a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

Oborne's all anti "the Jewsih Lobby", that seems like the sort of thing they could get behind

peter oborne thinks britain is secretly run by jews, so do they

check out the brains trust

haha

I find Tariq Ali... perplexing.

i dont see what the point of 'tony benn' is either

would love to see him denounce the UN now

Standard "it's all about oil" dogma from Stop the War. Seeing George Galloway top right is a sure sign that you should read no further.

Bahrain tore down the pearl at the center of Pearl Square in a symbolic end to the popular protests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/middleeast/19bahrain.html?hp

I guess noone is speaking up for the people of Bahrain in the US State Department or elsewhere in the world's political establishment

our choices are between the Saudis and Iran. not exactly great options there.

As someone asked upthread, do we really know that the Bahrain Shiites (Shia?) will embrace the Iranian Shia or be controlled by them automatically, or is that just a probability? I recognize that the Iranian fundamentalist Shia rulers are trying to influence other countries and their people, but is it possible Shi-ites elsewhere do not want Iranian help?

Bahrain protestors have said they want a British style parliament with a monarch. Can we take them at their word, or are those saying that not in a majority or not being sincere.

well there's the ethnic difference there too

i really have no idea how those affinities function, best not to say too much i guess

for that matter, i really have no idea what the different theologies of shia and sunni imply, if anything. like catholic-protestant conflicts i can 'get' even with all the national and economic and historical factors filtered in. with islamic sects i don't even know the difference.

there are significant doctrinal differences in terms of who gets venerated and who's got religious authority, that's the main difference. Like Protestants not recognizing the authority of the Pope.

do we really know that the Bahrain Shiites (Shia?) will embrace the Iranian Shia or be controlled by them automatically, or is that just a probability?

nobody really knows. But the Iranians WANT to get their hooks in Bahrain, and they're bound to be more appealing to Bahraini Shia than their Sunni oppressors.

exactly -- the iranians' attitude is a pretty big factor, regardless of the sincerity of the majority of protesters. the new york times says some among the protestors are in touch with iran, while some are not. sounds plausible.

This is all a real fait accompli clusterfuck. The UN OKs force and imposes a no-fly zone, so ... Qaddafi calls a cease fire. The UN allies, now ready for a fight, cast doubt on the cease fire, but theoretically their hands are tied until Quaddafi resumes shooting and killing. Meanwhile, the Saudis offer support for the no-fly zone (itself a tacit declaration that Quaddafi must go) while sending their own troops to Bahrain to beat down protesters there and fortify the elite status quo. But of course, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are as much our allies as anyone else in the region (sure, Israel included, why not), so the US's hands are tied when it comes to those countries. And yet, I still want to know what kind of precedent this sets. Like, what about Yemen? If the Libya move was made on humanitarian grounds, how baldly hypocritical to focus strictly on Libya. Further, if the idea is really "regime change," then how can it possibly end with Qaddafi, who, ironically, has lately only been bad to his own people and not to the US or the international community? And then there's Iran, waiting like a great white shark right off the deep end of a coral reef.

Suddenly Sudan seems relatively stable! Though simmering in the background in the prospect of a whole bunch of Somalias, only Somalias with vital political and strategic positioning. Again, clusterfuck. Though it there's ever been a defense of thewar-mongering neo-cons it's that, yes, it would be much worse with Saddam Hussein still around. That's one ugly silver lining, though.

This is all a real fait accompli clusterfuck.

bit early on to make this call imo.

