Is it possible that when it comes to democracy, too much of
a good thing can sometimes be a bad thing? To put it differently, can it happen
that too much talk may weaken the cause it is championing? Well, a Washington
Post editorial seems to support this theory. It came under the title: “Yemen 's turmoil
exposes Mr. Obama's crumbling 'partners' strategy” and was published on January
22, 2015.
The Post editors – like the commentators of other
publications – make a big deal regarding what they view as the meager number of
words that Mr. Obama used in his State of the Union address to discuss one
topic or another ... ranging from violent extremism to the Iran nuclear
question. But setting aside the topics that may or may not have been discussed,
a comment such as that raises the eyebrows of people who appreciate the style
of literature which conveys quality ideas with the least amount of verbiage.
But that's another discussion.
As to the Washington Post editorial, it starts by making the
point that while Mr. Obama was speaking to say America
was partnering with nations – spanning the geographic stretch from South Asia
to North Africa – to deny safe haven to terrorists, the strategy was crumbling
in Yemen .
And this is a nation that Obama has failed to mention, say the editors of the
Post. Perhaps someone should tell these people that Yemen is situated in the geographic
stretch described by Mr. Obama.
Aside from that, there was the fact that the situation in Yemen was fluid
at the time that the President was speaking. He was not saying the situation
was A-Okay everywhere, he was simply pointing out that America had chosen to
pursue that strategy rather than the alternative, which would have been to send
large ground forces overseas. The strategy may well have been crumbling in Yemen at the
time, but that's only one country among many. Still, before the situation had
completely evolved, the editors declared it an American defeat, and
extrapolated to suggest that the Obama strategy had failed everywhere else too.
To expand on the points they are making, the editors
describe the “partnership” strategy that America
is following in Yemen .
They say that close to a billion dollars were provided to train and equip
Yemeni counterterrorism units. In addition, the CIA and the Pentagon use drone
strikes to target militants deemed to plot against America . This strategy has failed,
say the editors, in that Al-Qaeda has mounted a successful insurgency which
gained it territory, and the Houthis mounted an assault that took control of
most of the capital.
Well then, where do the editors of the Post propose to go
from here? They have an idea which they begin to discuss after making this
statement: “The Yemen
mess reveals the weakness of Mr. Obama's 'partners' strategy.” Instead of
relying solely on drone strikes and the training of specialized units, they
propose this: “institution-building and the support of moderate political
forces.”
But that would be the nation building which they and other
commentators of the stripe have blasted for being inadequate and delusional.
They repeated as loudly as they could, as often as possible what the Jewish
Establishment had drummed into their heads ... mainly that “the Arabs and the
Muslims” understand only the language of force. And so they recommended: Bomb,
bomb, bomb. They followed with: war, war, war. And to this, they added: kill,
kill, kill.
So now the Post editors reverse their long held views, but
instead of waiting to see how Obama's strategy will pan out, they accuse him of
being uninterested in correcting his mistakes. Maybe that was to be expected
given that they always behaved like pompous asses. But the burning question at
this time is this: What got these knuckleheads to change their minds?
Here is a hint as to what the answer may be: “Yemen 's
politics are beyond byzantine...” Lo and behold, they seem to have discovered
that even in a place like Yemen ,
there is such a thing as a political language which people use to communicate.
And that language is neither: Bomb, bomb, bomb … nor war, war, war … nor kill,
kill, kill.