US Foreign Policy is a Shambles

We leave nations corrupted, authoritarian, and full of violence.

With al-Qaeda affiliates wreaking havoc in Iraq, Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham seem to lament that no U.S. troops are on the scene to get in on the action.

“The Administration must recognize the failure of its policies in the Middle East and change course,” McCain and Graham said.

Change course? Do they want to send troops back to Iraq, so they can do more dying and killing?

McCain and Graham, who never saw an opportunity for U.S. military intervention they didn’t like, continue to operate under the absurd illusion that American politicians and bureaucrats can micromanage something as complex as a foreign society. Their hubris knows no bounds, but, then, they never pay the price for their foolishness. Who pays? The Americans they cheer off to war, but even more so, the people in foreign lands who are on the receiving end of American intervention.

How do those scoundrels in Washington sleep?

If you haven’t noticed, American foreign policy is a shambles. Iraq and Afghanistan are engulfed in violence, and their corrupt, authoritarian governments are objects of suspicion and hatred. The suggestion that U.S. forces could make things better only shows how out of touch people in Washington can be.

Anyone who was thinking clearly in 2001–2003 knew it would come to this. Afghanistan has a history of driving out invaders. Only someone blinded by the allure of empire could fool himself into thinking the U.S. government could arrange affairs such that they wouldn’t unravel the moment U.S. personnel prepared to leave the country.

The 2003 Iraq invasion raised even more questions about the ability of policymakers to engage in clear thinking. Under Saddam Hussein, the minority Sunni Muslims ruled the Shi’ite majority, many of whom were sympathetic to Shi’ite Iran, America’s supposed bête noir. Take out Saddam, and Iran’s friends would rule. Indeed, the man who became Iraq’s prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, was handpicked by Iranian authorities. (Ironically, the Shi’ite leader that the Bush administration chose to fight, Muqtada al-Sadr, was the most nationalist of Iraqi Shi’ites and least sympathetic to Iran.)

With Shi’ites in control, Iraqi Sunnis resisted. And then came the al-Qaeda fighters, who saw a chance to kill both Shi’ites and Americans. Hence the continued violence in Iraq, even though U.S. forces left at the end of 2011 — despite the Obama administration’s best effort to keep some there.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only places where U.S. foreign policy is in disarray. Take Egypt. The Obama administration — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — stuck with hated military dictator and ally Hosni Mubarak until the bitter end and even then tried to have his second-in-command and torturer in chief, Omar Suleiman, take over when Mubarak was finished. That didn’t work, of course, and a fledgling democracy (whatever its imperfections) began to sprout wings.

The Obama administration praised Egyptian democratic aspirations, but when the military deposed President Muhammad Morsi last year, the administration sided with the coup makers — although it could not use the word coup, for that would require stopping the annual $1.5 billion payment to the Egyptian military. The U.S. government has no desire to end that appropriation, because it keeps Egypt in the American camp and blunts its support for the Palestinians, who are under occupation by U.S. partner Israel. With Egypt’s military government cracking down on the civil liberties of the members of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. policy looks more monstrous every day.

Speaking of Israel, Secretary of State John Kerry seems to be going all out for a peace agreement between the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinians, but Kerry’s effort has a fatal flaw at its core. Netanyahu & Co. don’t want the Palestinians to have a viable, autonomous state free of Israeli domination. We know this because the prime minister keeps announcing plans for more illegal Jewish-only residences on Palestinian land acquired through war. Kerry won’t condemn this flagrant undermining of “peace” talks because he, like so many American politicians, is beholden to Israel’s powerful American lobby.

Then there’s Libya and Syria — but you get the idea. U.S. foreign intervention aggravates conflicts and puts America on the side of oppressors. No wonder it’s falling to pieces.

This column originally appeared in the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Zeb||

    At least he didn't say it was "in shambles". I hate it when people do that.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Guilty as charged. I didn't even know that was wrong.