I still want to know what kind of precedent this sets.

yeah ok. you may have noticed that this isn't how foreign policy works, anywhere. the UN doesn't do anything about tibet, south georgia, zimbabwe, whatever. it's obviously inconsistent or 'baldly hypocritical' that nothing is done about bahrain. the reality of our dependence on saudi oil is unpleasant to behold. (i think it's a bit silly to say they are 'as much' an ally as israel.) that doesn't get gadaffi off the hook.

the rest of what you're saying... well, yes shit is fucked. the removal of gafaddi and mubarak (one a soviet client, one an american client) could turn out well. or it might not.

tbf none of the other situations currently drawing attention - Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan - have escalated into the full-scale armed conflict of Libya. big difference.

altho hm is completely right that yeah duh foreign policy and UN mandates are wildly inconsistent, welcome to geopolitics 101.

might get a decent call of duty sequel out of all this tbf

What seems odd about this particular UN mandate vs., say, the Balkans is the the US sort of drove the Balkans thing, but here hung back. How often does Europe drive the call for military intervention?

Which is to say, this seems to me an atypical UN action, all the more surprising following Iraq.

say, the Balkans is the the US sort of drove the Balkans thing, but here hung back

uh Hillary drove this pretty hard from all accounts

http://slatest.slate.com/id/2288687

Interesting to read that. Still, the US was not driving this no-fly zone debate, however much Clinton wanted us in the mix.

How often does Europe drive the call for military intervention?

Kosovo.

Very uneasy about these developments, despite it being "just" a Security Council vote.

I still want to know what happens if Qaddafi maintains a cease fire.

And if he doesn't!

Some updates:
- No U.S. carriers in the Medditeranean (the USS Enterprise, formerly on station in the Red Sea, moved to the Arabian Sea to support Afghanistan operations)
- Italy just gave permission for other nations to use its airfields but will not participate itself without parliamentary approval
- Gaddafi's troops killing wounded in Misrata hospital
- they've also advanced halfway from Ajdabiya to Benghazi in 2 hours, and fighting is taking place in Qaminis and Suluq (both stories on Al Jazz)

that's some ceasefire, yep

I never thought I'd hi-five Jeffrey Goldberg. I have the same questions:

But: Do we really know who would rule Libya if Qaddafi disappeared from the scene? I met a whole bunch of anti-Qaddafi activists in Cairo last week, and they didn't fill me with good feeling about their intentions or their beliefs. Or, for that matter, their competence. I know that there are many brave people among the opposition, and I wish fervently for their success, on the theory that they can't be worse than Qaddafi. But I'm not one hundred percent behind this theory.

And another question: Are we seeking to depose Qaddafi, who, we are informed by various American officials, has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103) because we just hate him more than run-of-the-mill dictators? Is it because he has committed crimes that are so unique? He's a satanic figure, of course, but he has never committed atrocities on the scale of, say Saddam Hussein, or Hafez al-Assad. Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

um yeah this is pretty unusual

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

these are all good questions though

this seems to me an atypical UN action, all the more surprising following Iraq.

― Josh in Chicago, Friday, March 18, 2011 7:04 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

well... the argument goes that the iraq war was not properly sanctioned by the UN. im not sure if there's a typical UN response. it's reacted differently to different situations since the end of the cold war. i can't think of an easily comparable scenario to this within that period. the strategic stakes were lower in kosovo, i think.

but it isn't surprising that a president who came in as a post-dated 'anti-war' guy shilly-shallied about getting into it, and had his spokespeople rubbish talk of a no-fly zone. and it isn't surprising that the same administration has not gone the unilateral route and has got as much regional and international support as possible. the fucking arab league are on-side ffs!

it's all pretty atypical, this eruption of revolt across the middle east and north africa, isn't it?

xpost

Do we really know who would rule Libya if Qaddafi disappeared from the scene? I met a whole bunch of anti-Qaddafi activists in Cairo last week, and they didn't fill me with good feeling about their intentions or their beliefs. Or, for that matter, their competence. I know that there are many brave people among the opposition, and I wish fervently for their success, on the theory that they can't be worse than Qaddafi. But I'm not one hundred percent behind this theory.

do we "really know"? -- no, can we be "one hundred percent" sure? -- again, no, grow up.

