US Credibility Is Exactly Where?

It is not simply Mubarak who is on trial here--it's the credibility of the US. Make no mistake that what is being watched by the rest of the world is how the US treats its long term friends. Apparently, it's not too well.

With a change in the political weather, someone who was a valuable ally is treated as a pariah. Forgetting how Hamas rose to power or how the Iranian madman maintains his, to say nothing of other historical tyrannts of the modern age, the mantra of Free Elections has become the Washington chant.

The Marxist catechism teaches that the destruction of a mode of production is due to the internal contradictions that make up that society. It would seem that "free elections" has that flavor--is a "free election" that later does away with the democratic process democracy? If I recall my high school history, that was the question the US itself faced over secession in 1828 under Jackson and later fought devastingly in 1861 to 1865.

This is a foundational question. Back in my salad days, the chant was "the whole world is watching." Well, then as now, the whole world is watching--but they are not watching the arena, so to speak, but the bystanders--in this case, the US. Egypt is a valued ally of the US and happens to control one of the world's most vital links--the Suez Canal.

So Mubarak is a slob when it comes to US style democracy. When has that ever stopped the US in backing dictatorial regimes--then as now? In 1971, the US backed a cravenly dictatorial regime, Pakistan, over a fiercely democratic state, India, during the Bangladesh War simply because that was perceived as the ONLY way to get to China. The question right now is does the US stand idly by and let the world order of the pharaohs come crashing down or will it step into assist an orderly transition? It would be wonderful to believe that this could be a do-over for the sins of our fathers--but I doubt it.

Today, the King of Jordan (a romantic legacy of a bygone era firmly supported by US policy) fired his entire cabinet due to riots and protests in Jordan replacing the current PM with a former army officer. What kind of meta-message is that? Israelis are openly angry at the US for what appears to be a betrayal of a "valued ally" understandably wondering what is the value of a long term US underwriting for any sort of peace treaty or protection against Iranian aggression. One can only imagine what the Kings and Amirs of the Gulf States think about relying on a US ally.

Since we are not empowered to read minds or look behind the fog of Foggy Bottom, we have to look at actions, both verbal and physical, to glean where things are going. US foreign policy is rife with such contrary behavior. Over in Honduras, for example, a constitutional government ejected (through the courts) a president who violated their constitution. Obama sided with the paragon of Latin American democracy, Chavez, in calling for the reinstatement of that president. In the Middle East, a long term friend is told to get out even if it means the empowerment of another dictatorial reactionary regime and the possibility of war.

Interesting.

Of course, Mr. Obama appears to be having his own constitutional issues with respect to his healthcare plan. Perhaps that explains why he is confused about what's happening in the Middle East. A pity that the experts on whom he relies don't get, even now, that the entire problem of the Middle East is not the fault of Israel. Of course, blood libel is always a possibility.

But, then again, he does have a secret weapon--his Ace in the Hole--Jimmy Carter. Jimmy knows from experience how to transition dictators to elected governments effectively.

If that fails, Mr. Obama can send Frances Fox Piven. She knows all about Revolution.