Tunisia: catch all

[Fuchs]

How have we negatively shaped governance in the past 10 years? What SPECIFIC methods could we use to influence these countries to change absent the expressed will of the people? Who will decide?

The specific methods were for example delivery of arms (Saudi-Arabia's army is not hesitant at all to proclaim that its primary purpose is to keep the royal family in power), money aid and political backing.

20 years ago the U.S. reinstated a 100% obvious dictatorship in Kuwait after "liberating" it.


Mature citizens decide for themselves.


What the U.S. could do:
Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.


Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.

[Bob's World]

The specific methods were for example delivery of arms (Saudi-Arabia's army is not hesitant at all to proclaim that its primary purpose is to keep the royal family in power), money aid and political backing.

20 years ago the U.S. reinstated a 100% obvious dictatorship in Kuwait after "liberating" it.


Mature citizens decide for themselves.


What the U.S. could do:
Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.


Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.

We have put ourselves in a difficult situation. We have long known how these governments stand for principles that are virtually 180 degrees out from our own, yet we have supported and sustained them for a complex array of national interest driven reasons.

Now, when these "allies" are challenged by populaces who are acting very much in accordance with our express national principles we find ourselves in a massive conflict of interests.

Fox news keeps wheeling out a map that shows how Israel is a very small state and that it is "now" surrounded by "enemies" in the form of Arab states. Israel is quite aware that it is, and always will be surrounded by Arab states, that is a fact. But this information is pulled out now and placed in a bad context and sends a negative strategic communication out to the populaces of this region and the world. ("We care about the people of Israel, not the people of Egypt") Why can't we care about both???

The "experts" on terrorism and Islamism are having a field day as well. Comparing Egypt 2011 to Iran 1979. Well, there is one similarity, in each case a leader carefully sustained in power by the U.S is getting his walking (or perhaps running) papers. To assume that Sunni/Christian/ Mediterranean Egypt is going to somehow turn into what Shia/Persian Iran became is a bit of a stretch. We failed to reach out to the people of Iran and we did not work to establish a relationship with the new government.

Much of the current strain between the US and Iran is on the shoulders of the US and our policies toward Iran. In fact, the US can use how it changes its approaches to such situations with this Egyptian opportunity. Then leverage that to reach out and form a healthier relationship with Iran as well.

Currently it is a battle in the media between those who are looking for threats and problems and those who are looking for opportunities. Certainly both are there, but I fall in the camp that says keep a clear eye on the potential problems, but reach out and embrace the opportunities. We have a chance to clear up this tremendous hypocrisy of conflicted US principles and policies in the Middle East, and I think we should make the most of it.

[Ken White]

show that idealism can have unpredictable costs...

Mature citizens decide for themselves.

So do immature citizens. Both decide pretty much what they wish to decide and then look for evidence to support their position -- frequently ignoring dissenting voices.

Nothing new in that...

What the U.S. could do:
Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.

A noble ideal. While I agree we can do that, getting the ponderous US government to shift gears is far more problematic than it seems to appear to many.

Supporting "the opposition" internally is a feature and a factor of the operation of the US government. Getting agreement on what course to follow is always messy, generally a lackluster compromise and will almost never satisfy most people. Thus we are condemned to a foreign policy that is, at best, strange. A big part of that has been that we for almost two centuries had so much wealth and relative power and so many built in strategic advantages that we could safely let US domestic politics rule our foreign (and economic) policy. Those days are gone but due to the excessive size of our government and its peculiar design, we are very slow at shifting focus. As I've said before, that's a feature, not a bug.

Whether that feature will work adequately well in the future is to be determined. I certainly do not know the answer but I can say that over many years, I've seen a lot of premature predictions of our fall or demise.

Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.

Idealistic statement and idea. Two problems with it. First, the arms are ancillary to dictatorships; their primary control is through intimidation of persons and / or the delivery of economic sufficiency.

Secondly, we've done that several time over the last Century, most notably and pointedly during the Carter years. What we discovered was that our the clients or customers would just turn to someone else and that the UK, France and Germany on one side and the USSR and China on the other were more than willing to fill the gap (and that remains true) -- thus, our industries lost production and sales and the net flow of arms was not changed in any significant degree. There is also the fact that in providing arms (and training) the US Armed Forces obtain some moderating influence on the local armed forces -- witness both Tunisia and Egypt today.

