Has Richard Engel lost his mind?
Today on Meet The Press, Engel, who I have deep respect for, suggested that ultimately historians may blame Obama for the current tragedy in Syria because of Obama’s deciding not to stand with Mubarak during the Arab Spring. In fact Engel appeared to have sided with that point of view as of right now despite saying otherwise. Engel mentioned that time will tell if Obama did the right thing by not siding with the loyal USA ally. When others on the panel of the show did some pushback by saying that what took place in Syria would have taken place despite what occurred in Egypt, Engel was adamant that that wasn’t the case. He took it a step further by claiming that Libya wouldn’t have had a revolution either without Mubarak’s fall which seemed to indicate that Engel appears to believe that getting rid of Gaddafi was a tragedy too.
Obviously it has been debated even back when the Arab spring broke out initially that when a government goes down it could lead to a domino effect . There was uncertainty if that was a good or bad thing because better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. The Obama administration was clearly aware of this. But ultimately the consensus formed in this country and around the world that the idea of the Arab Spring, the idea that citizens revolting mostly peacefully against oppressive regimes they have been living under (some more worse than others), was a good thing. The main criticism Obama got from liberals and the protestors in Cairo during the Arab Spring was that he didn’t respond fast enough in siding with the protestors. In “Confront and Conceal” David Sanger wrote of how actually Obama’s decision to ultimately ask Mubarak to step down happened quite quickly considering the status and responsibilities of both men. Obama did not want to be on the wrong side of history by standing with a man who for all intents and purposes was a dictator even though that same man was also the closest friend the USA had amongst Arab leaders (which says a whole lot about the USA).
Should Obama had stuck by Mubarak who did not want to change and at the very most would only cede power to his son who was going to pick up where his father left off? Engle mentioned how America’s standing isn’t as great amongst the young in that part of the world as it had been in the past. Maybe so, maybe not. Is it Obama’s fault either way? And if Obama had been able to stop the Arab Spring in its tracks by sticking with Mubarak would that have made America more popular to the youth of the Middle East and North Africa? Hell, no. Would the rest of the world have gained respect for Obama and the United States if Obama had sided against the people of Egypt who were looking for a more democratic government? Unlikely. They would have seen us as being hypocrites who keep talking about spreading freedom but in the end side with their non-democratic, despot buddies.
If there is one thing I believe Obama can be blamed for during the Arab Spring it is simply his inconsistency in which of the region’s protests he would publicly support . But I can’t pin on him the tragedy in Syria as a result of his siding against Mubarak in Egypt. In fact these types of arguments and suggestions confirm my belief that Obama can’t win regards. A year before the Arab Spring Obama took criticism from some corners because he did not publicly support the Green Revolution that had turned up in Iran. His reason was that after decades of American behind-the-scenes misconduct in Iran, he did not want there to be any appearances of American influence in the political outcome in what was an internal Iranian affair. Some folks thought he had blown an opportunity of some sort. The following year he speaks on behalf the protestors in Cairo but still manages to draw criticism.
When it came to Syria Obama came out publicly against its tyrant but never sent in the military to help out the rebels. If he had put boots on the ground he would have been slaughtered by progressives and the Oliver Stone types. By not using military action in Syria he has instead been slaughtered by the right and the so-called liberal/centrist media who accuse him of “not leading” thereby turning a blind eye on slaughter, blah, blah, blah. And what if he at least armed the Syrian rebels? That would probably lead to criticism by both sides as either being an example of going too far (liberal) or not doing enough (conservative). Even worse a year later after the rebels won and started using those arms to assert their non-democratic government (which would be at least a 50-50 chance of happening) or passing those arms over to their al-Qaeda brothers in Northern Mali, all the people on both sides of the aisle would be playing Monday morning quarterback in their critique of Obama’s lack of long term vision.
Getting back to Engel though I recall all that time he spent reporting on the streets of Cairo during the Arab Spring , seeing him get all caught up in their desires for a more free country. Did he forget those moments, those people? The outcome has not been exactly great for them since Mubarak’s handover of power, but let’s not forget that at least their voices had been heard and they got their wish. What they do after that should be up to them and them only. Engel appears to be suggesting that their wish wasn’t worth the price of Syria’s collapse into madness. He is suggesting that democracy may be great for Americans like him but that, for the better good, the Egyptians shouldn’t have reached that far….and Obama should have pulled the ladder from underneath them.
(Sorry for the lengthy rant)
= new reply since forum marked as read
i just watched it, and your description of what he said is pretty much exactly what he said.
One thing I'm pretty confident of is that Engel actually believes what he said. He knows a lot, and he's worth listening to, but it's still just his opinion and other knowledgeable people disagree with him.
Axelrod's response wasn't bad, but he's no expert and he's obviously biased.
Scarborough, forget about it. Everything he says is a pose. I agree with what he said about drones, but when I hear it coming from him I just hear someone pandering to me. On the other hand, his joke about "I'm glad you didn't die, Richard, BUT..." made me laugh out loud. 
Finally, Joe's biggest joke was unintentional, his ridiculous segue to cutting entitlements. The laughter from everyone in the room was well earned. 
Here's the video:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/#50526010
it's important to consider the alternative(s) in all cases.
Stand by and watch Mubarak crush the pro-democracy movement using U.S.-supplied weaponry? Ugh.
Stand by and watch Gaddafi murder thousands of civilians in Benghazi? Ugh.
Syria is much more difficult because of the geography, multiple ethnic/religious groups, and Assad's backers Russia and China. Americans had little interest in another expensive foreign intervention. As I remember it, at first the Syrian rebels didn't want any outside intervention. Then they did. I've even wondered if they chose to engage in wider military conflict based on the assumption that NATO would step in to help them the way it did in Libya.
I used to like him but now....
