Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 332

Thread: Egypt's Spring Revolution (2011-2013)

  1. #141
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default way OT but since it came up...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    The slang word "boondocks" meaning jungle or out in the country comes from a Philippine Tagalog dialect word for mountain. It apparently entered the American vocabulary when we were civilizing with Krag rifles.
    Yes, "boondocks" comes from the Tagalog (it's a language, not a dialect) bundok, meaning mountain or highlands.

    A portion and a half of greasy adobo to whoever knows the other Tagalog word adopted into English during the "civilize 'em with a Krag" days... (there's only one other that I know of, and if someone has a third I'm seriously impressed).

  2. #142
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default I'll pass on the adobo...whatever that is

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    Yes, "boondocks" comes from the Tagalog (it's a language, not a dialect) bundok, meaning mountain or highlands.

    A portion and a half of greasy adobo to whoever knows the other Tagalog word adopted into English during the "civilize 'em with a Krag" days... (there's only one other that I know of, and if someone has a third I'm seriously impressed).
    My bet is bolo. Google was my friend.

    Also liked the more modern slang terms CIA (certified Imelda admirer) and "forgets" for old person. I resemble that latter term...but at least at nearly 56 I can still chest press and fly 255 a dozen times and elliptical for half an hour at resistance level 13.

    I know, you're not impressed. You just go out and climb a boondocks

    My 47 year old bro did that recently climbing Mt Whitney (14.505') with his wife!

  3. #143
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    One has to wonder what exactly they want the US to do to preserve the hollow shell of Mubarak's rule. There seems to be a general reluctance to admit that Mubarak is probably going down no matter what the US does. Rats may leave sinking ships, but who in his right mind stays on a sinking ship?
    Seems to me an excellent opportunity for the US to demonstrate that we do not necessarily hold our interests to be identical to those of Israel.
    Ever hear the old joke about two men coming upon a Grizzly bear and the one says, "Run," and takes off to which the other says "you can't outrun a bear." The first replies, "That maybe true but I only gotta out run you." In this case Iran is the bear. Wouldn't you prefer both the U.S. and Israel to have a better hunting rifle and Israel to be the first target of the bear?

    Second analogy: If your ship is sinking in water that will cause hypothermia and death in 10 minutes and a rescue ship (election) is 15 minutes away and you have nothing resembling a life raft now, do you jump now?

    And you certainly don't need someone from the rescue ship telling you over the radio to jump now...or your young sailors who have no clue what hypothermia (or running a country) involves.

  4. #144
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Ever hear the old joke about two men coming upon a Grizzly bear and the one says, "Run," and takes off to which the other says "you can't outrun a bear." The first replies, "That maybe true but I only gotta out run you." In this case Iran is the bear. Wouldn't you prefer both the U.S. and Israel to have a better hunting rifle and Israel to be the first target of the bear?

    Second analogy: If your ship is sinking in water that will cause hypothermia and death in 10 minutes and a rescue ship (election) is 15 minutes away and you have nothing resembling a life raft now, do you jump now?

    And you certainly don't need someone from the rescue ship telling you over the radio to jump now...or your young sailors who have no clue what hypothermia (or running a country) involves.
    I don't see a bear on the horizon, and our ship isn't sinking. Mubarak's is, but it doesn't have to be ours, in fact it had better not be ours, because it's already below the surface and I don't see it coming back up. Our wise rats need to hop off his ship and back onto ours, where they belong. The elections may be coming and they may be a rescue, but the choice of waiting or not ain't ours to make. Let the crowd toss Mubarak, let a caretaker handle the intervening time, the rescue arrives anyway. Last thing we want to do is be seen trying to keep him in power.

    First necessary realization: Mubarak is done. The US couldn't resurrect him if we tried, and trying would just be hitching ourselves to a fallen star. There's no debate over whether to try to keep Mubarak in power; we cannot reanimate a corpse. The only reasonable debate is over whether and to what extent we can or should try to influence the transition.

    Second necessary realization: a post-Mubarak Egypt does not have to be an Islamist nightmare or an Iranian clone. Of course the Israelis, and a few others, will wave that threat at us in an effort to persuade us to try to shape the new Egypt to their liking, but that would be an effort well worth resisting. I think the Islamists will miss Mubarak more than we do, and that we'll discover that the notion of Mubarak as the last bulwark against Egyptian Islamic radicalism is as completely invalid as the notion of Marcos as the last bulwark against Philippine Communism was.