  • From the Tundra||

    Hmmm, Fowler's says otherwise:

    "...but in the sense 'a scene of disorder, a muddle' (its economy remains in a shambles) ...

    It also gives usage as in the headline. Who the fuck knows? Sounds cooler Zeb's way anyway.

  • From the Tundra||

    Sorry Zeb, read you wrong. Should never comment while participating on a conference call...

  • Paul.||

    That's the best time to comment.

  • some guy||

    Would you accept "in a shambles?"

  • Zeb||

    The origin of the phrase is interesting. A shambles is a slaughterhouse. So to say that something is "in a shambles" would mean something different than "a shambles", I think.

    Usage will determine what is correct ultimately, but when I learned the origin of that phrase, I thought it was very interesting, so I always point it out to people.

  • From the Tundra||

    Very interesting, indeed. According to what I have, it was first 'a table or stall for the sale of meat', then a slaughterhouse, then any scene of blood and carnage. Modern (weakened) usage dates only to the 20s.

  • JWatts||

    How about Shambling towards Gomorrah?

  • Pro Libertate||

    What about Shambhala?

  • From the Tundra||

    You know who else was interested in Shambhala?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yes. Three Dog Night. And that's "a Shambhala," dummy.

  • Zeb||

    I think that is a completely different word.

    Kids are still slouching more than shambling anyway.

  • Pro Libertate||

    In a slouches?

  • ||

    Illustrated by the fact that the State Department can't figure out WTF "public diplomacy" means. Apparently, our new boss, Mr. Horseface, thinks you can engage foreign publics on a grassroots level by talking about technical details of U.S. foreign policy. I'm sure Ahmed, whose sister's wedding was dronebombed last week, is really interested in that treaty Congress ratified a few years back and NAFTA and trade tariffs and shit.

  • Paul.||

    The selection of the wedding party was careful and went through a very rigorous process and review.

  • Hugh Akston||

    We're all somewhere on the disposition matrix.

  • Rich||

    Exactly. It's like the autism spectrum.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Wait, we have a foreign policy? I thought that ended when the Cold War did.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is my reaction as well. Though I suppose one has to admit that the Bush administration kind of did have one, though it's not one I at all agreed with.

  • JWatts||

    The US had a pretty enduring Foreign policy up until the Bush Jr. era. And even then it was coherent, if a step to far with the Iraqi war. But since Bush left we don't even have a semblance of a Foreign policy.

    Can anyone even guess what the Obama administration might do in a particular instance? I can't. It all seems pretty random for the last 5 years.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I thought Clinton was weak on foreign policy, though that was a much easier time to avoid fuckups. Old Man Bush was fairly good at it, it seems, with the example of the Iraq coalition being the most prominent example.

  • GILMORE||

    Clinton? Mixed bag. Depends what you consider most important. I think he should get credit for his trade deals, and the post-Soviet security issue particularly.

    Clinton Foreign Policy
    wins/losses/ties =

    WINS=

    - NAFTA
    - 1999 trade agreement with China
    - Lifting of Vietnam Embargo
    - Good Friday Agreement negotiated in North Ireland
    - Aid to Russia to create system controlling nuclear proliferation

    LOSSES =

    - Anything at all in Africa (Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, you name it)
    - Iran and NK effectively incentivized to go nuclear because it was the only thing we took seriously
    - The Iraq Oil/Food Program and 10yrs of trying to keep 'Saddam on Ice' = effectively delayed/guaranteed eventual full blown war.

    TIES/NO SCORE =

    - Balkans. You can't win.
    - Haiti. Shitholes gonna shithole.
    - Israel/Palestine (see: Balkans/Haiti)

  • OneOut||

    If you consider NAFTA and "free" trade with third world countries you must obviously live in the investor class.

    What value added production jobs that haven't been located to countries with cheap labor have been revalued through the process of open borders.

  • Ragnar||

    Was NAFTA a win? Really?

  • GILMORE||

    On Bush Sr = I have kind of a 'loser' view of him for a couple reasons

    1. Desert Storm was considered this wonderful 'success' for its multinational support, one-sidedness, and its so-called 'limited objectives'. While it would be nice if wars could ever really be done this way, those 'un-addressed objectives' have a funny way of biting you in the ass later. I think Gulf War-Iraq are really parts A and B of a single engagement with a mixed record. And the basing of troops in Saudi Arabia was probably a Very Bad Idea in retrospect.

    2. His tepid expressions of support for Tiananmen SQ protestors and even more tepid reaction to their massacre. He was very close with Deng Xiopeng and knew that 'blustery American rhetoric' at this time could possibly ruin relations... yet it was such, such a bummer in contrast to the fall of the Berlin Wall & Slow motion collapse of the Soviet Union. He wasn't exactly the most charismatic guy, and it was a moment that sort of required some kind of guts to explain exactly why we were going to be giving the Chinese a pass. It felt like shit.

    3. I sort of hold him responsible for a lot of the shitty things America did in Central America in the late 70s/early 80s

    I saw Bush I as the last Cold War president, whose FP was dictated by Cold War thinking/priorities. One reason I think Clinton stands out as slightly more exceptional was, as you said, the lower 'risk profile' for failure.

  • JWatts||

    "On Bush Sr = I have kind of a 'loser' view of him for a couple reasons"

    Still even if you don't agree with Bush Sr's policies, at least they were coherent. Furthermore, you could logically predict his future foreign policy decisions based upon the previous decisions. There was an essential level of stability and predictability.

    Where as who the fuck knows what the Obama administration will do next? There isn't any kind of coherent predictable strategy.

  • Drake||

    I think the long-term strategy is to swap sides and have another Cold War.

  • Paul.||

    Our foreign policy is to continue engaging with foreigners. Drones inbound.

  • Michael Price||

    "Of course, how do you think our diplomatic activities are directed?"
    "Our diplomatic activities are directed?"
    (with apologies to Blackadder.)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Secretary of State John Kerry seems to be going all out for a peace agreement between the government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinians, but Kerry’s effort has a fatal flaw at its core. Netanyahu & Co. don’t want the Palestinians to have a viable, autonomous state free of Israeli domination[...] Kerry won’t condemn this flagrant undermining of “peace” talks because he, like so many American politicians, is beholden to Israel’s powerful American lobby.

    It's not a Richman column if we can't talk about the perfidious and all-powerful Joooos.

    Because God knows that an article calling for a more rational foreign policy should also senselessly invoke nonsensical conspiracy theories and turn off people who aren't inclined to think that Israel is the Great Satan.

  • RightNut||

    This x100. Maybe Richman was mugged by a Hasidic in his youth or something.

  • GILMORE||

    Trouser =

    Why is suggesting that trying to play mediator to a 'peace agreement' between Israel and [insert anyone near them] is fucking stupid necessarily some kind of conspiracy about "perfidious Jews"?

    I could point out that making Israel the most prominent component of American foreign policy efforts over the last 30 years has done neither the Israelis or Americans any fucking bit of good at all, and produced fuck-all in terms of any kind of lasting regional sanity.

    Basically, getting mixed up with Israel at all has been a perennial loser. Everyone since Carter has had their attempt at a 'camp david' moment and seen it turn into a mockery. Call it a Roadmap, a Blueprint, a fucking Libretto to Peace, or what have you = they are nothing but a string of failures. WHY anyone might believe these efforts have failed (*prominently among them= settlements?) is effectively meaningless next to the question of = Why do we bother at all? There is no over-riding security interest, economic interest, etc. In the cold war one might have justified pro-Israeli policy on the basis that the region was swamped with Soviet money and weapons. but I see no reason for the United States to perpetually be required to "Stand Strong With Israel" when there are frankly few fundamental self-interested reasons for doing so.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    We should treat Israel the same way we treat Georgia -- hold military exercises with them, trade with them, have tech and intelligence deals and generally coordinate with them on favorable terms *without* entangling ourselves in their foreign policy or subsidizing their welfarist state.

