Since Obama came to office in January 2009, U.S. security assistance to the Yemeni regime has gone up 20-fold. Despite such large-scale unconditional support, however, the 32-year reign of autocratic President Ali Abdullah Saleh may finally be coming to an end. Yet the Obama administration has been ambivalent in its support for a democratic transition in this impoverished but strategically important country.
Neocons would have us believe that Osama bin Laden’s death was facilitated by their legal rulings.
Bashar’s crackdown on protesters has severely hurt the prospects of renewed U.S.-Syrian ties, at least in the near future. Therefore, the Obama administration is currently on the horns of a dilemma. It has condemned Assad’s crackdown on protestors. But the administration is not sure it should alienate him entirely.
Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus has become the fall guy for microcredit’s abuses by major banks.
Young Guantanamo detainee Yasser Talal Al Zahrani took advantage of guards relaxing the rules to commit suicide.
The U.S. reaction to the spreading democratic uprisings in the Middle East has been notably selective. The latest state to join the movement, United Arab Emirates, has no political parties and no free elections.
President Obama would have achieved more concrete results internationally by taking out Netanyahu politically than by eliminating Bin Laden physically.
Why the haste to kill Osama bin Laden when we might better have been served by his capture?
The grievances expressed in bin Laden’s manifestoes, such as U.S. military presence in the Middle East and support for Israel, will be enough to replenish the ranks of Al-Qaeda and like-minded groups as long as the United States continues to pursue those policies.
It’s becoming more and more difficult to dispute that jihadists see a window of opportunity in the Libyan civil war.