so tightly embracing Hamas that it is impossible to determine where Hamas ends and the Brotherhood begins, its faux condemnation of al Qaeda is ripe with comedic value
beyond anything even the Onion could concoct.

What is most disturbing about DNI Clapper's testimony isn't simply that it was inaccurate, which it clearly was, but that it is in direct conflict with assessments of the Brotherhood produced by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not merely in the U.S. but among all of our key allies across the globe.  Simply stated, no agency in an allied country has ever assessed the Muslim Brotherhood as anything but a terrorist organization that has participated in violence, directly and through financing and recruitment.  DNI Clapper must know this.  The CIA's and FBI's assessments of the Brotherhood are nothing like what DNI Clapper presented today.  It is no wonder he is backing away from his testimony at a speed only Usain Bolt has experienced among mortals.

We must wonder why DNI Clapper, who should know very well the intelligence (that is the "I" in DNI, after all!) the CIA, FBI, and others have gleaned about the Brotherhood, would testify that the group is of little concern and is a bit player in the "revolution" taking place in Egypt since January 25.  Members of Congress in attendance at today's hearing should obtain for themselves the assessments of the Brotherhood from the intelligence and law enforcement agencies DNI Clapper is supposed to listen to, and brief the Obama administration accordingly.  Clapper clapped on about the humanitarian achievements of this terror-sponsoring group, and then he clapped off when one of his staffers with access to simple intelligence sources, such as Google, discovered that no one in the intel industry, except perhaps himself, believed a word of the fiction that the Brotherhood is benign.  Clearly his testimony was politically motivated. Somehow, in all of this Clapping on and off, we must hope and pray that a light came on somewhere in the administration to reveal the very real threat to Egypt and Israel the Brotherhood presents, and that no real political power will be afforded it before or after Egyptian elections are held to replace Mubarak.

An Egyptian Urges Obama to Chill

The White House seems determined to encourage the loudest voices in Egypt to push Hosni Mubarak to relinquish the reins of Government. Perhaps White House and State Department staffers have been too enthralled by the beatings inflicted on U.S. reporters to notice that the real beating is being inflicted upon the true Egyptian voices for democracy and meaningful reform who initiated the first peaceful protest that has since been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. The New York Times would have us believe the Brotherhood has little clout and should not be taken seriously.

That's not what a prominent Egyptian, who knows a bit more about conditions in Egypt than the college professor writing for the NYT, thinks. His reasons for telling President Obama to slow down and back off are presented here.

At this point, no one knows whether the protests in Cairo will be a step toward democracy or a step toward a radical Islamist regime. Calling for Mubarak to turn his government over to an uprising that has yet to be defined is ill-advised and reckless.

According to this well-informed businessman, Egypt will descend into chaos if President Obama, and some "conservatives" such as Senator John McCain, continue their knee-jerk reactions to the protests by pushing Mubarak for an immediate transfer of power. The link above leads to an excellent overview of who was protesting what, and when, and what is at stake for Egypt, the region, and the U.S.