    Mubarak is history, and history is a one way street. We need to deal with it and deal with what comes after. It will be complicated, but it always is. He wasn't ever gonna last forever.

    And on the aside...

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    My bet is bolo. Google was my friend.
    Never really though "bolo" got adopted into English. The word is "cooties", from the Tagalog "kuto", for head lice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cole View Post
    Also liked the more modern slang terms CIA (certified Imelda admirer) and "forgets" for old person.
    Did anyone ever admire Imelda, other than Fabian Ver? A joke from the old days...

    The Marcos family were in their jet flying back from the US. They flew over a barangay, and little Irene looked down and saw the poor people, and ran to her father and said" "Tatay, I want to make a thousand Filipinos happy, can I have 100,000 pesos?". So Ferdinand pulled 100,000 out of his pocket, the plane flew over the barangay, they threw the money out and everyone was happy.

    Then they flew over a poblacion, and little Imee looked down and saw the poor people, and ran to her father and said" "Tatay, I want to make ten thousand Filipinos happy, can I have a million pesos?". So Ferdinand pulled a million out of his suitcase, the plane flew over the poblacion, they threw the money out and everyone was happy.

    Then they came to Manila, and little Bongbong looked down and saw the poor people, and ran to his father and said" "Tatay, I want to make 15 million Filipinos happy, can I have a billion pesos?"

    Ferdinand thought about that for a moment and replied...

    "Just fetch your mother."


    I'm sure there are some great Mubarak jokes flying around Cairo right now; somebody should collect them.

    And yeah, I mostly just run around the bundoks. We use what we've got, and I'm in the middle of them...

  5. #145
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Crowbat is closer but even he's about eight years late (Google ArAmCo and look around). Franklin D. Roosevelt started diddling around in the ME in 1942, met Ibn Saud in the Great Bitter Lake in 1945...Allow me to repeat what I wrote:
    Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.

    So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.

    "in response to 30 years of provocations from the ME; not from Muslims -- though most were that -- from the ME."

    Note the ME, for Middle East, which includes Iran. The Iraniha , some of them at any rate, were upset with us for moving in to their country, uninvited and supporting the old Shah in 1943.
    They couldn't get more upset over what the USA were doing in 1943 than they already were over what the British and the Soviets did in 1941. Then, note that the Shah's son - Reza Pahlavi II - was placed on the throne instead of his father by the British, and already in 1941-1942: what the Americans did in 1953 was "just" to return the same Shah Reza Pahlavi II to the power - and this with help of the same clergy that later stole the revolution of 1978. As such, that was also no "ME provocation", but an US intervention and a provocation. The "payback" bill was delivered in 1978-1979...

    Regardless of motivation -- and erroneous assumptions, the Persians led the ME -- again, as they had for centuries. They broke the ice, so to speak in attacking the Great Satan -a and getting away with it. The Arabs then piled on -- ME way of warfare...
    I'm sorry, but you're really mixing two entirely different things here. If the "Persians" lead the way, then certainly not with their example of "attacking the Great Satan". Then, their biggest "attack" on the USA before 1979 was the Shah's drive to increas oil prices, in the early 1970s.

    Quite on the contrary. What created the modern-day antagonism against the USA was a) Johson admin's decision to abandon the policy of neutrality in the Arab-Israeli conflict, after the 1967 War, and b) the Israeli victory during that War. This brought the al-Sauds and Wahhabists to the idea that a religiously motivated fighter can win wars, and from that moment onwards they began promoting and financing Islamist extremism all around the world. It's easy to follow this development on the basis of activity of various resistance/terrorist groups, (Palestinian as well as others): originally, they had nothing to do with religion at all (on the contrary, many were centrists or even leftists), nor were active against the USA. This began to change after the 1967 War.

    And now watch the US reaction to this development: Al-Sauds became the "best friends", and their financing of the development of a major terrorist base in Pakistan was supported as well - with argumentation of the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Zia ul-Haq, who was instrumental in turning Pakistan into the Islamist quagmire as we know it today (with extensive Saudi financing), became Reagan's favourite and Pakistan was left to make its own nuke...

    As a result of the Munich attack, Nixon directed...
    I'm sorry to interrupt here, but Nixon did not wait for the Munich attack: Kissinger began his tenure with ignoring Sadat's peace-proposal from 1970. That aside, the US intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict was already going on since at least 1969 (see deliveries of F-4s, which started in 1969 and prompted the Soviet intervention in Egypt, in 1970). It was continued through 1970 (see Kissinger's development of the politics of "ignoring" the Israeli nuclear weapons, and his ignoring of Sadat's peace proposal) and later on, all well ahead of Munich.

