This is not a political statement or anything like that. I'm not going to argue about whether the U.S. Presidency is doing the right thing in this regard, or not. I merely want to point out the errancy in William Bennet's thinking in this matter, and perhaps how we can learn from it.
The article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/25/bennett.obama.libya.egypt/index.html?hpt=T2
First, I want to mention that right from the start the man is particularly biased in favor of Republicans. Anyone who compares a Democrat to Jimmy Carter and speaks of indecisiveness, and then in the next sentence talks about how competent Ronald Reagan is providing a skewed example. Even for Democrats, President Carter was viewed as kind of a dud, and many will admit that President Reagan was an exceptional leader. I mention this because Bennet is clearly trying to boost the Republican image (or rather, that which is reasonably and normally associated with the Republican party), and isn't really talking about Middle Eastern affairs at all; it is merely the vehicle driving his point that he feels President Obama is not an effective, timely leader.
Second, he's simplifying the point of standing behind Egypt one moment, and then calling for Mubarak to step down the next. Any informed person will admit that U.S. aid to Egypt, billions of dollars, has been wasted, largely because of the Egyptian government's inefficiencies and corruption. Is it any wonder that Mubarak is one of the richest men in the world? In the past, the United States has clearly and vocally supported Egypt, and its government, because of Egypt's role in the region and its general stability. The United States has changed its tone simply because it, as always, supports democracy. A president is no president at all, when it comes to Mubarak's rule.
Third, Bennet makes incorrect assertions about United State's response to both Egypt and Libya. His statement here: "As historian Benny Morris put it recently, "When the dust settles, which it will, in a month or two or three's time, one will see that Western -- and Israeli -- interests in the Middle East will have been substantially undermined and anti-Western -- and anti-Israeli -- interests substantially bolstered" is almost amusing, to that end.
Fourth, the claim that President Obama has 'lost his map' (paraphrasing) is an overstatement, and again simplifying the matter. Of the roughly 21 countries in the Middle East, 7 (possibly many more) are facing dramatic changes, nearly all of which affect the United States, its people, or its allies in some form. When Bennet says, "Our foreign policy is lost at sea because it is without direction. Or, perhaps even worse: because there is no map," he fails to understand that the Middle East is undergoing tremendous change and is doing so in a very quick manner of time. It's not that there's no map; it's that it's constantly changing and it's no wonder we have trouble keeping up.
Lastly, Bennet quotes a Libyan woman who says, "the Libyan public are angry from the statement was given by President Obama today. Everybody was disappointed."
My points:
As Christians who are striving to learn, grasping to understand the world and the things going around us, and as leaders, what can we learn from this?
I mention all of this because in this digital age our opinions on matters can be spread quite far, and potentially can have an impact on far more people. Some of us (notably those on the battle.net forums, among others) mistake an opinion for fact, and then things get really skewed.
My second point is that many of us subscribe to a certain group, but not a belief, and certainly not our own beliefs. Let me clarify by providing an example, and sharing a brief personal philosophy: I am a Christian. I am not Baptist, although I go to a Baptist church ; I am not Republican, even though I am registered Republican. I am who I am, and we are who we are, because of the decisions we make, the guidance and mentorship of those near to us, and the experiences we've had, but rather not because of some worldly agenda we choose to be a part of (be that a religion or religious sect, political, cultural, or national, among others).
The article can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/25/bennett.obama.libya.egypt/index.html?hpt=T2
Editor's note: CNN contributor William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute. He was U.S. secretary of education from 1985 to 1988 and was director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George H.W. Bush.
(CNN) -- After witnessing a vacuum of leadership and an apparent fecklessness in dealing with crises abroad during Jimmy Carter's administration, some concluded the presidency was too big for one man.
It took President Reagan's leadership and rhetoric to rid the popular mind of that notion. Today, a stagnating economy and tumult from the Middle East to Africa is making us again question our idea of the job of president.
There is, of course, one person who can restore our faith in the presidency: the president. But as one looks at the major events unfolding abroad right now, it is hard to conclude that he will do that. Or that he can.
In Egypt last month, the U.S. administration sent confusing messages both to the government and the protesters in the streets. One day, we were standing with Hosni Mubarak, the next with the protesters in the street. And then, the next, we were saying positive things about the Muslim Brotherhood. And then we were correcting that.
As commentator Niall Ferguson concluded from our actions and statements there, "Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama's map of the Middle East is."
Our administration finally found a clear voice on Egypt, and the message from the president was to stand with those who demanded Mubarak's ouster, that they were a "moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice." He compared them to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.
Nobody knows whether the arc of history will bend toward justice there, and right now we should have great concern, especially as the Muslim Brotherhood is flexing its muscles and windpipes.
In Egypt, as with other places boiling with protest and possible internal regime replacement, the outcomes are just not certain: Things very well may get better, that arc may bend, but it is anything but guaranteed.
As historian Benny Morris put it recently, "When the dust settles, which it will, in a month or two or three's time, one will see that Western -- and Israeli -- interests in the Middle East will have been substantially undermined and anti-Western -- and anti-Israeli -- interests substantially bolstered.
