Monday, October 24, 2016

Saying something, having nothing to say

In a conference held by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, held on October 19, 2016, Tom Malinowski, who is Assistant Secretary of State, gave a 3,500 word speech in which he practically said nothing. The address was printed on the website of the Institute under the title: “The Future of Arab Reform: Beyond Autocrats and Islamists,” on October 20, 2016.

Malinowski began by saying that this being the post-Arab Spring era; he was asked to reflect on democracy and human rights in the Middle East, and to answer the question: “How can we revive progress on this vital front?” Of course, there is only one answer to that question. It is this: If America, especially Jewish America, keeps its nose out of the region, things will work out as well as they have for 7,000 years … as opposed to the calamity that has been inflicted on the region for the last 70 years – since America started poking its nose there. But that's not how Malinowski saw things.

He began the discussion with a notion he borrowed from then Secretary Hillary Clinton who, in 2011, said the following: “the greatest single source of instability in today's Middle East is not the demand for change. It is the refusal to change.” Of course, Clinton did not come up with that notion herself, it was bandied about for decades, since Shamir of Israel went on American television and blurted out: “Zey know nossing about za damacracy”.

That's when the swarm of Jewish pundits began to harp on the notion that 'regime change' was urgently needed in the Middle East. It is when the Holocaust psychos of America – calling themselves children of Holocaust survivors – began to plot the destruction of Iraq to change Saddam's regime; something they achieved a decade later as they worked in the office of then Vice President Dick Cheney … enjoying his full protection.

This Judeo-American demonic act is the event that led to the horror now unfolding in the Arab Levant. It had nothing to do with the single event that sparked a revolution in Tunisia and spread to Egypt. This movement was nicknamed the Arab Spring, and might have inspired a similar one in Syria. But the full scale horror that developed in the Levant overshadowed the Syrian Arab Spring, coming as it did in the wake of the destruction of Iraq and the breakdown of authority that regime change brought to the country. This is why the events that unfolded in North Africa do not come close to resembling the horror that's unfolding in the Levant at this time.

The subtle differences between the two situations – as well as other subtleties – are the fundamental realities one must recall when analyzing what's happening in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. But the sad part is that nowhere in the analysis developed by Malinowski do you see mention of these realities. Instead, he mentions the changes that occurred in some of the places, and goes from there to talk, not about what is necessary to heal the region, but what will be “in our cold, hard national interest”.

As it turned out 'democracy by regime change' that was supposed to be in America's national interest, proved to be no better than “something that threatens us today more than the turmoil in the Middle East: cynicism about democratic government. Our adversaries are trying to undermine confidence in these values. And we've seen how fragile their foundations are.” Having made this confession, what does Tom Malinowski now recommend?

His answer is the same as that given by the insane wino who thinks he can cure his hangover by consuming more wine. Malinowski is saying let's do more of what brought us to this point and maybe the result will be different. Here are his words: “We have to keep standing up for our values. We do it for our own sake. If we quit defending our convictions, if we were seen by the world as giving up, imagine how dispiriting that would be to people around the word who share our values? Imagine how empowering that would be to authoritarian leaders”.

Of course, this amounts to saying nothing. However, this kind of nothingness is not without consequence. Look at his words: “We must stand up for our values,” but he just admitted that, “we've seen how fragile their foundations are.” He goes on to say: “We do it for our sake, defending our convictions,” but he just admitted that, “cynicism threatens us [because] our adversaries are undermining our values.” And what can be more cynical than creating another Iraq-Syria horror “for our sake”.

Which leads us to this: When will you learn your lesson, America, and stop hiring one-dimensional simple minds to direct your foreign policy? You need people with an IQ that equals at least that of your opponents. Can you not find someone this developed intellectually in America?