1. BobW said:

Actually Michael Rubin must be labeled with the term he uses: "armchair expert".

Public pronouncements and doctrine are not identical - never have been - . President Wilson's "open diplomacy" was just as fake. Wilson used secret diplomacy. The Bush administration is proceeding with more wins than loses.

Rubin is a pedant. US policy has never sought a changed Saudi Arabia. Somewhere in Cuba is a file cabinet determining the US policy to avoid mentioning Cuba too much in public.

From 20 Jan 05 to today, 2 critical matters continue and they are neglected by Michael Rubin;

1. Every year the US is spending $US 1.8 trillion dolllars on health care. This is 15.4% of US annual wealth.

2. Every year about 50 million Americans receive $US 450,000,000,000 in Social Security checks.

To date, both 1. and 2. are Bush administration failures. Thus, there is little funding left to address Lebannon. Thus, there is little funding left to properly prosecute efforts in Iraq. Continue the list.

It is US doctrine for the policy of keeping Mubarak as Chief of State of Egypt. The overall Egyptian population's support is to the Muslim Brotherhood. US doctrine and Bush admin policy is clear and working. It is the editor of the Middle East Quarterly who is lost.

US doctrine is foreign oil access. The more partisan Bush doctrine is hugh wealth acquisition from the accessed foreign oil for a political constituent. So far, both national doctrine and Bush admin policy have been properly exercised.

Kol tuv,
BobW

2. Ted Belman said:

Nevertheless the democracy/freedom bullshit was just that.

3. Ronnie said:

Rubin's piece on US policy on the Middle East is interesting. Another interesting one here from Chris Zambelis, although it's mostly dribble in my good book. What the hell do they want from us?

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05autumn/zambelis.htm

The Strategic Implications
of Political Liberalization
and Democratization
in the Middle East

CHRIS ZAMBELIS

"Popular outrage toward the Administration’s plans demonstrates the deep-rooted credibility problem the United States faces in the Middle East. Muslims are highly skeptical about Washington’s ultimate intentions, given the long-standing US policy of supporting authoritarian regimes in the region. Arabs in particular find it hard to believe that the United States is serious about promoting freedom. They tend to view US support for self-determination and human rights as disingenuous in light of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian land and continued expansion of settlements on territory that Palestinians and the international community envision as part of a future Palestinian state—an issue that resonates deeply among both Muslims and Christians in the Middle East and one that cannot be wished away.24 Moreover, the US decision to oust Saddam Hussein by force confirmed regional perceptions of a militant America that is quick to use force against Arabs and Muslims to further its strategic objectives."