"Similarly, one will see that the regimes which are, by nature and tradition very brutal, such as Iran's, Syria's and possibly Libya's, will weather the storm, whereas those which are softer, more inclined to measures of liberalization, partly because of attentiveness to messages from Washington, will either have fallen or will have given ground, and a large measure of power, to anti-Western, often Islamist, elements within each country."
But Morris and those who think Libya will continue on with Moammar Gadhafi as its leader will remain correct only if the United States continues in its muddled message. It has taken the president several days to say something about the brutality in Libya, and now, having spoken, his words are left wanting.
He was more forceful (when he was forceful) in his support for the protesters in Egypt, who rose up against an ally of ours, than he has been on behalf of the protesters in Libya, who face far more brutality from a dictator who has never been a friend of ours and has, for years, been an international outlaw and supporter of terrorism.
Don't just take my word for it; listen to the words of a representative protester speaking to Anderson Cooper after President Obama finally did break his silence on Libya:
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The Libyan public are angry from the statement was given by President Obama today. Everybody was disappointed.
COOPER: You feel he didn't go for enough?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No. ... It's nonsense. I thought that he's going to give even threats or warning for this to stop. I expected more, to be honest. I expected to read between the lines from his speech. I did not see that. I was very disappointed, not me alone. Everybody was disappointed. We want America to support us.
If this sounds at all familiar, it is because it recalls our administration's pathetic response to the brutality (and hopes on the street) in Iran in 2009, where democratic aspirants there literally asked, "Where's Obama?"
And while we simply cannot know what will come of Egypt, we do know whatever could come next in Libya -- or, for that matter, Iran -- could not be worse. Yet we do not clearly stand with the reformers.
Our foreign policy is lost at sea because it is without direction. Or, perhaps even worse: because there is no map.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William Bennett.
(CNN) -- After witnessing a vacuum of leadership and an apparent fecklessness in dealing with crises abroad during Jimmy Carter's administration, some concluded the presidency was too big for one man.
It took President Reagan's leadership and rhetoric to rid the popular mind of that notion. Today, a stagnating economy and tumult from the Middle East to Africa is making us again question our idea of the job of president.
There is, of course, one person who can restore our faith in the presidency: the president. But as one looks at the major events unfolding abroad right now, it is hard to conclude that he will do that. Or that he can.
In Egypt last month, the U.S. administration sent confusing messages both to the government and the protesters in the streets. One day, we were standing with Hosni Mubarak, the next with the protesters in the street. And then, the next, we were saying positive things about the Muslim Brotherhood. And then we were correcting that.
As commentator Niall Ferguson concluded from our actions and statements there, "Tragically, no one knows where Barack Obama's map of the Middle East is."
Our administration finally found a clear voice on Egypt, and the message from the president was to stand with those who demanded Mubarak's ouster, that they were a "moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice." He compared them to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi.
Nobody knows whether the arc of history will bend toward justice there, and right now we should have great concern, especially as the Muslim Brotherhood is flexing its muscles and windpipes.
In Egypt, as with other places boiling with protest and possible internal regime replacement, the outcomes are just not certain: Things very well may get better, that arc may bend, but it is anything but guaranteed.
As historian Benny Morris put it recently, "When the dust settles, which it will, in a month or two or three's time, one will see that Western -- and Israeli -- interests in the Middle East will have been substantially undermined and anti-Western -- and anti-Israeli -- interests substantially bolstered.
"Similarly, one will see that the regimes which are, by nature and tradition very brutal, such as Iran's, Syria's and possibly Libya's, will weather the storm, whereas those which are softer, more inclined to measures of liberalization, partly because of attentiveness to messages from Washington, will either have fallen or will have given ground, and a large measure of power, to anti-Western, often Islamist, elements within each country."
But Morris and those who think Libya will continue on with Moammar Gadhafi as its leader will remain correct only if the United States continues in its muddled message. It has taken the president several days to say something about the brutality in Libya, and now, having spoken, his words are left wanting.
He was more forceful (when he was forceful) in his support for the protesters in Egypt, who rose up against an ally of ours, than he has been on behalf of the protesters in Libya, who face far more brutality from a dictator who has never been a friend of ours and has, for years, been an international outlaw and supporter of terrorism.
Don't just take my word for it; listen to the words of a representative protester speaking to Anderson Cooper after President Obama finally did break his silence on Libya:
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The Libyan public are angry from the statement was given by President Obama today. Everybody was disappointed.
COOPER: You feel he didn't go for enough?
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: No. ... It's nonsense. I thought that he's going to give even threats or warning for this to stop. I expected more, to be honest. I expected to read between the lines from his speech. I did not see that. I was very disappointed, not me alone. Everybody was disappointed. We want America to support us.
If this sounds at all familiar, it is because it recalls our administration's pathetic response to the brutality (and hopes on the street) in Iran in 2009, where democratic aspirants there literally asked, "Where's Obama?"
And while we simply cannot know what will come of Egypt, we do know whatever could come next in Libya -- or, for that matter, Iran -- could not be worse. Yet we do not clearly stand with the reformers.
Our foreign policy is lost at sea because it is without direction. Or, perhaps even worse: because there is no map.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of William Bennett.
First, I want to mention that right from the start the man is particularly biased in favor of Republicans. Anyone who compares a Democrat to Jimmy Carter and speaks of indecisiveness, and then in the next sentence talks about how competent Ronald Reagan is providing a skewed example. Even for Democrats, President Carter was viewed as kind of a dud, and many will admit that President Reagan was an exceptional leader. I mention this because Bennet is clearly trying to boost the Republican image (or rather, that which is reasonably and normally associated with the Republican party), and isn't really talking about Middle Eastern affairs at all; it is merely the vehicle driving his point that he feels President Obama is not an effective, timely leader.
Second, he's simplifying the point of standing behind Egypt one moment, and then calling for Mubarak to step down the next. Any informed person will admit that U.S. aid to Egypt, billions of dollars, has been wasted, largely because of the Egyptian government's inefficiencies and corruption. Is it any wonder that Mubarak is one of the richest men in the world? In the past, the United States has clearly and vocally supported Egypt, and its government, because of Egypt's role in the region and its general stability. The United States has changed its tone simply because it, as always, supports democracy. A president is no president at all, when it comes to Mubarak's rule.
Third, Bennet makes incorrect assertions about United State's response to both Egypt and Libya. His statement here: "As historian Benny Morris put it recently, "When the dust settles, which it will, in a month or two or three's time, one will see that Western -- and Israeli -- interests in the Middle East will have been substantially undermined and anti-Western -- and anti-Israeli -- interests substantially bolstered" is almost amusing, to that end.
Fourth, the claim that President Obama has 'lost his map' (paraphrasing) is an overstatement, and again simplifying the matter. Of the roughly 21 countries in the Middle East, 7 (possibly many more) are facing dramatic changes, nearly all of which affect the United States, its people, or its allies in some form. When Bennet says, "Our foreign policy is lost at sea because it is without direction. Or, perhaps even worse: because there is no map," he fails to understand that the Middle East is undergoing tremendous change and is doing so in a very quick manner of time. It's not that there's no map; it's that it's constantly changing and it's no wonder we have trouble keeping up.
Lastly, Bennet quotes a Libyan woman who says, "the Libyan public are angry from the statement was given by President Obama today. Everybody was disappointed."
My points:
- Don't quote one individual. Quote many.
- Don't quote people who were already interviewed by someone else. Do your own work, or, as an analyst, at the very least make your research/findings somewhat comprehensive.
- Don't do what a person wants immediately. I'm not sure what the author's proposed or anticipated response is/was, but he seems to imply we should have acted on this (one) person's wishes. I'm not saying we shouldn't come to the aid of people, but rather we should do so methodically while weighing the consequences, preparing, and etc. Many people criticize various Presidents and leaders for intervening too much in foreign matters, as well. While I'm not sure of the author's stance in this regard, I feel that he's ignoring that concern and rather making a point in favor of a political party.
- When talking about something, make sure you have a background in it. Holding a Secretary of Education title for 3 years and being a Director of National Drug Policy doesn't mean you know foreign affairs, or policy regarding it. In fact, it almost sounds quite the opposite, since both are domestic issues.
As Christians who are striving to learn, grasping to understand the world and the things going around us, and as leaders, what can we learn from this?
- Don't jump on the bandwagon. Make your own decisions. If you're a Democrat, don't always go to Democrats to learn from and be your role model, and the same for any political party or even religious group. If your beliefs are founded well enough, you can learn from those you wouldn't otherwise normally or comfortably learn from.
- Don't assume you know better. As humans, an inherently erred race, we're quite often wrong. Don't let your pride get the best of you, and don't immediately rebut others (although one can still - and should practice - doubt). Many people try to mimic Jesus' assertiveness and confidence, but we blindly do so without fully understanding what we're talking about. Don't be that guy.
- Subscribe to what's true, not to what others tell you is true.
- When you find yourself in a position where many of those around you agree with your assertions, play 'devil's advocate'. Jesus didn't have to learn, but we do on a daily basis, and it's quite difficult to learn when everyone is just as wrong as you are (assuming you're 'wrong', of course. And if you're right, well, then, you've already learned).
I mention all of this because in this digital age our opinions on matters can be spread quite far, and potentially can have an impact on far more people. Some of us (notably those on the battle.net forums, among others) mistake an opinion for fact, and then things get really skewed.
My second point is that many of us subscribe to a certain group, but not a belief, and certainly not our own beliefs. Let me clarify by providing an example, and sharing a brief personal philosophy: I am a Christian. I am not Baptist, although I go to a Baptist church ; I am not Republican, even though I am registered Republican. I am who I am, and we are who we are, because of the decisions we make, the guidance and mentorship of those near to us, and the experiences we've had, but rather not because of some worldly agenda we choose to be a part of (be that a religion or religious sect, political, cultural, or national, among others).
