« Mursi as "rational actor." | Main | The Real Action will be on Friday in Cairo »

12 September 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



Unfortunately, the world is infested with "boy scouts" who could not or would not take our advice. pl


Arab Spring? That's a slogan like 'happy meal'. To use a beer analogy, sounds great, less fulfilling. Those commodity prices you reference are a big part of the causation. Mursi and company are going to see those getting even worse. How long do you think the MB govt. of Egypt is going to last if he decides to pull a 1979 style occupation of the US Embassy in Cairo Friday morning? I wonder just who would be funneling the MB billions to ensure they can stabilize the purchasing power of all those poor people in those mobs in the street.

Medicine Man

I can appreciate not seeing the value of intervention in Libya. It was a much more pressing issue for France, the UK, and Mediterranean Europe.

I came to regard Libya as a defensible intervention after listening to the arguments on SST about the specifics: that it would be a militarily finite campaign, that the US would not bear the whole burden of the operation, and that the locals were more likely than most places in the MENA to build a secular, post-war government. I decided that the costs/risks the veterans here were describing sounded reasonable in exchange for a shot at bringing down a dictator who was (until recently) an enthusiastic sponsor of international terrorism and an accessory to the murder of westerners.

For that matter, Qaddafi coming to the end he did was probably valuable for deterring like-minded cretins. For years he delighted in taunting the United States and flouting international law. He should never have been let off the hook so easily.

Not really trying to convince you of anything, Tyler, just trying to sketch out in brief why I don't regard intervening in Libya a waste or a bungle.


There were reports of AQ/Salafists being among the major factions in the rebels from the get go. However, as you said the E-Branch has a bad habit of supporting any "populist" movement. I would honestly posit the likely cause is because a lot of members get all gooshy in the nether bits since it reminds them of their protesting years. Anyone protesting "the Man" deserves the full faith and support of the USG, apparently.

Qaddafi was playing ball with us, and I fail to see how he was a threat other than he was a jerk to his people. If that's the benchmark for a bombing campaign, we'd be busy folk. Maybe I'm missing something that the Colonel or someone else pointed out, but that's my dumb grunt interpretation of things.

But as to your last paragraph, there is that as well. Again, look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the chaos that has followed, to say nothing of the undeclared drone war. Where are all the Democrats chanting "no blood for oil" now?


Trust me Fred, I find the term "Arab Spring" laughable as well. We're going to see a big mess in Egypt. Last time Mubarak was ordering the Army to bake bread to give away when the SHTF. Now the government is at odds with the army, and there are a few other problems, to say the least.

Do the MB have millions? If I had to guess, I'd say it is our Saudi friends again.


And that's fair, and those are all valid points. Qaddafi was a bit of a c--t, to put it lightly.

It just seems that when its time for "democracy" in the NA-ME sphere, everyone in the Beltway is shocked when "one person, one vote, one time" goes down yet again and a bunch of hardcore Salafists are elected.


Barak(?), Mofaz, Meridor...

Is there a scent of blood in the waters? About damn time you Israelis double down on your mercurial leader-afraid-of-his-wife. Don't ever forget that THE CLINTONS hate him too.

Will Reks

Well, your claim that "Anyone protesting "the Man" deserves the full faith and support of the USG, apparently" is not quite accurate.

The Obama WH did not mess with Bahrain or say one word against the Saudi Royals who supported their Gulf State brothers.

There are no Democrats chanting because most people seem to be fine with short, relatively bloodless wars that the media can call a win. Kinda apples and oranges compared to Iraq. Partisanship plays a role too, of course.


You are probably right. I'm 65 and a life long Democrat, but sometimes Ron Paul looks very good to me. I would like to see us exit the ME completely, all countries, and that includes soldiers and aid. But I know that will not happenany time soon.


You're right on Bahrain, I should have amended that to 'protests that don't affect the Saudis'.

As far as the last paragraph, 'short and bloodless' is a quaint term to people who don't have to deal with the blowback. Also, what is Obama's doubling down in Afghanistan then?





Will Bibi actively side with his buddy Mitt against BHO? http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/benjamin-netanyahu-to-appear-on-meet-press-sunday



He has. pl


I should have added "on a nationally televised American TV interview show." How far will Bibi go, Colonel?

different clue

My memory (which may be very wrong) is that the gathering advance of the Quaddafi forces to take Benghazi together with apparent threats from Saif al Islam and then Muammar himself to kill many thousands of Benghazians made the governments of Europe, especially Italy and France, fear the swift arrival of hundreds of thousands of Lybian refugees in Italy and France. They (especially France) wanted to prevent that and pressed America for help in militarily stopping Quaddafi from reaching Benghazi. The Security Council resolution was initially explained as only stopping Quaddafi from taking the city and precipitating a mass-refugee flight to Europe.

It swiftly expanded to rendering the Quaddafi forces defeatable on the ground by the counter-Quaddafi forces.

All that is just to say that I remember it having started as a Franco-Italian idea and not originally an American idea. (If my memory is wrong on that then I imagine I will have my memory corrected).


In Bibi's face: The massacre of Sabra and Shatila


Next time the "most moral" Israelis of Bibi-Avigdor sort start boasting about their very special Jewish "morality", they must be forcefully reminded of the utterly inhuman act known as the massacre of Sabra and Shatila, as well as of the routine immunity from prosecution for various crimes, which Israel enjoys thanks to their very noisy foreign agency AIPAC


Those facts wouldn't conflict with anything I've put forth - if I recall correctly we were hearing demadns for Qaddafi to step down from DC for quite a while during the conflict.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad