Obamas utrikespolitik borde skrämma

Elder of Ziyon bloggade idag om en mycket intressant text: What Obama Doesn’t Get

Michael J. Totten has a must read interview with Jonathan Spyer, an Israeli who has sneaked into Syria twice and who gives a fantastic, must-read analysis of what is happening on the ground there. […]

But at the end of the interview, Totten asks Spyer about US policies in the region, and his answers go to the crux of the problem of President Obama’s Middle East policy – and, I would claim, his foreign policy altogether.

Här är vad Totten och Spyer säger: The Israeli Who Sneaked into Syria

MJT: What is it specifically that President Obama does not understand? […]

Jonathan Spyer: I would try to explain to him the dynamic of patron-client relationships in our neighborhood. I would explain to him that your clients don’t need to love you, don’t want you to bow to them, and don’t even really need to know that you respect them and empathize with them […]

What they need to know is that if they get into trouble (and they will) you will back them and help them to your utmost. […]

Right now, the net result of Obama’s losing Egypt/Tunisia/Yemen, and Iran/Russia/China’s non-losing of Syria, is that US credibility as a patron is low. Obama seems mainly dangerous to his friends, less so to his enemies, the killing of Bin-Laden notwithstanding. This is making allies nervous and enemies happy. This is not good. In particular, the most vulnerable allies (the Gulf monarchies) are very nervous indeed, and are seeking to organize themselves independently because of their impression that the US right now is not there. The trouble is that these countries are too weak for the job. As we see now in Syria, for example, they can’t deliver against Assad.

So the end result of Obama’s conceptual error is that the Iran-led alliance, which remains by far the most potent and dangerous enemy in the region, is holding up well, while what used to look like a US-led regional alliance no longer really exists. This, in my view, derives directly from the American President’s failure to grasp the basic rules for behavior as a patron in the Hobbesian space of the Middle East. So if I had a few minutes that’s what I’d tell him. But I’d tell him this without a great deal of enthusiasm, because I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t get it.

Vi kan se samma utveckling i Europa. Obamas mjuka stil mot Ryssland har gjort att landet tar sig ton. Nu rustar Ryssland kraftigt upp sin armé och förfogar över landstigningsfartyg i Östersjön. (Som det stod i senaste Magasinet Neo, ryssen kommer tas emot av svenska tullen.)

Jag förstår inte att den säkerhetspolitiska aspekten helt saknas i
USA-debatten. Johan Norberg tog idag ställning för liberarianen Gary Johnson. Johnson vill skära ned USAs försvar med 43% och dra hem USAs trupper från Europa och Asien. 

Europa och alla svenskar har vant sig med att leva under USAs beskydd. Vi har kunnat häckla och hata USA med vetskapen om att de trots allt är “världspolis” – det vill säga demokratins försvarare.

Men nu, med fredspristagaren Obama, uppfylls vänsterns våta dröm. USA drar sig tillbaka. Är det verkligen så bra?

Utan USA är vårt bästa försvar att sitta ned, hålla händerna och sjunga “We shall overcome”.

Lämna ett svar

E-postadressen publiceras inte.

Denna webbplats använder Akismet för att minska skräppost. Lär dig hur din kommentardata bearbetas.