Obama: Between Ideology and Pragmatism

Obama: Between Ideology and Pragmatism

Mostafa Zein |

The Neoconservatives have awaken once again. They have launched a major media campaign to portray President Barack Obama as merely a weak-willed “colored” man, who does not befit America, its history and its pride – one who, if he ever takes a decision, only takes one of withdrawal from this or that area, leaving it to the Russians and to local players.


Neoconservatives are not limited to a few names from among former Trotskyists who turned into Nazi tigers in the United States – the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, “the Prince of Darkness” Richard Perle and others (it is no coincidence that they were all students of German-born Jewish philosopher Leo Strauss). Rather, their ideology is widespread everywhere in Europe and in America, especially in right-wing political circles in parliaments, government institutions, the press, the media, and research centers, such as the Middle East Institute (MEI) in Washington.


Those people and others hold against Obama his hesitancy and the fact that he has not been decisive on any of the issues raised by the Arab Spring. Even in Libya, it was France and Britain that led the campaign to topple Gaddafi, while Obama’s participation was limited. They also hold against him the fact that he did not cut off military aid to the Egyptian army in support of their friends in the Muslim Brotherhood; the fact that he has failed to take a firm decision on Syria since the start of the events there, and to supply the opposition with advanced weapons that would have allowed it to achieve victory over the army; the fact that he has not stood up to Iran; and the fact that he does not share Israel’s view of the threat Tehran represents and of the necessity of bombing it, in order to dismantle the “Axis of Evil”. Besides, he has shifted the strategic conflict from the Middle East, where Israel represents America’s crown jewel, to the Far East, and even in that region, he allowed Beijing to expand its influence and intensify its protection of North Korea.


What do those people want? They want to ignite wars everywhere in the world. Their philosophy states that civilization can only arise on a background of destruction. That is what happened in America after the extermination of the Native Americans. That is also what happened in Australia, after the extermination of the Aboriginal Australians. It was also the case in Palestine, after a large number of its people were exterminated and hundreds of thousands of them were expelled from their homeland.


The Neocons seek to spread this blood-drenched philosophy and apply it everywhere, so as for a new civilization to arise on the ruins of the old, and for American values to prevail. It is a philosophy that was best applied by George Bush Junior, and before him Ronald Reagan. They plan to attack Syria, topple Assad and replace his regime with one loyal to them, even if this requires all-out war in the Middle East with the participation of Iran, Turkey, Arab countries and Israel.


Perhaps Senator John McCain has been the one to best express the views of these people now. McCain said that, because Obama did not use force in Syria, he has given Assad a green light to commit atrocities. He criticized Obama’s hesitation to send troops to protect civilians, adding that the word of the president of the United States can no longer be taken seriously. He outlined a scenario for war, asserting that the US Air Force could in a few days take control of the Syrian Air Force’s airports and of the planes that are being used to dominate the battlefield in confronting the armed opposition, and that it can impose a no-fly zone by moving Patriot missiles to the border… which could be done very easily, according to him.


Obama is no less enthusiastic about spreading American values, but he sees things from a different perspective – a perspective expressed by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey when he said that “the side we choose [to support] must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favor. Today, they are not”.


Obama will intervene militarily in Syria, when he finds that intervening would secure America’s interests. However, he now finds that the chaos spreading in the Middle East secures such interests, without him having to pay a single dollar or lose a single soldier.


Obama has proved that he was more American than any white man, in the pragmatic sense of the term. Indeed, he is not driven by ideology, but by interest. And both sides have an equal tendency to go to war for the glory of America.