Sadly, Obama’s only “achievement,” the “Obama Doctrine” of indirect-intervention in other state’s affairs by funding indigenous rebellions is not just failed but threatens increased risk of regional conflict. Proof already exists in Egypt’s recent election where the Muslim Brotherhood have taken a large share of the recent election and now can demand shariah law. Further Arab Spring revolutions are bound to deliver a similar result since we are expecting the Muslim world to spontaneously conform to Western ideas of just government. ¬†But this will never happen of itself but instead will take painstaking nurture instead of simply lighting bombs then walking away.
Curiously, it is Marxism, not Islam, that stands to gain the most from such destructive chaos since Marx claimed that revolution was a precursor to the communist state. So no wonder Barrack delivers munitions and advisers to topple random governments as he believes the net result will always help his beloved socialism. This essay examines this frightening development and asks if we really must go down this road of making the Middle East more Muslim law oriented and less Western sympathetic?
The Obama Doctrine has been used to describe his apparent theory of backing proxies to fight wars against regimes America wishes to run out of power, as seen in Libya with Muammar Gaddafi. It is said to be a silent doctrine, ie it does not announce it is in effect. According to Reason, Obama favors indirect interventions and preemptive proxy wars, but not “dumb wars.”
Various writers have opined on the meaning of the Obama Doctrine. These elements seem obvious—
1. “Leading From Behind”, ie letting others initiate military action;
2. Supporting troops from others countries to fight;
3. Seeking regime change in countries who may, or may not, be US allies.;
4. Refusing to announce military action, including not seeking sanction in Congress (see below);
5. Using America’s high-tech advantage, including stealth weapons and drones to take out the bad guys;
6. Back local resistance without knowing who or what ideals these groups represent;
7. Going after tyrants regardless of our historic relationship with them.
According to Roger Cohen in the New York Times, America has a new theory of war—one which is punctuated by silence…
The Obama administration has a doctrine. It’s called the doctrine of silence. A radical shift from President Bush’s war on terror, it has never been set out to the American people. There has seldom been so big a change in approach to U.S. strategic policy with so little explanation. The U.S. government says precious little about these new ways of fighting enemies. But the strategic volte-face is clear: America has decided that conventional wars of uncertain outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan that may, according to a Brown University study, end up costing at least $3.7 trillion are a bad way to fight terrorists and that far cheaper, more precise tools for eliminating enemies are preferable—even if the legality of those killings is debatable.
Several positive things may have initially resulted from applying the Obama Doctrine. First, casualties to American soldiers are nonexistent, for example. But at what cost?
To engage in war-related activities without asking Congress’s permission goes against America’s value of democracy. Further, entering into the support of conflict where there is no skin in the game will lead to rash and superficial judgments. But to blindly foment for revolution, simply to change a sitting tyrant for some unknown person or group is taking an absurd risk. Because who knows what entity will achieve the throne? To repeat an old adage—The Devil you know is better then the Devil you don’t know. Further, when groups in the Middle East agitate, it is not uncommon for these to be religious militants. This is what we see happening now in Egypt, after being told there was no chance Islamic law favoring radicals would take charge.
While Obama and other hopeful Liberals believe his Obama Doctrine will automatically result in a fairer world with new default democracies springing to life after each revolution, this is highly unlikely. Why? Simply because the democracy model has no part in Muslim history because it has no inherent part in the belief system.
So what does this mean? Frankly, that it is much more likely, if not downright inevitable, that native revolutions will turn after-revolution countries into a shariah-friendly states. Because the democratic model for Islam has yet to be established, and won’t be by Shari’ah-minded rebels. Instead this will take much work and pressure by outside forces. This might seem like a highly prejudicial viewpoint. But it’s a simple recounting of Middle Eastern history and practice, according to Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im’s Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a and Graham E. Fuller’s The Future Of Political Islam.
Top Islamic expert Daniel Pipes writes,
There’s an impression that Muslims suffer disproportionately from the rule of dictators, tyrants, unelected presidents, kings, emirs, and various other strongmen—and it’s accurate. A careful analysis by Frederic L. Pryor of Swarthmore College in the Middle East Quarterly (”Are Muslim Countries Less Democratic?”) concludes that “In all but the poorest countries, Islam is associated with fewer political rights.”
So what will it take for Islam to finally adopt constitutional republican democracies? Pipes goes on in his theme:
The fact that majority-Muslim countries are less democratic makes it tempting to conclude that the religion of Islam, their common factor, is itself incompatible with democracy. I disagree with that conclusion. Today’s Muslim predicament, rather, reflects historical circumstances more than innate features of Islam. Put differently, Islam, like all pre-modern religions is undemocratic in spirit. No less than the others, however, it has the potential to evolve in a democratic direction.
