Skip to main content

George W's friend.....who helped to lose friends

Ken Silverstein, writing in Harper's Magazine, reflects on Karen Hughes, friend of George Bush, who was supposed to help winning friends and influencing people, especially in the Middle East. She was a miserable failure. She has now resigned. That might not matter much....but it is the position in which the US now finds itself - as detailed in the Silverstein piece - which ought to be of real concern to the Americans.

"Karen Hughes’s tenure as undersecretary of State for public diplomacy has come to a close, and not a moment too soon. She was named to the job in 2005 with the mission of enhancing America’s stature in the Middle East but the U.S. government’s reputation in the region has further tanked since then.

Hughes, a close friend of President Bush, is surely not a major reason why, but she didn’t help matters much either. Remember her “listening tours” to the Arab world? An account by Philip Giraldi said of one:

'[In] Egypt, Hughes stressed to a skeptical audience the religiosity of the president and added that the U.S. Constitution includes the phrase “one nation under God,” which it does not. In Saudi Arabia, Hughes, repeatedly describing herself inappropriately and condescendingly as a “working mom,” and urged a mostly silent group of fully veiled women to obtain the right to drive because the inability to operate a vehicle “negatively shaped the image of Saudi society” in the U.S. She also equated driving with “freedom.” In Turkey, Hughes lamely attempted to connect with her audience by saying, “I love kids,” before being confronted by women troubled about the deaths brought about by the invasion of Iraq. She also heard concerns about America’s apparent intention to introduce democracy by force and explained . . . that “to preserve the peace, sometimes my country believes that war is necessary.” It is not clear how that translated into Turkish.'

I called Zogby International today and got their most recent data (from research conducted in late-2006) on Middle Eastern opinion towards the United States. In Jordan, favorable opinion of the U.S. plunged from 33 percent in 2005, when Hughes took over, to 5 percent; in Morocco from 34 percent to six percent; and in Lebanon from 32 percent to 27 percent. Favorable opinion on Hughes’s watch barely changed in Egypt and Saudi Arabia–standing at an abysmal 13 percent in the former and 11 percent in the latter–and climbed notably only in the United Arab Emirates (from 28 percent to 35 percent). (It should be noted that these numbers represent views of the American government. Middle Easterners are generally not as negative about the American people.)

“Arab and Muslim attitudes towards the United States have been driven by American policy in the Middle East,” John Zogby, the firm’s president, told me. “Hughes was put in a situation where the policy was continually working against her.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...