    One could draw similar parallels - once more related to Egypt - to Reagan's reaction to Sadat's assassination, in October 1981. That was the moment Egypt (plus Sudan at the time) was granted US$1 billion + in military aid for the first time, and the USA launched a host of military and intelligence operations against Libya (does "Early Call" ring any bells here?), which eventually lead to knocking out of that country, in the 1990s. Simultaneously, through all of this time, absolutely nothing has been undertaken to decrease the spread of Wahhabism by the Saudis.

    The US is always more concerned with domestic politics than it is with the broader world. Nixon's effort produce some good results which were ignored. Carter totally mishandled the hostage crisis by actually sending the Ayatollah Ruhollah K. a letter saying he would not use force. Khomeini had been about to direct the Students (note that world, ponder Taliban and look at Tunisia and Egypt today...) at the Embassy to release the hostages but upon receipt of Carter's letter, told then to continue the march.
    Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.

    Reagan Failed utterly in first sending troops to Lebanon in 1983, second in allowing State to tie their hands and thirdly in doing little to nothing about the Embassy and troop billet bombings and latterly by withdrawing -- that merely encouraged everyone to believe the US had no staying power.
    I never heard any Arab or Islamist complaining about this. I do recall, though, bitter complaints about the defeat of the "Arab issue" by the Israelis in Lebanon, and the Libyan deafeat (at the hand of a CIA-supported "liberation movement") in Tchad, in 1982. That's why I still find this analogy....well, without foundation.

    All of which is off thread. So if you want to continue this, let's do it by PM.
    Some of this is crucial for this thread. Particularly Reagan's "installation" of Mubarak and opening of the US military aid program for Egypt: without these two actions, who knows what would Egypt look alike nowadays...?
    Last edited by CrowBat; 02-06-2011 at 07:29 AM.

  6. #146
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Continuing my attempt to understand Ken's flow of thoughts....

    Try recomputing with that 1979 start date, see if that works, don't forget to count the Embassy bombings (all of them), attacks on the World Trade Center (all of them), the Barracks bombings (all of them), the aircraft hijackings and bombings (all of them) and I think you'll come up with a fair total over the first 22 of that 30 plus years. Not quite one major attack a year but not far off, either.

    Throw in the ship attacks plus Viet Nam and Somalia -- which you may not deem important in this context but of which many in the ME and Asia are well aware and often cite, not least including Bin Laden and Zawahiri, the Egyptian and Abu Yahya al-Libi -- the Libyan AQ strategist.

    <snip>

    ....its a view I've held for almost all that 30 years, certainly for the last 27 years, since the second Beirut Embassy bombing. As I said, I've been paying attention, you had no need to do so.
    I think I understand your standpoint now, but have a strong feeling you're throwing quite a lot of unrelated events on the same pile, while ignoring the US involvement in many of them. At least you blame wrong people for attacks on the USA. I also don't agree with the premise of the US - generally - acting "lamely", or being provoked.

    If you like, consider me a "Devil's advocate". I don't mind, since it happens often and I got used to that. My point is: as much as I can understand your standpoint, so I can understand the standpoint of those you say "provoke" the USA.

    For example: the Iranians see themselves as provoked by the USA, time and again, and again, and again. Op Ajax in 1953 and installation of the Shah was just the start, some of them "insist" on it, others don't even care about these events, but some much newer ones. See; Israeli invasion of Lebanon which (as they see it) and the resulting oppression of the Shi'a in the south of that country - couldn't have been undertaken without US support; assassination of their charge d'affairs in Lebanon by (what they see as) an US ally (Lebanese Christians), and which was a signal for the onset of an "undeclared war" against the IRI; US support for Iraq that brutally invaded them and actually enabled Khomeini to firmly entrench himself in power in Tehran - but also led to the development of the IRGC as the major military, political and economic power in the IRI -; wholehearted support of Wahhabism on at least two sides of the IRI (in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) since the 1980s (I'll not involved various "Stans" to this consideration now); US treachery after Iranians supported them so much in Afghanistan in 2001-2002, and then in Iraq, in 2003; clandestine US operations to steer troubles between ethnic minorities etc. As you can see, their list appears even longer than the one you could offer as argumentation that the Persians are "provoking" the Great Satan...

