President Obama issued a statement that it is time for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to step aside, and allow the Syrian people to move forward without him. Beyond stating his disapproval of the treatment of the Syrian citizens, and his solidarity with their cause, Obama also stated that he has issued an Executive Order forbidding any form of commerce with the Assad regime. This includes halting all petroleum and petroleum product purchases from Syria by the U.S. and its citizens. While acknowledging that it will be a rough road ahead for Syrian protesters, U.S. officials are of the belief that the days of the Assad regime are numbered.

Since Obama has put an end to petroleum trade between the U.S. and Syria, at least one petition has been started asking that the European Union nations do the same. While there is some concern that Obama’s actions now are simply a precursor to another war in the region, there is also the possibility that eventually economic sanctions will be enough to stop the Assad regime in its tracks.

But the reality on the ground for Syrians is pure chaos and fear. The video above is of protesters that had been arrested, and placed on a bus for transport to a detention facility. “With blood Soul sacrifice for Bashar,” and “Allah, Syria, and Bashar only,” are the chants that the soldiers are forcing their prisoners to say. Given the previous reports of severe abuse of prisoners by the Assad regime, the beatings that these people are receiving are only the beginning of what they will endure. Sadly, one could consider these people the lucky ones, since apparently the Assad regime has adopted a “shoot on sight” policy when it comes to protesters. At least the people on the bus have a chance of living, if they survive their incarceration. Seeing the protesters on that bus serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of attempting to remove Assad from leadership – something that gets lost too easily in the debates over what the rest of the world should do.

The video went viral overnight on Twitter thanks to users like @AmericanSyrians. That account represents a group of Americans that support the Syrians by offering the public information on the conflict in Syria from an American perspective. Grassroots support in the U.S. for Syrian citizens can also be found at the Syrian Coordination Committee (SCC.) The SCC unites ten existing Syrian American organizations for the purpose of supporting Syrian citizens in their struggle against the Assad regime.

Aaron Sorkin got it right, back in the mid-nineties. The quote from The American President (1995), “…I was so busy keeping my job that I forgot to do my job,” is an accurate statement about Obama today. Hollywood presidents are always bigger than life, but occasionally they reflect the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, that is the case right now, but instead of seeing the real President step up and take control like in the movie, we’re obviously heading into an early re-election campaign.

First, one must consider who is doing the talking now on behalf of Obama. Robert Gibbs is now an adviser for Obama’s re-election campaign. He is no longer working for the administration. Why he was the one chosen to deliver the message that the President is not primarily concerned with getting re-elected is difficult to comprehend. Gibbs’ job description no longer includes speaking on behalf of the President – he speaks on behalf of the Presidential candidate seeking re-election.

Second, there is the message itself. Suggesting that Congress focus on creating jobs is an inappropriate comment. Congress does not create jobs – at least not jobs that would actually improve the economy. Yes, Congress can create new jobs within the government, but that is merely shifting the money around. Instead of paying unemployment, it is paying wages. It decreases the number of people that are unemployed, but does nothing to decrease the debt – quite the opposite.

Third, beyond the quick mention of the payroll tax relief remaining intact, there is nothing substantial coming from the Administration or Obama’s re-election campaign staff about concrete changes to improve the economy. There have been many accusations made about this president being an ideologue, and unable to admit that what he has attempted so far simply isn’t working. Accusations that the Administration wants to continue on the same course of throwing money at the problem have gone unanswered in any meaningful way. Government spending should be viewed as an addictive action. “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results” – a variant of another well-known quotation on insanity is attributed to Narcotics Anonymous. Appropriate to see that organization pointing out the problem we are facing now when it comes to the “Beltway opiate.”

But the unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of Americans may very well forget this little message from Gibbs, the re-election campaign consultant. Worse, they may miss the irony. Washington was rife with double-speak and non-committal replies to important questions before this Administration, and will undoubtedly remain so. However, perhaps the historians of the future will pick up on the fact that this practice has been raised to an art form by Obama – beyond his utter failure to lead because it got in the way of his re-election campaign, he may go down in history as the master of the fine art of meaningless political oration.

