In his article: “Fast-roping toward war in the Middle East,”
Ken Allard who is a retired army colonel, demonstrates that he knows a thing or
two about the history of war tactics and strategies both during the American
Civil War and the more recent Middle Eastern conflagrations. But when it comes
to the political history of the Middle East ,
Allard leaves much to be desired.
His article also comes under the subtitle: “Putin has called
Obama's bluff with a broad-shouldered intervention in Syria ,” and was
published on October 8, 2015 in The Washington Times. The trouble with this
piece of work is that it tries to combine sound military analysis with a
description of the Middle Eastern political history that is inaccurate. This
being the impossible combination that has eroded America 's
standing in the region and the rest of the world, Ken Allard has done very
little to shed light on the subject and alleviate America 's quandary.
The problem is that everyone doing this sort of work is
subjected to the kind of self-censorship which befits a North Korean style
regime, not one that calls itself a democracy or even the most powerful
democracy the world has ever known. That would be an America in which hundreds of
thousands of people, if not millions of them earn a living by expressing their
opinion through the media. And yet, no one from among this multitude of people
dares to include in their discussion the glaring truth that Israel and the Jewish pundits of America are hurting the nation's interests in
the Middle East and around the world.
True to form, Allard chose to follow the wretched pattern
that's adopted by everyone in America
with regard to issues relating to the Middle East .
It is to dance around the reality that policies for the region are formulated
to serve Israel even when
the practice hurts America 's
interests. For this reason, Allard – like all the others – has reached the
conclusion that America
is losing its aura internationally solely because the Executive branch of
government doesn't know what it is doing.
Ken Allard follows that pattern and reaches the wrong
conclusion instead of telling the truth about the Jewish undue influence; an
approach that could have helped the Executive branch adopt a correct strategy
for the Middle East . But this is not what's
happening in America
these days because the fear is always present that to tell the truth will
trigger the predictable Jewish wailing and accusations of antisemitism.
Here is an example that tells a great deal of what's wrong
with the Americans: “Egypt
had been a key American strategic ally ever since Sadat. But Obama backed
Morsi, even after 30 million Egyptians took to the streets to force his
overthrow. When Obama cut off military ties with the new Egyptian regime of
President Sisi, the Russians swiftly stepped in to reverse a generation of
American statecraft. Unlike the amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists
and diplomats have no difficulty connecting dots.”
What can be said about that passage is that it is loaded
with a ton of ironies. The historical truth is that between Sadat and Morsi,
there were three decades of a Mubarak regime. The 30 million Egyptians who
demanded the overthrow of Morsi were the same 30 million who demanded the overthrow
of Mubarak a year earlier. The fact is that it was the people of Egypt and not Sadat, Mubarak, Morsi, Sisi, the
Russians or the Americans who shaped Egypt 's foreign policy throughout
the decades.
To understand what motivates the people of Egypt , you may
look at four popular demonstrations that took place in the country during the
past five decades. The first came about after the 1967 Israeli blitz on Egypt .
President Nasser took responsibility for what happened and resigned. But
despite the “defeat,” the people of Egypt took to the streets demanding
that he gets back to his post, and resume governing the nation as if nothing
had happened. Why is that? Because Nasser was
fiercely independent, and would not let anyone interfere in Egyptian affairs.
The people loved him for that.
The second demonstration of consequence took place when,
during the decade of the Seventies, Sadat took the advice of the IMF and ended
the subsidies on bread and other commodities. The people backed by the police –
not the military this time – took to the streets and forced Sadat to rescind
his decision. Why is that? It wasn't because the price of bread had gone up a
little (this happened later, and there was no demonstration) but because Sadat
was seen to take orders from the IMF. And the people hated him for that.
The third demonstration took place when the aging Mubarak
was thought to be too much in the pocket of the Western powers, especially the
Americans who were responsible for his tendency to accommodate the Israelis. He
sold to them natural gas at dirt cheap prices at a time when the Jews of
America were not letting a day go by without pouring a Niagara of hateful
propaganda against Egypt. This was also accompanied by statements out the
mouths of the big and the small from among America 's
ruling class – to the effect that the superpower will arm Israel not only
to defend itself but to maintain military superiority over all its neighbors.
Why be friendly with someone that puts a gun in the hand of the killer that's
after you … and then brags about it?
The fourth demonstration took place when Morsi was seen to
forge a cozy relationship with Turkey that wanted to revive the old Ottoman
Empire, and with Qatar whose Al Jazeera was as bad as the BBC and the VOA
without being as trivial or ridiculously comical as them.
Now, my friend, compare that narrative with the one that was
offered by Ken Allard, and you'll see why his contention that “unlike the
amateurs in the West Wing, Russian strategists and diplomats have no difficulty
connecting dots” is the irony of ironies in his presentation. It is that he is
correct about the amateurs in the West Wing, but his description of them
applies to him as well. That's because he connected the dots the way that suits
him, and not in accordance with reality.