    Now, you are relating various terrorist attacks against the USA with the IRI, and see these are a result of "soft" actions of various US admins. But, why don't you "connect the dots"? Who are the crucial theoreticians of the AQ, and who were not only the 19 idiots from 9/11, but also those who bombed embassies in places like Nairobi? Who are the MBs the Israelis are so in panic about? Persians - or Egyptians and Saudis?

    In what way are - for example - Islamists from Egypt that turned so extreme they are not accepted even by their own "brothers" (from the Brotherhood), related to the Persians?

    Sorry, not the least.

    Furthermore, if you continue connecting these dots...and to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread: don't you find it at least "curious" that the people that run the AQ and became involved in actions against the US, emerged after Mubarak came to power, and since the USA began delivering extensive military aid to Egypt? Prior to that the MBs did not care the least about Washington. If you study them more closely, you find out that their motivation has nothing to do with the Iranian Shi'a, but with the Saudi Wahhabists. They turned against the USA after the US troops "violated the holy soil" of Saudi Arabia, in 1990. They were trained by the ISI in Pakistan in projects financed 50:50 by the USA and the Saudis, and ignored by the US while spreading their ideas from Marocco and Nigeria, via India to the Philippines.

    You also mentioned Somalia: as of 1981-1983, Somalia was a recipient of the US military aid, as a counter to the "reactionary and pro-Soviet government" in another former US ally - Ethiopia: I strongly doubt anybody in the DC ever came to the idea to study how comes Mengistu "turned" Marxist-Leninist (literaly) over the night. At the same, the US at least ignored provision of military aid provided by various Arab regimes to the Islamists in Eritrea...only to, 20 years later, find itself having to support Ethiopia against Islamists in Eritrea and in Somalia... Now, do you think Ethiopia or Somalia ever "provoked" the USA, or any US admin to have been "soft" to them too?

  7. #147
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default And as if on cue...

    Shortly after writing this:

    a post-Mubarak Egypt does not have to be an Islamist nightmare or an Iranian clone. Of course the Israelis, and a few others, will wave that threat at us in an effort to persuade us to try to shape the new Egypt to their liking, but that would be an effort well worth resisting.
    I browse around and note Sarah Palin saying this:

    ...information needs to be gathered and understood as to who it will be that fills now the void in the government. Is it going to be the Muslim Brotherhood? We should not stand for that...
    Somebody really ought to remind her, and perhaps a few other people, that the US does not have veto power over who rules Egypt.

  8. #148
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default The Kefaya Movement: A RAND Corp. Study Of Modern Regime Change

    Keyfaya is Arab for enough! this is a link to the RAND corporation study on the usage of social media and youth groups to cause regime change. Still reading the paper but there are some very strong parallels as to what is happening in Egypt......coincendence?????


    http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG778.pdf

  9. #149
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Americans will always have more in common with Persians than with Arabs, thus the irony of where we find ourselves today where Iran is cast in the role of "enemy" and so many Arab governments are cast in the role of "friend."

    As CrowBat points out, we are attacked by the populaces of our allies, not the populaces of our enemies. That alone is metric enough to point out how out of balance the current state of governmental relations have grown to become over the years. Arab and Persian populaces both yearn for greater liberty and self-determination; greater infusion of democratic principles into the governments they design for themselves; and greater respect from the West than they have been shown over the past couple hundred years. But Persians don't attack us becuase they don't blame us for their current government. That issue is resolved. This, however is an unresolved issue in many Arab states where the people do blame the US for the state of their governance, and do attack us. None of these states have the wherewithal to attack us, even if they formed an alliance and called it a "Caliphate." Weak states are not threats to strong states. Populaces of weak states, however, can launch us into 10 years of GWOT tail-chasing. The game has indeed changed, but we liked to old rules better so ignored that little fact.

    Egypt is important. Culturally and physically, it sits at the fulcrum point between Mediterranean Arabs and Arabian Peninsula Arabs; between West and East. It is an ancient culture and a true nation; as is Iran. As Anwar Sadat once said the others are largely "tribes with flags." There was a certain balance in place, but it was an artificial one, with far too many fingers on either side of the scale.

    Because Egypt is so important there are a wide range of stake holders who are working a wide range of angles to push for status quo or change as they see best suits their respective cause. Some speak directly to advocate their cause, most take indirect approaches. They leak "intel" to someone who they know can and will leap to get in front of a camera and scoop the story; or they play on the biases of people like Ms. Palin to get her to stir up her base (as is Glenn Beck, Rush, etc). Similarly there are agents on the ground working agendas as well.

