Obama Has Thrown American Interests to the Wayside

The best as ever, Caroline Glick, at Jerusalem Post, "America’s descent into strategic dementia" (via Memeorandum). She pulls no punches, and puts "realists" like Stephen Walt to shame. This is one of those essays best read in full. The second passage on Obama's anti-American foreign policy is classic, but this section below reaffirms the point I made here earlier on the need to be wary of the Libyan opposition:

One of the most astounding aspects of the US debate on Libya in recent weeks has been the scant attention paid to the nature of the rebels.

The rebels are reportedly represented by the so-called National Transitional Council led by several of Gaddafi’s former ministers.

But while these men – who are themselves competing for the leadership mantle – are the face of the NTC, it is unclear who stands behind them. Only nine of the NTC’s 31 members have been identified.

Unfortunately, available data suggest that the rebels championed as freedom fighters by the neoconservatives, the opportunists, the Europeans and the Western media alike are not exactly liberal democrats. Indeed, the data indicate that Gaddafi’s opponents are more aligned with al-Qaida than with the US.

Also, from David Horowitz, "The War Against Israel Has Begun."

The False Religion of Mideast Peace

Aaron David Miller at Foreign Policy:

Like all religions, the peace process has developed a dogmatic creed, with immutable first principles. Over the last two decades, I wrote them hundreds of times to my bosses in the upper echelons of the State Department and the White House; they were a catechism we all could recite by heart. First, pursuit of a comprehensive peace was a core, if not the core, U.S. interest in the region, and achieving it offered the only sure way to protect U.S. interests; second, peace could be achieved, but only through a serious negotiating process based on trading land for peace; and third, only America could help the Arabs and Israelis bring that peace to fruition.

As befitting a religious doctrine, there was little nuance. And while not everyone became a convert (Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush willfully pursued other Middle East priorities, though each would succumb at one point, if only with initiatives that reflected, to their critics, varying degrees of too little, too late), the exceptions have mostly proved the rule. The iron triangle that drove Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and now Barack Obama to accord the Arab-Israeli issue such high priority has turned out to be both durable and bipartisan. Embraced by the high priests of the national security temple, including State Department veterans like myself, intelligence analysts, and most U.S. foreign-policy mandarins outside government, these tenets endured and prospered even while the realities on which they were based had begun to change. If this wasn't the definition of real faith, one wonders what was.

That Obama, burdened by two wars elsewhere and the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, came out louder, harder, and faster on the Arab-Israeli issue than any of his predecessors was a remarkable testament to just how enduring that faith had become -- a faith he very publicly proclaimed while personally presiding over the announcement of George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy in an orchestrated ceremony at the State Department two days after his swearing-in.

At first, it seemed that Obama, the poster president for America's engagement with the world, had found a cause uniquely suited to his view of diplomacy, one whose importance had been heightened by his predecessor's neglect of the issue and the Arab and Muslim attachment to it. Even before the Gaza war exploded three weeks prior to his inauguration, Obama had been bombarded by experts sagely urging a renewed focus on Middle East peace as a way to regain American prestige and credibility after the trauma of the Bush years. The new president soon hit the Arab media running as a kind of empathizer-in-chief, ratcheting up expectations even as Israelis increasingly found him tone-deaf to their needs.

Obama surrounded himself with key figures, such as chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who believed deeply in the peace religion. He named as his chief peacemaker Mitchell, a man with real stature and negotiating experience; and his national security advisor is James L. Jones, himself a former Middle East envoy who made the stunning pronouncement last year: "If there was one problem that I would recommend to the president" to solve, "this would be it."

All these veteran leaders were not only believers, but had extra reason to encourage a tougher line toward Israel; they had seen the Benjamin Netanyahu movie before and were determined not to let their chance at Middle East peace end the same way. In his first turn as prime minister in the 1990s, the brash hard-liner Netanyahu had driven Bill Clinton crazy. (I remember being briefed on their first meeting in 1996, after which the president growled: "Who's the fucking superpower here?") Confronted with Netanyahu again, Obama and his team needed no encouragement to talk tough on the growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, an issue that experts inside and outside government were clamoring for Obama to raise as the first step in his renewed push for peace.