Such evolution is not easy for any religion. In the Christian case, the battle to limit the Catholic Church’s political role lasted painfully long. If the transition began when Marsiglio of Padua published Defensor pacis in the year 1324, it took another six centuries for the Church fully to reconcile itself to democracy. Why should Islam’s transition be smoother or easier?
To render Islam consistent with democratic ways will require profound changes in its interpretation. For example, the anti-democratic law of Islam, the Shari’a, lies at the core of the problem. Developed over a millennium ago, it presumes autocratic rulers and submissive subjects, emphasizes God’s will over popular sovereignty, and encourages violent jihad to expand Islam’s borders. Further, it anti-democratically privileges Muslims over non-Muslims, males over females, and free persons over slaves.
For Muslims to build fully functioning democracies, they basically must reject the Shari’ah’s public aspects. Atatürk frontally did just that in Turkey, but others have offered more subtle approaches. Mahmud Muhammad Taha, a Sudanese thinker, dispatched the public Islamic laws by fundamentally reinterpreting the Koran.
The fact is that the only Middle Eastern Muslim democracies ever to exist are those imposed by will—by use of western models. For example, after the great Turkish statesman Ataturk spent a year trying to get Turkish religious leaders to adopt reforms, he gave up. He then banned their participation in the constitutional process, because they could not compromise. He then simply adopted a modified Swiss constitution. And Iraq’s democracy was built upon American blood and sacrifice.
When Obama pretends that all revolution is good, he secretly invokes the spirit of communist revolution. Karl Marx taught in the Communist Manifesto that world revolution was inevitable, and that it would inevitably lead to higher human consciousness and towards and ideal economy and government. So any random Middle Eastern revolution, just like the Occupy Wall Street Marxists raging like adolescents, will still help add to the sum total of global chaos. One writer describes Marx’s theory,
Marx described three necessary phases toward achieving his idea of utopia.
- Phase 1: A revolution must take place in order to overthrow the existing government. Marx emphasized the nee¬≠d for total destruction of the existing system in order to move on to Phase 2.
- Phase 2: A dictator or elite leader (or leaders) must gain absolute control over the proletariat. During this phase, the new government exerts absolute control over the common citizen’s personal choices—including his or her education, religion, employment and even marriage. Collectivization of property and wealth must also take place.
- Phase 3: Achievement of utopia. This phase has never been attained because it requires that all non-communists be destroyed in order for the Communist Party to achieve supreme equality. In a Marxist utopia, everyone would happily share property and wealth, free from the restrictions that class-based systems require. The government would control all means of production so that the one-class system would remain constant, with no possibility of any middle class citizens rising back to the top.
Unfortunately, as Obama gives direction to the funding and supply of vague uprisings across the Middle East, he makes the world less safe with each bomb sent abroad. He makes a regional or world conflict more likely, as well. After all,where is it stated in the rules of logic that all revolutions must have a democratic finale’?
The rank insanity of simply pushing out a longstanding ally like Mubarak for an inchoate revolution in the name of an “Arab Spring” or some such battle for Human Rights will long haunt the West. The fatuous and simplistic attitude behind such a purge beggars belief in the ignorance it reveals as to the source of real democracy in the world.
Says Israel National News,
Judges overseeing the vote count in Egypt’s parliamentary elections say Islamist parties have won a majority of the contested seats in the first round. The Muslim Brotherhood could take 45% of the seats up for grabs. The liberal Egyptian bloc coalition and the ultra-fundamentalist Nour party are competing for second place. Together, Islamist parties are expected to control a majority of parliamentary seats by March. This week’s vote was the first of six stages of parliamentary elections that will last until then. Continued success by Islamists will allow them to give Cairo’s government and constitution a decidedly Islamist character. It could also lead Cairo to shift away from the West towards the Iranian axis.
The Obama administration’s naïve and thoughtless leftism is also reminiscent of Jimmy Carter’s spectacular failure in auguring the Iranian Revolution and all the curses it birthed upon the world. Journalist Mike Evans describes this in Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos: A Carter/Obama Plan That Will Not Work, which was detailed here: Great Highlights in Marxist “Leadership”: Or, When Change Turns Malignant.
It is time to return to a more humble and predicable foreign policy which may mean eschewing all left-wing politicos and foreign wars, in general. If not, and we can’t stanch the hemorrhaging—America’s goose might finally be cooked.
Kelly O’Connell is an author and attorney. He was born on the West Coast, raised in Las Vegas, and matriculated from the University of Oregon. After laboring for the Reformed Church in Galway, Ireland, he returned to America and attended law school in Virginia, where he earned a JD and a Master’s degree in Government. He spent a stint working as a researcher and writer of academic articles at a Miami law school, focusing on ancient law and society. He has also been employed as a university Speech & Debate professor. He then returned West and worked as an assistant district attorney. Kelly is now is a private practitioner with a small law practice in New Mexico. Kelly is now host of a daily, Monday to Friday talk show at AM KOBE called AM Las Cruces w/Kelly O’Connell
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement