A recent Gulf News report sheds some light on how and why the United States helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood and its Islamist allies to power, followed by all the subsequent chaos and atrocities in the Mideast region.
Large portions of the report follow with my commentary interspersed for added context:
Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.
The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements (emphasis in bold added throughout).
And we have certainly witnessed this shift. Chaos and the Islamic ascendancy in the Middle East and North Africa never flourished as under the Obama administration—and precisely because the administration shifted from supporting stability under secular-minded autocrats.
The most significant example of this is how the Obama administration threw Hosni Mubarak—a U.S. ally for three decades—under the bus in order to support the Islamists, most specifically the Muslim Brotherhood. And we saw how that ended—with another revolution, hailed as the largest revolution in human history, with the average Egyptian accusing Obama of being a terrorist supporter.
To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.
“Embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view” is synonymous with the “orthodox and mainstream view pushed forth by Mideast studies professors and academics,” especially those with political influence, such as the Center for Contemporary Arab Studies of Georgetown University, in Washington D.C. Such programs, which I’m only too well acquainted with, begin with false—that is, “embarrassingly naïve and uninformed”—premises, namely: that the source of all the region’s woes are (formerly) U.S.-propped autocrats (reality is that dictators don’t create such societies but rather are the natural outcome of Islamic societies and are the ones most prone to keeping law and order—compare Iraq under Saddam and Iraq now, as a “democracy,” with “ISIS” proclaiming a caliphate).
Mideast academics have also long spearheaded the idea that there are “moderate” Islamists and “radical” Islamists, and that the U.S. should work with the former (in reality they are all radical—to be an Islamist is to be radical—the only difference is that the “moderate” Islamists don’t wear their radicalism on their sleeves, even as they work toward the same goals that the more open “radicals” work for, namely, a Sharia-enforcing caliphate).
The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC, which obtained the documents in question.
This too is significant. As Daniel Greenfield writes: “Al-Hewar, which actually got hold of the documents, is linked to the International Institute of Islamic Thought… which is a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Figures in the Muslim Brotherhood had threatened to leak understandings with Obama Inc. This is the next best thing. It warns Obama that if he tries to forget about them, they can prove that the relationship was official policy.”
To be sure, after the ousting of the Brotherhood in Egypt, several Brotherhood members made, sometimes not so veiled, threats to expose the Obama administration if it turned its back on them, including top ranking Brotherhood member, Khairat al-Shatter’s son.
Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public.
If and when these thousands of pages are released, they should be combed through, as no doubt answers to many of the Obama administration’s hitherto inexplicable policies in the Middle East will be found—to wit:
US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a conference on “Islamists in Power” hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Indeed, despite the administration’s later insistence that it did not favor the Islamists over other parties, anecdotes implying otherwise were constantly on display. In Egypt alone, U.S. ambassador Anne Patterson, due to her close ties not just to President Morsi, but the Muslim Brotherhood in general, became such a hated figure in the months before last year’s anti-Brotherhood revolution.
A State Department Cable classified “Confidential” report says the following: “Benghazi Meeting With Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: On April 2 [2012] Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood steering committee, who will speak at the April 5 Carnegie Endowment ‘Islamist in Power’ conference in Washington, D.C. He described the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to form a political party as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after years of operating underground.
These documents on the Obama administration’s connections with the Muslim Brotherhood in Libya are especially disturbing in the context of earlier revelations made in Arabic media, including that the Brotherhood’s Libyan wing was very much involved in the 9/11 Benghazi U.S. consulate attack.
Another State Department paper marked “Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)” contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless provides clear indication of Washington’s sympathies for the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-Gaddafi Libya. The talking points recommended that Secretary Burns tell Sawan that the US government entities “share your party’s concerns in ensuring that a comprehensive transitional justice process is undertaken to address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent.”
“To address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent” is another way of stating another popular position among Mideast professors, namely that whenever Islamists engage in violence or terrorism, that is proof positive that they have a legitimate grievance, hence the US must “appease” lest it “spark new discontent” (perhaps the true backdrop of Benghazi).
The Burns paper described the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: “Prior to last year’s revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned for over three decades and its members were fiercely pursued by the Gaddafi regime.
In light of all the chaos the Islamists have been responsible for in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, Syria, et al—is it now obvious why Arab autocrats like Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Hosni Mubarak, and currently Bashar Assad have always “banned” and “fiercely pursued” the Brotherhood and its affiliates?
John C. Barile says
Mr. Obama was the catalyst for a very violent course of event to overtake the Middle East and the world. His policies almost succeeded in scrapping the Arab-Israeli peace treaties–The burning of the Israeli Embassy and the vicious persecution of Christians in Muslim lands have counted for nothing. His indifference to the Iranian people’s protests are telling, too. Mr. Obama has proven himself to be a danger to peace, genuine freedom, and stability.
Transmaster says
Read the book Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas (2014) by Edward Klein
You will see this mid east policy has Obama, and Valerie Garrett’s name all over it. They both hate Israel, and are completely incompetent in foreign policy but they think they a best that has ever been. The most Holy trinity, in there own minds, Michelle, Valerie, and Obama ignore the Department of State. They cut the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton out of the loop
Beagle says
Obama opposes the Sunni fighters in Iraq until they cross the no-longer-a border into Syria, where he supports arming them if they are ‘moderate’.
Good luck threading that needle.
Jay Boo says
Sunni fighters in Iraq have looted millions from Iraqi banks.
Is the $500 million in US currency that Obama proposed for Sunni Syrians to be used to ‘launder’ some of the stolen currency?
Charlie Griffith says
That damned [literally damned] word “moderate” keeps popping up in discussions of Muslims, but we never see any definition explaining what, exactly, is a “moderate” Muslim.
Do individual Muslims pick and choose among the belligerent verses in their Koran? Just how elastic is their imam’s interpretation of these belligerent included/excluded verses in their Koran?
Is there an agreed upon scale somewhere of degrees of “moderation” while being a professed Muslim, which then can be used as some kind of a “metric”? …without being labelled as an heretic by their imam? …..and/or having their throats slit? Is there a designated way to slit “moderately” an heretics throat, or an apostate’s throat?
Jay Boo says
McCain definition
A ‘moderate’ Sunni Muslim in Syria is any Muslim willing to pose with John McCain for a smiley-faced photo-op as McCain says this is my ‘good friend’ let’s hand him a lot of money so he will like us even more.
Alternate: substitute John Kerry as well
Chuck Killeen says
Yes indeed “moderate” is a damnable term.
“Moderate” GOP’s handed US this mess.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
And we saw how that ended—with another revolution, hailed as the largest revolution in human history, with the average Egyptian accusing Obama of being a terrorist supporter.
The premise of foreign policy is that in its conduct a nation must back one side or another. But, with Moslems, you always end up supporting a terrorist, and you always end up losing.
“Embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view” is synonymous with the “orthodox and mainstream view pushed forth by Mideast studies professors and academics,” especially those with political influence…
Not that political influence matters, because *all* professors and academics dealing with Moslems share the same position that it is a religion of peace going through a trouble evolution after centuries of colonial rule and racist predation.
The public version of Moslems has gone from orthodox and mainstream to fantastic, incredible and threadbare.
And, while the professors and academics is understandably correct focus, let’s not forget the work of the priests, rabbis and preachers, nor those of the officials in our permanent government, nor the products of the news entertainment industry, nor those of the entertainment industry. I’ll never forget Keifer Sutherland’s televised apology for his hit show 24’s unfair focus on Islam and Moslems. It’s been one very large group effort; there’s plenty of discredit to go around.
Charlie Griffith says
Re:
“….And, while the professors and academics is understandably correct focus, ….”
Who says?
Academics and professors play word games depending upon an infinitely variable scale…that word again….of meanings.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Well, according to Hoyle, the primary job is of a professor or academic is to maintain the truth. Hell, at the subintellectual hellhole pedigree puppy mill Harvard they even have a plaque that says truth in Latin. So having them all lying about Islam, leaving salient facts unaccounted, and even making others up of whole cloth, that’s severely damaging. The average guy assumes that professors and scholars would at least account for all the important stuff, but with Moslems the opposite is the case.
John Duffin says
I emailed all of my legislators with jihadiwatch.org link.
I also asked them to hire Mr. Spencer for advise.
From my locals to the white house.
Joseph says
So the US stopped supporting dictators and began supporting democratic movements, government “for the people and by the people”? I thought the US was first and foremost about supporting democracy?
Actually, we all know it’s not. It’s about supporting “stability” e.g., Hussein and Mubarak, both brutal dictators.
The fact that events went south b/c of Muslims (moderate or not) is part of the great democracy experiment. Americans don’t really like democracy. Americans – and I am one of them and I’m not Muslim — support stability at all costs. I’m not saying this good or bad, but let’s be honest.
So, really, it seems Ibrahim, who I generally like and read often, is complaining that Obama stopped directly supporting dictators and allowed the people to choose their own leaders. While I despise Obama, I see no fault in allowing countries to run their own affairs and choose their own leaders.
delandreaux says
There are no good solutions in the Middle East only less bad ones. We have opted for the worst of the potential options by targeting leaders of ‘stable’ Middle East governments.
Consuming just a fraction of the open source material cannot help but have led you to the perception that the Brotherhood, despite a slick PR operation are bad guys, violent and intent on the Caliphate run by ….wait for it….them. Egypt is doing well to suppress them, the 4th time in recent history, Egypt knows the MB better than any and has taken the decision to suppress them once again. Hamas and Hiz’bAllah are MB creations and truly representative of who they are.
Marcia Murphy says
Is it just me or is Obama actually giving someone the finger?
JIMJFOX says
“I see no fault in allowing countries to run their own affairs and choose their own leaders.”
If only muslims thought the same…
JIMJFOX says
Joseph
“I see no fault in allowing countries to run their own affairs and choose their own leaders.”
If only muslims thought the same…
JIMJFOX says
Apologies for double post- this site is the slowest and most unresponsive and I get impatient!