    Pretending that poor Mr. Kerry would be acting out his part in the kabuki theater differently if it wasn't for that insidious Jewish lobby is pure, undiluted horseshit. There is no evidence to indicate that a Kerry-oriented foreign policy would be better without the Jewish lobby than with. It's a question of principles, not preferences or lobbyists.

    Another way of putting it: who would you rather have running your foreign policy, the generally pro-Israel Rand Paul or Justin Amash -- or some asshole like Edward Said?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Frankly, I think we need to remember what we are, deep down, which is a commercial power. Our foreign policy should be more based on smoothing the way for more trade and more people to sell stuff to.

  • GILMORE||

    "It's a question of principles, not preferences or lobbyists."

    If that's the case, what is the "principle" behind American political, economic and military power being used to backstop Israeli interests?

    You characterize pro-Israel policy being connected to a 'jewish lobby' to be a 'nonsensical conspiracy theory'.

    Then WHAT IS the pro-Israeli policy based on? Why the fuck is it such a prominent component of each administrations foreign policy establishment? Why the hell can't anyone ever say, "Its not an important issue for us?" Because *its not*.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    what is the "principle" behind American political, economic and military power being used to backstop Israeli interests?

    Relic of Cold War politics + domestic response to the Holocaust. After some flirtation with the USSR in the 50s, Israel began to align more and more with the US -- and the US likewise saw in Israel a good way to keep the other (generally pro-Soviet) regional powers distracted and disunited. This relationship persisted beyond its logical point of closure after the Cold War in a manner similar to our relationship with S Korea thanks to US public sentiment regarding westernized allies facing similar problems.

    I don't think this relationship sprung out of the ether because domestic politicians are "beholden" to any particular foreign lobby against their wishes -- to the contrary, whatever power AIPAC has is the result of public sentiment rather than in spite of it.

  • GILMORE||

    Fair enough. However, you do agree that there's little to it (post cold-war) other than 'public sentiment', which is not exactly the basis for any realpolitik pursuit of self interest.

    meaning, you don't seem to justify it in any way.

    And whether AIPAC is as powerful as it is with or without public sentiment is also a moot point. It simply is.

    I see Israel as sort of the Reverse-Cuba = a country we maintain unnecessarily strict terms with purely due to the hysterical sentiments of a minority group - just, 'strict' in a 'strictly positive' way, as opposed to treating them like shit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    you don't seem to justify it in any way

    I don't mean to justify the current state of affairs, since I don't agree with it. Israel's a good trading partner and a (somewhat) decent regional partner/ally -- it shouldn't be treated too differently from how we treat the eastern Euro states today, and shouldn't get our money or unconditional support both for the standard libertarian reasons and also for solid realpolitik rationales. (Same roughly goes for S Korea, btw)

    I just don't buy that it is some uniquely evil or influential power, or that Richman's, ahem, Chomskyite take on Middle East affairs is anything other than bilge (especially on Egypt: WTF, Rich?). It's also not germane to the topic: the OP should be arguing *why* US policy is bad, not responsibility for our decisions to a foreign element in unsavory and unsubstantiated ways.

  • GILMORE||

    Agreed.

  • Will Nonya||

    Holy shit, two people had a reasonable conversation and ended in agreement in the reason comment section. Anything is possible...

  • OneOut||

    No shit.

    It's getting boring around here.

  • wareagle||

    Why is suggesting that trying to play mediator to a 'peace agreement' between Israel and [insert anyone near them] is fucking stupid necessarily some kind of conspiracy about "perfidious Jews"?

    it's mostly the false equivalency, as if the Israelis are randomly lobbing rockets into Palestinian areas and regularly fomenting violence. The freest Arabs in the Middle East are the ones living in Israel. Doesn't make the Jews perfect but makes them a notch or two higher than the other guys.

  • GILMORE||

    I see that in Richman's piece (false equivalency); but my comment was,

    "What if we didn't take any fucking sides at all?" i.e. stay out of the issue entirely? What's 'perfidious' about maybe *not* playing the bad-faith mediator in the first place?

    I took Trouser's comment to be aghast that anything short of steadfastly pro-Israel policy was crypto-anti-semitic...

    My comment was more to the point of, whether one cares about either side = why should US policy care at all who (in your words) is the 'better guy'? There is, as far as I can tell, very little in the way of actual benefit for the US having inserted itself into the 'peace non-process' over the last 30 years. Why do we continually insist on playing false-referee to their perpetual ethno-civil-war?

    this is one area where the 'non-interventionist' in me takes center stage.

    By contrast, I think I could make a far more compelling case for why invading Iraq actually *made sense*. Which is almost funny, in a sick way.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Totally agree. What will it take to end this love affair?

  • Brandon||

    I don't know if "Bow to it or bomb it" qualifies as a foreign policy.

  • JWatts||

    "I don't know if "Bow to it or bomb it" qualifies as a foreign policy."

    Particularly, when the decision seems to rest upon the results of a Magic 8-Ball.

    http://www.ask8ball.net/

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    Not for us, but for many it is exactly so….

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Also, reconsider writing a persuasive essay which includes the following emotional signaling and hyperbolic grandstanding:

    Only someone blinded by the allure of empire could fool himself into [supporting OIF and OEF]


    How do those scoundrels in Washington sleep?


    Good grief, you aren't writing for the Noam Chomsky Appreciation Society.

  • some guy||

    He should leave the vindictive slurs to us commentors.

  • Rich||

    the vindictive slurs

    Nice band name.

  • Swiss Servator, KALT!||

    Seconded. Who would be their opening act?

  • AlbertP||

    Libelous Basturds?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The Obama administration — including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — stuck with hated military dictator and ally Hosni Mubarak until the bitter end and even then tried to have his second-in-command and torturer in chief, Omar Suleiman, take over when Mubarak was finished. That didn’t work, of course, and a fledgling democracy (whatever its imperfections) began to sprout wings.

    "Imperfections" such as forming a theocratic government committed to killing gays, terrorizing Copts, and making life a hellhole for whoever doesn't kowtow the Islamist line -- little glitches like that. Fly, fledgling democracy, fly!

    But what's a happy volksdemocracy without a Jew to ruin it?

    The Obama administration praised Egyptian democratic aspirations, but when the military deposed President Muhammad Morsi last year, the administration sided with the coup makers[...] The U.S. government has no desire to end that appropriation, because it keeps Egypt in the American camp and blunts its support for the Palestinians, who are under occupation by U.S. partner Israel.
  • Irish||

    My favorite part is that he then attacks the Egyptian military for oppressing the Muslim Brotherhood and says:

    With Egypt’s military government cracking down on the civil liberties of the members of Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood, U.S. policy looks more monstrous every day.

    Why is this more monstrous than the time Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood was cracking down on the civil liberties of all other Egyptians? It's wrong, but seems less monstrous because the Muslim Brotherhood behaved as aggressors first.

    When the Muslim Brotherhood is murdering its own people so that they can blame the Egyptian military, I have a difficult time seeing them as victims who are being oppressed.

  • Winston||

    fledgling democracy (whatever its imperfections) began to sprout wings.

    I doubt Richman would say similar things about Iraq or Libya's "fledgling democrac[ies]"

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Then there’s Libya and Syria — but you get the idea.

    You obviously wouldn't want to elaborate on the follies of our most recent forays into interventionism -- no sir. Not when you can take up half your article bitching about Jews.

  • GILMORE||

    ""you can take up half your article bitching about Jews.""

    The phrase "speaking of Israel" appears in the second to last paragraph.