    The irony is that the people are the ones who started this, the people are the ones who hold the true power to decide this, but it is the people who are the last consideration of most who are working hardest to steer events one way or another. As the world continues to evolve, it will be in finding balance points that the people buy into that will be the most powerful and enduring.

    Amb. Bolton has said one thing that I agree with, and that is that the US needs to stop sending powerful and mixed message out into the airwaves, and needs to exercise a cogent plan of diplomacy behind the scenes and across the region. There is great opportunity here, but great risk as well.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 02-06-2011 at 02:25 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #150
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking "We don't need no stinkin' confusion." Thanks for the response.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.

    So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.
    So let me add to the confusion.

    ArAmCo was the nose of the Camel. No more, no less. A Camel that had FDR's full knowledge and support. Quite full. Devious old dude, he. Wanted to see British and French Colonies disappear the better for American companies to sell in those 'former' colonies and spheres of influence...

    Re: The British and Soviets in Iran. True. Both those folks are soundly detested, the US is merely mildly disliked by most Iraniha. That is obviously a generalization but I believe it to be fairly accurate as such.

    On Reza and Reza II the perception in Iran was, some years ago, that the US had lobbied for the old man and then been persuaded by the British to support the son and that the US did so. The 1953 coup was as you note supported by the same Clergy that did indeed steal the 1978 Revolution.

    The Shah drove to increase oil prices in the 1969-71 period in an effort to convince the US to support his demand for more and better weapons which were being denied him by the then US Administration (my pet strory being the denial of sale of a dozen O-2s which the IIAF got around by ordering them from Reims Aviation...). It worked. The tale of how the Phantoms came to be sold is a cautionary tale in itself and I do not know all the details but do know US domestic politics were heavily involved and Kissinger just pushed the opportunity...

    On the Johnson decision to increase support for Israel, you are of course correct and there is no question the results were much as you say and as the common knowledge hold. I did not address the US errors and shortfalls, errors and just plain stupid actions that in many cases led, quite understandably and correctly IMO, to the hostility toward us because, while germane to that hostility, I presumed they were all common knowledge and should be understood. They are of course important in context and in fairness but not important to my point of a pattern of US flawed responses. There have been many errors on both sides of this equation and they are not going to be easily forgiven. The good news is that the US attention span is so short, we'll get over it. For the ME, that is not likely to be the case -- and for the US, that should but may not be a cautionary.

    Nixon waited for the Munich attack to get interested in international terrorism as a weapon. That was the point. The political maneuverings you cite were indeed provocative to the ME -- again, I did not mention US provocations that caused the, uh, rather intense dislike and resultant action that emanated from the ME. My point was that 30 years (from 2010-11 ) of the not mentioned US provocations led to 30 years of ME provocations in an effort at retaliation (deserved, perhaps) and that the US failure to properly respond to those puts us pretty much where we are today. Let me emphasize that my idea of proper response was not and is not all military.

    I think this:
    Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.
    is not correct. Khomeini was indeed surprised (as to an extent were the Students themselves...) but he had very early notice from Brzezinski that no force would be used. Exactly what happened and his thinking, neither of us could know.

    This is a valid complaint:
    ...but have a strong feeling you're throwing quite a lot of unrelated events on the same pile, while ignoring the US involvement in many of them. At least you blame wrong people for attacks on the USA. I also don't agree with the premise of the US - generally - acting "lamely", or being provoked.
    to a great extent, particularly in that the posts you've read on this thread do not address US stupidity in many areas (though I have mentioned them in other threads). They were omitted for brevity (heh...) not to deny or obfuscate.

    The events are in fact unconnected -- but they are also a pattern. That pattern gets ignored by too many and can -- will -- lead to more US errors...

    For example:
    In what way are - for example - Islamists from Egypt that turned so extreme they are not accepted even by their own "brothers" (from the Brotherhood), related to the Persians?

    Sorry, not the least.

    Furthermore, if you continue connecting these dots...and to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread: don't you find it at least "curious" that the people that run the AQ and became involved in actions against the US, emerged after Mubarak came to power, and since the USA began delivering extensive military aid to Egypt? Prior to that the MBs did not care the least about Washington. If you study them more closely, you find out that their motivation has nothing to do with the Iranian Shi'a, but with the Saudi Wahhabists. They turned against the USA after the US troops "violated the holy soil" of Saudi Arabia, in 1990. They were trained by the ISI in Pakistan in projects financed 50:50 by the USA and the Saudis, and ignored by the US while spreading their ideas from Marocco and Nigeria, via India to the Philippines.
    I think you made my point...