At the time, it looked to be a magical convergence of leader and moment: The Arab-Israeli issue seemed perfectly suited to Obama's transformational objectives and his transactional style. If Obama wanted to begin "remaking America," why not try to remake the troubled politics of peace, too? After all, this was the engagement president, who believed deeply in the power of negotiations.

A great piece.

But what are the prospect? Well, be sure to RTWT, at the link.

(And here's a hint: "In the spring of 2010 we're nowhere near a breakthough, and yet we're in the middle of a major rift with the Israelis. Unless we achieve a big concession, we will be perceived to have backed down again.")

But never to give up, see Barbara Slavin, "U.S. to set deadline for Middle East peace."

New Poll Shows Concerns of American Middle Class

At ABC News, "New Poll Shows Concerns of American Middle Class: Four in 10 Middle-Class Americans Say They're Struggling in Tough Economy":

A bit fewer than half of Americans count themselves as middle class -- but many of them aren't sure how long it will last: Among people who say they're in the middle class now, four in 10 also say they're struggling to remain there in this difficult economy.

A big factor: educational attainment. Among middle-class Americans with college degrees, 75 percent say they're "comfortably" middle class or even moving up; 25 percent are struggling. But among those without a college degree, this poll ... finds that about twice as many, 49 percent, are fighting to hold their place. (Education relates to income, and it's less well-off people in the middle class who are more likely to be struggling to stay there.)

All told, 45 percent of Americans define themselves as middle class (about what it's been on average in polls since the 1960s), compared with 39 percent who see themselves as working class or less well-off than that, and 14 percent as upper-middle class or better off. Women are slightly more likely than men to consider themselves middle class, 48 percent vs. 42 percent, and more seniors put themselves there -- 51 percent, vs. 43 percent of middle-aged adults. (Seniors have had more time to save, and have smaller households and Medicare coverage, among other factors.) Nearly half of whites call themselves middle class, compared with 38 percent of racial minorities.

While 52 percent in the middle class say they're there comfortably, it's perhaps a sign of the times that very few of those in the middle class -- 6 percent -- see themselves as moving up beyond their current status.

See the survey for additional results. This part's a bit troubling:

Underscoring the depths of the economic crisis, 28 percent of middle-income Americans say someone in their household has been laid off or lost a job in the last year. That jumps even higher, to 39 percent, among lower-income Americans, and drops considerably to 16 percent of those with $100,000-plus incomes. There's a difference in impact at the low end: Less well-off people are much more apt than those who are better off to say the layoff caused them serious financial hardship.

I don't know, but my sense is that more people, at all income levels, would state "middle class" if we had an expanding economy. (And thus I'm not pining for some 1950s-nostalgia like radical leftist Ezra Klein above.) Americans are not a "class conscious people. We stress upward mobility for all groups, and the notion that anyone can get ahead. Polling on healthcare reform has confirmed that spirit time and time again. It's one of the main reason the administration's having so much trouble.

That said, I'd be in serious financial trouble if I was laid off. I don't have a huge amount socked away, and what I do have is tied up in IRAs and other retirement vehicles. They've lost a third of their value over the last few years as well, so what can you do? I guess I'd sell everything and pound the pavement for work of some kind. Strange to think about it.

But we won't likely see layoffs at my campus, and nontenured faculty and staff would go well before professors at my level. Frankly, I'll be working a long time. And I'm lucky to have a job (teachers at Long Beach Unified may be getting the boot ... lots of teachers). Still, teaching is getting more challenging, and not as fun, with today's youth demographic and with a lot of "non-traditional" students who're coming to college. It mixes things up, for sure. Fortunately, I never tire of the diversity and new faces, although sometimes I think I should have landed a job at think tank somewhere, whiling away my time churning out bland policy papers! I doubt that was my calling, in any case ... I like helping students reach their potential. In fact, I wish sometimes that I was making a difference in even more lives than I am ...