    What the fuck article did you read, because I sort of missed the Crypto Mein Kampf you're fuming about.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't think Richman is a racist, I think he's a nut. There's no reason that Israel or the Jewish lobby needed to make it into a persuasive article about non-interventionism *at all*, especially when such serves to remove responsibility for our government's piss-poor decisionmaking onto a foreign element in an extremely unsavory and mendacious way.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're totally right. I mean, just because the Secretary of State is actively engaged in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians is no reason why Israel should be mentioned in an article about foreign policy. No reason at all. I mean, they've got absolutely nothing to do with each other. Zip. Nada.

  • GILMORE||

    So, "half the article bitching about Jews"

    ...is now,

    "there's no reason for the Jewish Lobby being mentioned *at all*"

    I see.

    Are you TRYING to reinforce the stereotype of the 'touchy, hysterical pro-Israel' stance, which sees anti-Semitism everywhere they look?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, my response would be exactly the same if the OP used a significant portion of his article to scream about the evil Muslim, Poles, or any other group -- if you're writing a persuasive essay, don't write in such a way as to alienate your audience or to detract from your main point, both of which is done by wading into the rankings of various Middle Eastern governments and engaging the Arab-Israel issue.

    Such a subject deserves a separate article where a case is presented and arguments developed -- rather than an article where such things are strongly asserted without backing or argument of any kind.

  • GILMORE||

    Fine.

    Your earlier "its all about the jews" thing however really didn't give that impression.

    If I have a bone to pick with any "Libertarian" foreign policy pieces, is that I find they tend to derive from a broad principle of 'non intervention' and then extend from there, often sometimes in ways that don't make a hell of a lot of sense. Overgeneralized, maybe.

    in the case of "why Afghanistan and Iraq" are such policy disasters - I'm not sure they are that way because of the decisions to wage those wars AT ALL, but more in how they changed in conception on the fly as they proceeded.

    With Egypt = I agree there's been a hideous bungling of how we clarify our interests and still promote and encourage evolution of a liberal society there. I think we probably blew the opportunity to send a strong signal that we support one side or the other, and ended up simply looking like crass opportunists who want to meddle for the greatest leverage regardless who is in power. Result = no one trusts us. Lose-Lose.

    I disagree that, "U.S. foreign intervention ALWAYS aggravates conflicts and puts America on the side of oppressors."

    it just so happens that's how the current idiots have let things play out.

  • Winston||

    "U.S. foreign intervention ALWAYS aggravates conflicts and puts America on the side of oppressors."

    I never liked this line of argument since it boils down to "Wrong TOP. MEN are in charge!" and isn't actually anti-war at all!

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Netanyahu & Co. don’t want the Palestinians to have a viable, autonomous state free of Israeli domination.

    I believe we call this autonomous state free of Israeli domination The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

  • Steve G||

    Iraq and Afghanistan were largely inevitable and not really a product of our current FP. The negative trends in the relationships with EVERY OTHER COUNTRY serve as better justification for his thesis.

  • GILMORE||

    Seriously.

    The scale of Obama's shitty foreign policy is far more apparent in the utter disdain he has for maintaining/developing allies, and the pathetic attempts to create some kind of operating leverage with rivals and enemies.

    I consider the post-Benghazi 'apology to pakistan' to be a low point in human history.

  • JWatts||

    I think it's fair to give Obama a pass on those two rather large issues. But then there's Syria, Libya, Russia, China, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.

  • GILMORE||

    LOL

    Hey, but Russia and China ARE part of the above-mentioned "large issues"...

    I think the best way of putting it is to say

    Obama's foreign policy is a complete and utter failure in dealing with the largest global economic and security issues of our time.

    Oh, and its feckless, incoherent, incompetent meddling in the Middle East is even worse than that

    DONE@

  • Pro Libertate||

    Easily the most inept administration in a long time in foreign policy. And in most other things, but foreign policy seems literally random. Like they use a random generator of some sort to decide what to do each time.