    A series of unrelated but flawed policies and perceptions on both sides; the ME as an entity and its multi varied polity and the US, equally multi varied; has put us where we are today. The US as the nominally more rich and seemingly powerful has an obligation IMO to be much smarter about what it does and how it does it -- but that does not remove the actions of varied actors from the ME over a period of years in a pattern that have led to yet more stupid actions.

    The issue of this sub thread to me is that flawed US reactions to events trigger more events and thus the self replicating pattern becomes embedded. That cycle need to be broken.
    You also mentioned Somalia: as of 1981-1983, Somalia was a recipient of the US military aid, as a counter... Now, do you think Ethiopia or Somalia ever "provoked" the USA, or any US admin to have been "soft" to them too?
    Not at all. What many in the world fail to realize is that the US government reinvents itself at 2, 4, 6 and /or 8 year intervals due to our political process. That is no excuse for blundering in policy and international relations but it is the reason for a good bit of it. Those elected on the cycles mentioned do not react to the international community -- they react to US domestic politics, period. Perhaps they should be more internationally aware (certainly many of us think so) and they are getting better due to enhanced communication (if only our news media were better -- but that's another thread) but US domestic politics drive much of our 'diplomacy.'

    All the things you cite with respect to the horn of Africa are true -- but the point I was making was that Bush 41's effort to send US Troops to Somalis was flawed because we just sent targets (as did Regan in 1983...). That was exacerbated by Clinton's stupid directive to "get Aideed" and that in turn was not helped by the badly flawed tactics of JSOC and the Rangers; the upshot was that Clinton ordered a withdrawal and that withdrawal was seen by the would be desert raiders of much of the ME as a weakness. It was a weakness but it got misconstrued...

    This sub thread is about misconstrueing

    That said, Bob's World has some good points with which I agree also.

  11. #151
    Council Member CrowBat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haxbach, Schnurliland
    Posts
    1,563

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    ....I browse around and note Sarah Palin saying this:
    Somebody really ought to remind her, and perhaps a few other people, that the US does not have veto power over who rules Egypt.
    Down to the bottom, brutal reality is that "Sarah Palin" has more to say about the future Egyptian president, than 79.999.996 Egyptians.

    Bob,
    Ken,
    thanks for understanding my points (and that inspite of my usual Sunday-morning-sloppy-typing ).

    One plea from me, if you don't mind: don't get my "prose" as an accusation or putting the blame on the US for "everything". I very well understand the machinery of the US politics, at home and abroad. The same with many of the countries we're talking about. So, that was a simple counting of historical facts, thinking about what you write, and trying to make you think about what I write. My experience is that I always "only" learn from such exchanges.

    Few (this time relevant, I hope) observations for the time being:

    Egypt is important. Culturally and physically, it sits at the fulcrum point between Mediterranean Arabs and Arabian Peninsula Arabs; between West and East. It is an ancient culture and a true nation; as is Iran...
    If one can trust recent reports from Cairo and Zagreb (Croatia), Egypt might become even more important, since the Croatian company INA might have found two huge gas fields somewhere between Marsa Matruh and el-Alamein (yes, "that" el-Alamein). Some three weeks ago the (meanwhile former) Egyptian energy minister went as far as to state that Egypt might become one of major gas producers world-wide. For what it's worth: Minister: Egypt can be one of main gas producers.

    What many in the world fail to realize is that the US government reinvents itself at 2, 4, 6 and /or 8 year intervals due to our political process. That is no excuse...
    Trust me, it's even less of an "excuse" considering the fact that in regards of ME, all the administrations since Nixon - without any exceptions - are sticking to the policy developed and introduced by Kissinger: Israel is dictating the US foreign policy in the Middle East, irrespectivelly - often regardless - of the price the USA pay for that.

    That's the essence - also that of what's currently going on in Egypt. Stay tunned, the "Super Bowl match" between the teams of "Egyptian Opposition" led by coaches Obama and Clinton on one side, vs. "Mubarak", led by coaches Netanyahu and AIPAC on the other, is going to be continued "right after this"....

  12. #152
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default And that sums it all up rather neatly and accurately...