And another question: Are we seeking to depose Qaddafi, who, we are informed by various American officials, has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103) because we just hate him more than run-of-the-mill dictators? Is it because he has committed crimes that are so unique? He's a satanic figure, of course, but he has never committed atrocities on the scale of, say Saddam Hussein, or Hafez al-Assad. Are we offended because he has launched aerial attacks against his own citizens? Of course we are, but is this really so unusual in the Middle East?

it's a matter of opportunity, and the viability of the resistance. that's where the question of legitimacy comes into it. it's because of a particular accumulation of circumstances; it isn't based on this debate-club level of equivalency-seeking.

And another question: Is the goal to remove Qaddafi from power? To limit his running room? What if Libyan rebels don't succeed in removing him from power? How long will the West be engaged militarily in Libya? What is the strategy here? Is there a strategy? What's the plan if this settles into a standoff?

goal is to remove him from power. these are important questions. but as with everything else, no jeffrey, no-one knows how exactly this plays out. that's often the way.

um yeah this is pretty unusual

If you discount the adjective "aerial" from "aerial attacks," there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

has "lost his legitimacy" to rule (as if he didn't lose it when, for instance, he blew up Pam Am 103)

all other stuff aside for a second, this is bullshit. "legitimacy" ie some combination of raw power over and assent from the people of a country just aren't related to killing someone else's civilians or not. let's not bring up drone strikes on a pashtun wedding or whatever. they're just not the same thing. this stuff is so annoying to read.

No, I didn't accept that point either.

The important thing here is to hold on to our skepticism and wish Libyans the best.

If you discount the adjective "aerial" from "aerial attacks," there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

which was also highly unusual

there's Saddam's gassing of that village in '88.

― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, March 18, 2011 8:49 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark

this was during the cold war... and 23 years ago. i mean. so yes, this is different from that situation, but why exactly do we have to follow that inglorious precedent of non-intervention?!

why exactly do we have to stand for rhetorical questions?

The important thing here is to hold on to our skepticism and wish Libyans the best.

― Rich Lolwry (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, March 18, 2011 8:52 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

well, yes. but 'wishing them the best' would likely have led to mass murder. heavy shit is still on the cards, of course. but iirc the UN was set up to prevent that sort of thing.

how many times would you have sought Security Council resolutions in the last, say, twenty years, nrq?

Even accounting for differences between how and why we invaded Iraq and what's happened in the Security Council the last few hours (and what it means for their respective countries), your tone a few posts ago reminds me of a Heritage Foundation intern in 2003. "It's the right thing to do, let's not worry about these silly details now, fuck niceties."

yours remind me of kissinger in the 70s rly so

xp: which was also highly unusual

Except that the village in question was on the border with Iran, and both were lobbing chemical shells at each other all the time.

It isn't that unusual for the local dictators to use extremes of retailiation against their own dissent. Assad of Syria leveled the town of Hama with artillery in 1982. The Algerian military were alleged to do some horrific false flag operations starting their own civil war with militants.

i suppose there is a point where, 'what about yemen, what about ivory coast' kind of questions of this can be answered with, welp, you do what you can to help who you can whenever you can. no, the reasons why libya is a problem when other things are not Big Problems don't look good added up.

if Q wasn't such a crazy m-f and was better at his job as a tyrant -- wear a suit and don't fuck about, assad style -- we'd probably not do anything, or wouldn't think we needed to. i dunno.

but damn if this doesn't give me a sick feeling. another war.

lol assad xpost, how often does that happen

re pan am 103 -- this didn't lead to action because it wasn't really clear who had ordered it. initially, im fair sure libya was not in the frame. and it's still a pretty murky story that may have involved syria and iran.

Algerian civil war is probably a closer analog to what's going on (or is about to go on) although maybe minus the extremist/salafist angle

xp

Pan Am 103 is a murky murky case beginning to end, if you needed an Axis of Evil stick to beat him with you'd be better referencing his supplying the 'Ra with guns/cash/explosives whatevs, which is at least documented

yeah but no one at the Corner cares about that shit