Leon Panetta is an experienced Washington hand, at least according to Obama. As with anything else in the Beltway, being an old hand can be a good thing – and a bad thing. When it comes to politicians, old hands tend to get swept out when the voting public gets annoyed with the establishment. In the cabinet, switching faces isn’t necessarily so easy. That’s not to say that anyone in the administration is talking already about Panetta moving on – no one is. It is pointing out that he’s managed to speak out of turn twice in under two weeks on the job. It’s not time to talk change, but it can’t be going down easy in the White House.

Leon Panetta - The U.S. Army (CC)

Foreign policy wonks must be having at least a little fun with this one. First Panetta slips on the long-term plans for Afghanistan, mentioning troop levels on the ground in 2014. Then, he told troops in Baghdad that they were there because of 9/11 and Al-Qaeda – the old Bush refrain. The Obama administration doesn’t agree with that assessment, nor do many experts on the region. Saddam Hussein was never definitively linked to the organization, and the vast majority of reports on the activities of Al-Qaeda in Iraq suggest that the organization had no real presence there until after Hussein was deposed. The Pentagon has officially been of the opinion that Hussein had no links to Al-Qaeda as far back as 2008, and the 9/11 Commission dismissed the claims in 2004. For being an old hand, Panetta seems to have forgotten that old news.

Going forward, it will be interesting to watch if there are any significant changes in Panetta’s style when speaking publicly, or if it becomes obvious that the administration is trying to keep him on a shorter leash. To be fair, the Secretary of Defense is under more public scrutiny than the Director of the CIA. Panetta probably needs to learn to shift gears to deal with that difference. In the meantime, the media gets to engage in “Panetta watch” to see what he says next. Popcorn anyone?

Yeah, MSNBC quickly suspended Mark Halperin over calling the President “kind of a dick” on the air. I love it! Could sit here all day replaying the first several seconds of that clip – skip the beginning of the groveling!

And the liberals are so cute about this one, running on about how wrong it was for Halperin to say that. In the fairly long list of derogatory terms everyone has at their disposal, “dick” is nowhere near the top, if one is looking for the absolutely worst term. And Halperin didn’t even call the President one outright either – he was making reference to how the President was behaving. Apparently Halperin thought what the President had done was rather “dick-ish”, not that the man himself was. Sorry for that digression into the world of English Usage!

But like I said, I could watch those first several seconds over and over again. The majority of the clip was about the apologies! Yes, Obama is President, but he is also just a man. Is it really necessary to flog oneself publicly repeatedly for using the word “dick” in reference to him? Well, whatever makes you liberals happy, I guess! Don’t mind me. I’m going to watch Halperin say “dick” a few more times!

Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates addressed NATO,and delivered a message that the U.S. is getting tired of towing the line for its allies. Americans have been grousing about this for a long time, and it needed to be said. Of course it remains to bee seen how seriously anyone in Europe will take this speech, given the circumstances. It was delivered by a man that won’t be Defense Secretary on July 1st, for one thing.

Robert Gates - ISAF Media (CC)

Arguably, Germany was one of the states Gates was loosing his venom. However, it’s unlikely that his comments will carry much weight in Germany regardless. Either it was a colossal scheduling mistake, or yet another indication that the Obama administration is incapable of dealing with foreign relations on a serious level, but while Gates was delivering his message to NATO, Obama was giving Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel a medal. Needless to say, Germany’s representatives in Brussels at the NATO conference were quick to point out that their nation must be doing something right. Their leader was getting a medal from the U.S. president, and apparently that cancels out Germany’s failure to act on Libya, right?

The primary issue of course is money, in one way or another. Gates complained about the U.S. having to pick up the slack for nations that cut their military budgets due to the global recession. NATO’s chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen, while not as fiery as Gates, was also crying for more defense money from the European Union. To keep the proverbial defense policy ping-pong game going, Gates suggested that the European nations needed to spend their money on defense wisely, pointing out that the current patchwork of defense programs covering the European nations was ineffective. The bottom line was that Gates was not happy, and since he is leaving his post soon anyway, presumably he figured it would be a good idea to get the NATO allies riled up. If his goal was to make his replacement regret the choice to take the job, perhaps he accomplished that goal. Only time will tell.