  • Drake||

    They seem motivated by a strange combination of self-loathing, guilt, and historical angst. And they take a very dim view of acting in American self-interest (particularly business interests).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Easily the most inept administration in a long time in foreign policy.

    You mean brilliant speeches espousing the evil of US interactions doesn't actually do anything?

    Surely ye jest!

  • JWatts||

    "Obama's foreign policy is a complete and utter failure in dealing with the largest global economic and security issues of our time.

    Oh, and its feckless, incoherent, incompetent meddling in the Middle East is even worse than that"

    Agreed.

  • Paul.||

    Obama has fixed our image around the world!

  • Joe Katzman||

    US foreign policy may indeed be a shambles. And support for authoritarian regimes may indeed have long-term costs that make it unattractive. I believe both of these things.

    But I don't have to ignore reality, or mislead readers, in order to make those points when I choose to make them.

    If the Obama administration was so supportive of the Egyptian coup, why were the protesters who drove the coup carrying signs and effigies, decrying Obama and his ambassador as Morsi lackeys? Why are Arab allies distancing themselves from an America that they condemn for failing to support Mubarak?

    The US may have screwed up in Egypt, but you'd have to tell the truth in order to make that case well. Not even a slight mention of the Islamic civil war, either, which pits Shias against Sunnis across the region.

    These are pretty big things to miss.

    In a similar vein, the reason "peace" talks are going nowhere in Israel is because Palestinian leadership continues to promote the destruction of Israel, teaches genocide and hate in schools, and used past agreements as a launching pad for terrorist campaigns. The Israeli electorate sees them as uninterested in peace, and refuses to support more concessions to them. Netanyahu is well to the LEFT of that electorate on this issue, and Israel is a democratic state.

    Trying to force policies on a foreign democracy when those policies are rejected by the electorate tends not to work. One would think a "Foundation for Freedom" might grasp that.

  • GILMORE||

    " the Obama administration was so supportive of the Egyptian coup, why were the protesters who drove the coup carrying signs and effigies, decrying Obama and his ambassador as Morsi lackeys? Why are Arab allies distancing themselves from an America that they condemn for failing to support Mubarak?"

    Do you mind providing some clear answers to your rhetorical questions?

    You sorta did that re: Palestine, albeit in a way that reveals your completely one-dimensional mindset.

    While you're at it explaining the Egyptian thing, also explain to me exactly why I'm support to give a shit about Israel at all. because I missed that in the whole, "Palestinians are such animals" thing.

  • kinnath||

    It's been all down hill since the Peace Prize.

  • GILMORE||

    Seriously.

    Its not like the Nobel Peace Prize hadn't already completely lost its credibility .... but there was definitely a kind of watershed, 'Milli Vanilli' moment there. A certain, "you have to be fucking joking"-atmosphere to it. Like the movie Gigli

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Gigli was no joke. Unfortunately.

  • PaulW||

    I have a hard time with this article, as I feel the writer thinks we should intervene in Israel.

    Of course, the writer is probably too intelligent to come out and be so hypocritical, but I think we can all read between the lines.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "We leave nations corrupted, authoritarian, and full of violence."

    Corruption (Bob McDonnell), authoritarian (shutting down part of the world's busiest bridge for revenge) and violence (mass murders of school children)?

    Are we complaining about foreign policy or domestic policy?

  • Ragnar||

    "Netanyahu & Co. don’t want the Palestinians to have a viable, autonomous state free of Israeli domination."

    A little one-sided. The "palestinians" don't want Israel to exist at all.

  • PaulinePhelpsmee||

    up to I saw the check of $8495, I did not believe ...that...my best friend actualy earning money part time from their computer.. there friend brother started doing this 4 only fourteen months and as of now cleared the dept on there appartment and got a top of the range Ariel Atom. website here
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    http://www.tec30.com
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

  • ||

    Thanks Obama!

  • jhonmary||

    Start working at home with GOOGLE!YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES... It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour.for a work detail go to home tab.... I work through this link,

    WWW.CASH46.COM

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement