15 Reasons Why America Must Embrace Bible-Friendly Policy to Survive the 3rd Millennium (pt. 2)
During the current Egyptian unrest, where popular opinion helped depose democratically elected Islamist President Mohamed Morsi, we do well to reflect on America’s values and mission in the world.
Should America span the globe to spread unrest in unpopular regimes, then empower whatever type of government seems to sprout up, afterward? Or should America reserve its power and influence to help establish American Revolution-styled states? In fact, one desperately hopes it is screamingly obvious that if the US helps create any government opposed to our values, that we are helping establish our future enemies.
When the Muslim Spring movement arrived amongst much fanfare, the liberal elites heralded this as Obama’s foreign policy coming of age. Muslim Spring is the Barack inspired doctrine offer to aid resisters against Middle East dictators, helping any rebels despite whatever beliefs they espoused. How wise it was, they exclaimed, to direct wars from far-away, to keep American troops out of harm’s way, and lead from behind!
Other more realistic analysts declared the notion of tossing aside foreign leaders, some strongly pro-American, a
recipe for disaster. (see
Obama Support of “Arab Spring”‚ÄîClear Marxist Values Leading to Sharia Law Revolution) Further, the idea that America would look the other way while Muslim Shariah Law directed governments were established across the zone, with US aid, seemed surreal. In short order, the governments of Egypt, Libya, Yemen and now Syria were part of a movement replacing secular tyrannies with what pompous leftists claimed would be an American Revolution type undertaking. Instead, as seen in Egypt, a functional, and US friendly secular tyranny was replaced by a radical Muslim dictatorship imposing Shariah Law, inserted by the Muslim Brotherhood radicals who engineered the coup.
I. Arab Spring Becomes Muslim Brotherhood Nightmare in Egypt
In brief, the problem in Egypt is the problem in the Middle East—Obama decided to back a coup for a group of men who were Muslim radicals and didn’t seem to mind, against one of America’s most reliable allies—Hosni Mubarick. If this isn’t troubling enough, when the Egyptians themselves became alarmed at the new government’s draconian powers, America did nothing. Further, when the military finally stepped in and removed Muhammad Morsi, Barack was steamed. Obama acted as if the entire idea behind removing Mubarak—by far the wold’s wealthiest man at $700 billion, according to Forbes—was to install a Muslim law government.
When Morsi was replaced, Obama acted like a petulant child, ready to ignore the new government and refusing to give his blessing. But what is going on here? Does Barack really replace Middle Eastern strongmen so that religious fanatics can take over and create dozens of Irans across the region? Does Obama not value real democracy over a Shariah pseudo-republic? Is he completely blind to how dangerous a hegemony of Islamic law regimes would be to America’s interest? Or, as usual, is he too cool to care?
Something must be done to reestablish the American policy of creating strong allies, and the creation of functional democracies, wherever possible. And the “Obama Doctrine” of backing any random pack of rebels, regardless of their ideology, must be flushed down the toilet where it belongs.
II. Obama’s Failed Anti-Freedom Foreign Policy
Obama’s entire foreign policy has come apart at the seams. The reason his foreign policy relentlessly fails is it is built on a crust of timidity defended by self-serving platitudes. When Iran protested its rigged election, and asked Obama to intervene, he turned the other cheek. But when Germany and Italy informed Barack they would intervene in Libya, with or without American support, he reluctantly joined. It is simply in Obama’s temperament to join someone else’s undertaking and take credit for its inception, as he did here.
But how could Obama hope to be respected by foreign leaders who only respect power? Barack has a sanctimonious explanation for every action and inaction. He, therefore is not regarded as a serious or effective leader or as someone decisive or dangerous. Instead, he’s a laughingstock to tough leaders like Russia’s Vlad Putin. Barack is a verbose amateur who has no training or instinct for leadership, and it shows.