One important issue that Gates brought up was the concept of NATO remaining intact. As alliances go, it has been a fairly good one over the years, particularly during the Cold War. But now, with varied opinions on which nations are really enemies of the alliance, the usefulness of the organization may come into question. Without a common enemy as in the past, it isn’t difficult to understand why anyone might question the validity of keeping the alliance intact. Add to that the fact that NATO itself is slimming down (link in German), and perhaps Gates was on the right track when he sort of suggested that the organization is at a crossroad. True, it could be salvaged, but should it?

If one considers Germany yet again, the answer may be “perhaps not.” While the alliance between the U.S. and Germany is still strong, one could question whether or not it is as relevant as it once was. If Americans aren’t suggesting that, Germans certainly are. While there is no question that there is appreciation for the awarding of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the German Chancellor, it is in the end, just another opportunity for the leaders of the two nations to show publicly how much they like each other. Given the problems that both nations have at home, the likelihood that their foreign policies toward each other will make much difference to either of them in the near future is close to nil. Self-preservation in the world of politics will be front and center for both leaders, and will be primarily focused on the home front, not abroad.

Gates pointed out some hard truths about the state of NATO, and the world. He ruffled some feathers by doing so, and there’s a better than even chance that those comments will go out the door with him come the end of this month, with no further mention of them from the U.S. That doesn’t make those words any less important. Obama can hope that the German journalists that assume that the 2012 election will be centered on domestic policy alone. If there is no action based on Gates’ demands to NATO that there be changes to the status quo of leaving the bulk of the costs and risks for that organization’s operations on the world stage land on the U.S., the next presidential election may also be determined by this administration’s foreign policy. Bottom line is that as long as the U.S. is left holding the bag, the American citizens pay for it on the home front. This is one ball we can’t afford to drop. Gates put it in play – his successor should pick it up.

I’ve chosen footage from Al Jazeera above primarily because they are the “biggest game in town” for the Middle East, and not for any agenda they may or may not have.

While relatively unexpected, it was not utterly unpredictable that President Hosni Mubarak would come out stating that he intends to step down from the elections in September. It was theoretically always an option since the protests started, but an unlikely choice, especially not with the additional comment that he does not intend to place his son on the ballot to replace him. As for the protesters, it would be better if they would accept this, and get to work on building a new political system – organize parties in preparation for an open election. However, there is little hope that they will accept Mubarak’s concession, and willingly wait for him to step down in about seven months. Based on the words of the protesters in the footage above, it seems that they will settle for nothing less than Mubarek leaving office immediately. If that would happen, the likelihood of severe political unrest in Egypt increases significantly, if for no other reason, because there is no political structure (outside of the Muslim Brotherhood that may or may not be prepared to fill the void) waiting in the wings to replace Mubarak’s government.

Add the latest round of protests in Amman, Jordan, and the U.S. is left with a foreign relations nightmare in the Middle East. While the Muslim Brotherhood is apparently remaining in the shadows in Egypt, they are active in Jordan, and will undoubtedly be dissatisfied with the Jordanian King just firing his government officials. They want the King to give up the ability to appoint government officials, not just get rid of the current leaders.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, while it may claim to only be interested in promoting free elections in the Middle East, and social justice programs for the people, one must remember that its founder believed firmly in the Islamic faith having a place in the everyday lives and governance of the people. Any “democracy” created with the influence of this organization will not resemble secular forms of government we see in the West, and more likely than not, these governments will not recognize Israel as a sovereign state in the best circumstances. Worst case scenario, they could become hostile toward Israel, and her allies.

So the U.S. is left between a rock and a hard place. Expressing support for the status quo, or supporting the spread of democracy in the Middle East does little for our future diplomatic relations in the Middle East. There have been commentaries out there that suggest this could be Obama’s equivalent of Carter’s Iran. But it is too early to call for conservatives to take to the streets here in celebration.