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    That's the essence - also that of what's currently going on in Egypt. Stay tunned, the "Super Bowl match" between the teams of "Egyptian Opposition" led by coaches Obama and Clinton on one side, vs. "Mubarak", led by coaches Netanyahu and AIPAC on the other, is going to be continued "right after this"....
    Yet one can hope we'll get a bit smarter.

    Or, more to the point, hope that one team is not playing US football with a poor defensive line while the other is aiming for the FIFA World Cup and has an erratic midfield winger or two...

  13. #153
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default Mind the goalposts...

    ...crank up the Bambino Nel Tempo song, and pass the Martini and Rossi

    From Al Jazeera on 4 Feb 2011: Berlusconi: Mubarak is a wise man

    "I hope that in Egypt there can be a transition toward a more democratic system without a break from president [Hosni] Mubarak, who in the West, above all in the United States, is considered the wisest of men and a precise reference point," he said.

    "I hope there can be continuity in government," he told reporters on Friday.
    From UPI on 28 July 2010: Italy's Eni expands role in Egypt

    CAIRO, July 28 (UPI) -- Italian energy company Eni announced Wednesday that it secured new deals in the Egyptian natural gas sector as it starts oil production in the Western Desert.

    Eni announced that it started oil production in the Arcadia field in the Western Desert of Egypt just 45 days after it made its initial discovery.

    The Italian energy company said it plans to drill four more wells in the area during the next year. The well is part of a plan to exploit deeper reserves locked in Egypt's Western desert and refocus oil strategies in the country.
    Speaking of Rossi, he's finally coming back to Ducati's Moto GP Squad!!!!
    Sapere Aude

  14. #154
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CrowBat View Post
    Down to the bottom, brutal reality is that "Sarah Palin" has more to say about the future Egyptian president, than 79.999.996 Egyptians...

    That's the essence - also that of what's currently going on in Egypt. Stay tunned, the "Super Bowl match" between the teams of "Egyptian Opposition" led by coaches Obama and Clinton on one side, vs. "Mubarak", led by coaches Netanyahu and AIPAC on the other, is going to be continued "right after this"....
    I think you're substantially overstating the extent of US influence... and if the Israelis had influence of their own to use inside Egypt, they wouldn't be shrieking frantically and fruitlessly for the US to do their bidding. Times change.

    I sometimes wonder who will miss the declining American influence more, the Americans who wielded it or the critics who used it to explain everything that happened in the world. Things will be more complex without a clear bogeyman, and we may have to actually exert ourselves and try to understand the full range of forces at play. Even at the peak of US power there were many other forces involved, and the US was manipulated as often as it manipulated others, often with greater success.

    For Egypt, of course, the hard part begins when Mubarak leaves. Transitions out of dictatorship are far from easy, especially if democracy comes into the picture, which it may or may not in this case. Popular expectations will be very high and government capacity is likely to be very low, a stressful combination. We're halfway through chapter one, and it's likely to be quite the saga.
    Last edited by Dayuhan; 02-07-2011 at 12:59 AM.

  15. #155
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Lots of hyperbolic people in the west will pay much attention to the PRC in the next 2010's and probably to India in the 2020's. They'll get over the changes soon.

    Assuming that the domino theory applies to the Arab world, it could become very, very interesting to see how the Europeans behave.
    The French have good relations with some Arab countries (thanks to dropping Israel in '67) as far as I know, but they don't exactly have a strategy-capable president these days.

    Germany has no bad reputation in the Arab world either, but the German parties won't meet any Arab wishes regarding Israel and Germany has not exactly a track record of leading Europe in extra-European affairs. German political capital and strategy in EU policy have been focused on economic policy mostly.

    I don't see Spain, Greece, Portugal or Italy capable of pulling off anything of relevance in regard to coining EU approach towards Arabs in the next few years.

    The UK is pretty much an unknown variable for me in regard to Arab-related policies. A certain 'special relationship' may be a hindrance for them.

    Finally the classic EU politics joker; highly capable, honourable men with good reputation coming from otherwise quite silent and unimportant European countries, such as Norway, Denmark or Luxembourg.
    Norway isn't in the EU, but such a joker could turn out to become relevant nevertheless - and typically so behind the scenes.


    My stance is simple; don't piss off the Arab populations and be a good neighbour and trade partner. There's no real security policy problem unless we fuel one.
    A revival of the Russian-Arab ties of the 67-73 period would be the greatest possible failure of European security policy (short of actual great war) imaginable.

  16. #156
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Finally the classic EU politics joker; highly capable, honourable men with good reputation coming from otherwise quite silent and unimportant European countries ...
    Oh-oh, let's hope nobody from Finland reads that.

  17. #157
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default It's already very interesting to watch...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Assuming that the domino theory applies to the Arab world, it could become very, very interesting to see how the Europeans behave.
    .
    The Europeans have been, and are still busy in the Arab world. I know a bit about Iraq, so let's look there...

    Boris Bollion of France has been working hard in Iraq and is now off to Tunisia. He was covering down on a couple of locations while in Iraq

    Outre celui de Bagdad, il existe un autre consulat général de France en Irak, basé à Erbil.
    The official French website to Iraq

    Dirk Niebel of Germany, and another hard worker, recently had an unexpected ~$2,500 expense while in Baghdad.

    Entwicklungshilfeminister Dirk Niebel (FDP) ist zwei Stunden am Bagdader Flughafen festgehalten worden. Der Weiterflug wurde mit Geld erkauft.
    Murat Ozcelik of Turkey, another hard worker, has been busy in Iraq as well.

    The deal between Turkey’s Calik Enerji and the Iraqi Electricity Ministry is for the construction of the 1,250 megawatt al-Hayrat [Khayrat?] plant in Karbala.
    Calik Holding CEO, Ahmet Calik, and Iraq’s Deputy Electricity Minister, Salam Kazzaz, penned the agreement in a ceremony in Baghdad with the participation of Iraqi Deputy Premier for Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, and Turkey’s Ambassador to Iraq, Murat Ozcelik.
    It's a dynamic and interesting place, just like always.
    Sapere Aude

  18. #158
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Turkey isn't a European country, so that's a different story. Turks, Persians (Iran), northern Black African countries and Pakistan need to reassess their relations with the Arab region as well, but I focused on Europe and I believe that European countries have very different situations in regard to Arab countries than Turkey.

    (and of course I was also trying to get away from the U.S. centricism here. Other countries have relevant relations with the Arab world as well. In fact, some of them are even their neighbours...!)

  19. #159
    Council Member Surferbeetle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,111

    Default And here I thought you were a deeds and words guy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Turkey isn't a European country, so that's a different story. Turks, Persians (Iran), northern Black African countries and Pakistan need to reassess their relations with the Arab region as well, but I focused on Europe and I believe that European countries have very different situations in regard to Arab countries than Turkey.
    What??!!! Turkey is not European? Do you mean that you guys have just been stringing them along since 1963? I am stunned, just stunned!!! Na, so was!

    Turkey's application to accede to the European Union was made on 14 April 1987. Turkey has been an associate member of the European Union (EU) and its predecessors since 1963.[2] After the ten founding members, Turkey was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and was also a founding member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961[3] and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. The country has also been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992, and is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. Negotiations were started on 3 October 2005, and the process, should it be in Turkey's favour, is likely to take at least a decade to complete.[4] The membership bid has become a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.[5]
    P.S.

    Hopefully the Union of the Mediterranean (formerly known as the Mediterranean Union ala Sarkozy) is still supported by at least the EU's Diplomatic Corps (the European External Action Service) as vehicle for advocating for Democracy....

    The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership that encompasses 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a relaunched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process) in 2008, when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region.
    The European External Action Service (EEAS or EAS) is a unique European Union (EU) department[2] that was established following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. It was formally launched on 1 December 2010[3] and serves as a foreign ministry and diplomatic corps for the EU, implementing the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and other areas of the EU's external representation. The EEAS is under the authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), a post also created by the Treaty of Lisbon, whom it assists.
    The EEAS manages the EU's response to crises, has intelligence capabilities and cooperates with the Commission in areas which it shares competence with. However, although the High Representative and the EEAS can propose and implement policy, it will not make it as that role is left to the Foreign Affairs Council which the High Representative chairs.[2][4]
    Last edited by Surferbeetle; 02-07-2011 at 05:16 AM. Reason: PS added
    Sapere Aude

  20. #160
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Surferbeetle View Post
    What??!!! Turkey is not European?
    Traditionally most Europeans have not thought so. The following diplomatic correspondence was written by the British ambassador to the USSR in 1943:


Similar Threads

  1. EUCOM Economic Analysis - Part I
    By AdamG in forum Europe
    Replies: 519
    Last Post: 08-03-2015, 06:36 PM
  2. Revolutionary Patterns
    By TROUFION in forum Historians
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 04:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •