Experts: There is a real Change in US Policy and Strategy

Experts and politicians have emphasized the existence of significant differences between Obama”s administration and Bush”s which resulted in clear change in US policy and strategy.
 
This came in the symposium “Future War on Terrorism Under Obama”s Administration” organized by Sawaseya Centre for Human Rights at the headquarter of the Bar Association in Egypt, where Dr. Essam Eleryan (Head of the Political Department in Mulsim Brotherhood Group) has stressed on the existence of figures that have mark on tha face of history and policy of the US away from public politics such as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Kennedy and others as he called for changing pessimistic views.
 
Elaryan has stressed that the President of USA is totally different from his precedent George W. Bush whom his mother described as “the dumbest of her children” and who waged war on the so-called terrorism for which many of the Arab nations paid of their dignities and freedom.
 
Dr. Eleryan affirmed the change in Obama”s administration as he decided the closure of Guantanamo Camp, which is the largest place in the world for human rights violations as well as his call for a dialogue with all different political movements which used to be described as “Terrorist movements”.
 
On his part, Diaa Rashwan (Researcher in Islamic groups at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies) stressed that Obama’s agenda did not include “the war on terror” and did not put it forth at all which clearly reflects the change in US policies.
 
Rashwan made a comparison between Obama and Bush in which he emphasised on the fact that Bush is a person who suffers from paranoia and hypochondria as many reports showed that he wasn’t successful in his political and personal life as his mother confirmed that he was the dumbest out of all her sons and wanted to replace that with his barbaric and ill-studied war. Rashwan has also pointed out to the ongoing conflict between the State Department and the Ministry of Defense during Bush presidency as his agenda was always a military agenda in dealing with others and he had simple and clear aspirations (either with us or against us), unlike Obama who is a more balanced and open person as there became a talk of a Christian nation and a Muslim nation. He also sent to Afghanistan and Iraq an envoy from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and not from the Ministry of Defense, which emphasized his adoption of the political agenda regarding all events.
 
Rashwan stated that there is a kind of flexibility in dealing with Al-Qaeda and Taliban, as Obama is calling for having a dialogue with Taliban.
 
He stressed on the possibility of opening the doors for an indirect dialogue with Hamas first then having a direct dialogue. Although there is a strong Israeli veto power, however the war on Gaza and the steadfastness of the resistance made the idea more possible.

 
He pointed out that the Iraq and Afghanistan issue will be politically solved approximately this year and he referred to the Turkish direction in the peace process between Israel, Syria and USA, which is also a product of the new policy that adopts political solutions instead of confrontation.
 
Rashwan did not put aside the idea of a dialogue between USA and moderate movements and groups, in particular the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas and Hezbullah.
 
Dr. Ahmad Abu Baraka, (Member of MB Parliamentary Bloc) sees that extremism problem must be solved since it leads to terrorism, especially when types of extremism differ from one society to another. Abu Baraka explained that there is a need to solve the economic problems and to fix the deficits of the global capitalist system.
 
He stated that USA which declared war during the rule of the previous administration had to abide by laws and obligations of wars, agreed on internationally, however this never happened as raping, killing, displacements, excessive killing, destruction of hospitals, schools and all kinds of violation took place. He called USA to review its policies in the region as well as its policies in supporting authoritarian regimes.