But not taking sides is not the same thing as avoiding participation. Here's how the BBC describes America's standing this morning.
"On the streets of Cairo it's not just a fledgling democracy that lies in ruin. US policy too lies in tatters - in the eyes of many - or at least America's reputation and credibility.
Since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak in 2011, the US has struggled to strike a balance between support for the tenuous progress towards democracy and protection of its national security interests.
The White House has tried hard to work with whoever is in power in Egypt but has ended up with no friends and little influence in Cairo."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23721918
I can see an argument to support one or another of the three factions (army, liberals, bros). But if the US doesn't choose a side and doesn't ensure its support creates a result, it will end up without respect from any side.
Seeming only to care about its influence on whoever wins, whoever wins will see O as a leader who blows with the breeze. For all his many weaknesses, Bush took controversial and meaningful decisions. O thinks he can float above the nastiness. But in doing so, he has no gravity in the conversation.
All the actors in the ME are watching. And I think they see a man who is too fastidious to be anyone's ally. Engaging with the world sometimes means getting your hands dirty.
The long run plan for the US must be independence of ME oil.
| 