An Over-Saturation Strategy?

Yet more Muslim outrage, now over some disrespectful cartoons in a French magazine.

Now I'm not a big fan of gratuitous insults to people's faith, but once the cat is out of the bag and the rioting has already begun, maybe at this point the best approach would be to just pile it on - just keep releasing one deplorably blasphemous insult after another - they can't keep rioting 365/24/7 - at some point exhaustion will have to set in, and the reaction will eventually degrade into the Arabic equivalent of "Oy!", and life will just move on.

Dealing with Syria and Iran - a Message?

The Times has a couple interesting - for the Times, anyway - articles on Syria and Iran. On Syria, it's the first account I've seen in the mainstream press attempting to provide a balanced look at the situation there. The article describes the sectarian nature of the insurrection and contrasts nicely with Tom Friedman's bizarre twisting of the story yesterday ("the opposition in Syria began as a largely peaceful, grass-roots, pan-Syrian movement for democratic change...[President Bashar al-Assad] wanted to make the conflict about his Alawite minority versus the country’s Sunni Muslim majority as a way of discrediting the opposition and holding his base").

On Iran, the article discusses American analysts assessment of the outcome of an Israeli strike on Iran. While hardly dire, the outcome looks to be quite a mess for the U.S. I would expect such analysis to go completely unheeded by the administration.

Except that perhaps the Times is trying to get word to the White House - back off from Syria, and keep the pressure on Israel to hold off on any strikes. I can't see Obama as the kind of guy who wants to deal with wars and international turmoil - he seems much more comfortable worrying about whether black students get suspended too much from school and how to increase Pell grants to urban students. But he is apparently easily intimidated into taking action based on "human rights" concerns. So maybe the Times is trying to tell him something none of his advisers ever would.

Wishful-Politik

U.S. foreign policy continues to be in safe hands. In a speech she gave a few weeks ago (but that I only just heard about tonight in a gushing report on NPR), Hillary attempted to explain the unexplainable - our Mideast policy. She gave a little FAQ apparently, including this Q&A:

What will the United States do if democracy brings anti-U.S. governments to power? "The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong. They do it in this country every day," Clinton said. "Parties committed to democracy must reject violence; they must abide by the rule of law and respect the freedoms of speech, association, and assembly; they must respect the rights of women and minorities; they must let go of power if defeated at the polls; and, in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration. In other words, what parties call themselves is less important than what they do."

I love that - "The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous, and wrong." What she means of course is "the suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting - and therefore dangerous and wrong." There's a lot of "musts" in there too - none of which have ever been followed in any MidEast Islamist state - ever. So is the plan to bomb these new governments when they ultimately fall short? No, they not. While it's silly to imagine that the administration has any particular goals in mind in stumbling upon its foreign policy, one theme can be expected to act as a guiding force: no government which professes an animus against the West - in particular those openly hostile to American interests - need fear our intervention. Thus Syria, Iran, Cuba, Korea, Venezuela - completely safe from our interference. Of course that's only right - no government, friend or foe, should fear our intervention provided they do not threaten or attack us. But it would be ideal if governments that are actually friendly towards us should feel safe as well.

Does the Times Editorial Staff Owe Glenn Beck a Collective Apology?

Tumult of Arab Spring Prompts Worries in Washington

While the popular uprisings of the Arab Spring created new opportunities for American diplomacy, the tumult has also presented the United States with challenges — and worst-case scenarios — that would have once been almost unimaginable.

--unless of course you're a ranting lunatic like, say, Glenn Beck --

What if the Palestinians’ quest for recognition of a state at the United Nations, despite American pleas otherwise, lands Israel in the International Criminal Court, fuels deeper resentment of the United States, or touches off a new convulsion of violence in the West Bank and Gaza?

Gee, yeah, what if - but who could have foreseen that?

Crises like the expulsion of Israel’s ambassador in Turkey, the storming of the Israeli Embassy in Cairo and protests outside the one in Amman, Jordan, have compounded a sense of urgency and forced the Obama administration to reassess some of this country’s fundamental assumptions, and to do so on the fly.

Like the fundamental assumption that a stable government, internationally recognized, that has been in power for decades, is presumed to be the legitimate representative of that country? Oh that's right, that assumption was already thrown out the window back in February. Yes, an apology would be appropriate.