Neither.
He's attempting to protect Christians in the Middle East, many of whom have been thrown under the bus by US policy, firstly in Iraq (Bush) and secondly, by our unrestrained enthusiasm for the "Arab Spring" (Obama).
I would have thought those who truly consider Middle East Christians to be brothers in Christ would applaud his efforts. Naturally, if you think he's doing a lousy job or he has no business being there, perhaps you could nominate a substitute. I'm sure the Pope would be happy to lend his support. It's not like he has nothing else to do apart from risking his life on trips to the Middle East.
Someone more suitable, perhaps. Someone who wouldn't offend the naysayers who consider the Catholic Church to be disqualified from intervening in human conflict. Is the Jehovah's Witness big cheese available? How about Rick Warren or Paul Crouch?
This is the "whack a Pope" game, isn't it? If the Pope said nothing, folk would scream...."why isn't he doing something, instead of hiding in the Vatican?" When he does say something, the response is ...."shut up....the Catholic Church has no moral authority to criticize those who engage in violence.."
That's the beauty of being a naysayer. It's win-win.
I just wanted to thank you for so many of the great articles you have posted such as this one as well as the many concise and clear comments,right now I'm referring to the comment you made to a responder.
Rule One: "Rome" is the source and summit of all evil in the universe.
Rule Two: In case of doubt or confusion, see Rule One.
Corollary One: "Rome" is always wrong.
Corollary Two: "Rome" must be destroyed. All else is irrelevant.