Yesterday, several well-known Republican faces have overtly supported Mubarak and disparaged the popular uprising as a 1979-style revolution that needs to fail. Meanwhile, the U.S. governments is not doing much of substance overtly.

Were they Republican faces or TV / Media pundit talking heads that lean Republican or right? I missed any politicians of any significance doing what you say -- though I did note that the Vice President, a Democrat, said Mubarak needed to stay.

The talking heads can be effectively ignored, the VP not so much.

Bob's World:

Now, when these "allies" are challenged by populaces who are acting very much in accordance with our express national principles we find ourselves in a massive conflict of interests.

True dat. Been that way since 1836 or thereabouts. Note that the conflicts almost always get worked out in a way that satisfies few but that is ordained by US domestic politics...

("We care about the people of Israel, not the people of Egypt") Why can't we care about both???

Affinity, I suspect...

We failed to reach out to the people of Iran and we did not work to establish a relationship with the new government.

As one who had served in Iran, had friends there and from there and was therefor paying attention at the time, that is a not totally true statement. We did reach out as best we were able given our ponderous nature and the reach was rejected -- not due to the oft stated 'Mossadegh affair' but simply due to ideology using the business of 1953 as an excuse. Check Bowden's "Guests of the Ayatollah" for just one of many sources.

Much of the current strain between the US and Iran is on the shoulders of the US and our policies toward Iran. In fact, the US can use how it changes its approaches to such situations with this Egyptian opportunity. Then leverage that to reach out and form a healthier relationship with Iran as well.

I very much agree with that. However the limitations of US domestic political intrusion and the correct and proper fear of the unknown results plus ideology that will reject US overtures will quite possibly not produce the results you seem to expect. Thus while it is quite easy for us -- You, Fuchs, myself and some others -- with no responsibility to say "we can do better..." it is far more difficult a decision and problematic effort for those that have the responsibility.

We have a chance to clear up this tremendous hypocrisy of conflicted US principles and policies in the Middle East, and I think we should make the most of it.

Again I agree. Again, having the responsibility to do that or not and the actual doing of it are not nearly as easy as writing about it...

[Fuchs]

Two problems with it. First, the arms are ancillary to dictatorships; their primary control is through intimidation of persons and / or the delivery of economic sufficiency.

I explicitly pointed out that it's not about refusing them the weapons needed to suppress the people. It's about making the military unhappy.
There's a reason why dictators go shopping for unnecessary modern weapons. The military is unhappy if it's being neglected, and being able to only buy 1960's crap from China is a form of neglect.

Were they Republican faces or TV / Media pundit talking heads that lean Republican or right? I missed any politicians of any significance doing what you say -- though I did note that the Vice President, a Democrat, said Mubarak needed to stay.

Bolton, GOP conference chair Thaddeus...and I don't recall that from Biden, although it wouldn't be too uncommon.

[Ken White]

I explicitly pointed out that it's not about refusing them the weapons needed to suppress the people.

Yep, read that, just reconfirmed it and went on to note the fact that we experienced the switch off in supplies had two down sides; they bought elsewhere -- and, the important point, we lost military to military leverage. It's been my observation that very few in the world realize how many things the US Armed Forces have done to get other forces worldwide to be a little less 'harsh' in their treatment of others...

The military is unhappy if it's being neglected, and being able to only buy 1960's crap from China is a form of neglect.

True on the first part, on the second, not so much. China will sell that if they can (as will the USSR and most others, including the US) but for he who insists on better stuff, both China and the USSR have made significant improvements in quality control, appearance, finish and functionality in the past few years -- and they've always done fairly well with reliability which, to the knowing, is more important than pretty...

Bolton, GOP conference chair Thaddeus...and I don't recall that from Biden, although it wouldn't be too uncommon.

Bolton is a right wing screwball, he has never represented mainstream Republican views. He did serve in the Reagan Bush administrations (both) but this is a guy whose attitude was as "...He wrote in his Yale 25th reunion book "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy. I considered the war in Vietnam already lost." He was never confirmed as UN Ambassador and he needs to be ignored -- which is what most in the US do...

Thank you for introducing me to someone I'd never heard of. After reading some of Thaddeus' statements and a bit about him (LINK) , I can see why. I suspect he, too, can be safely ignored.

Still, you were right, they count as Republicans. I guess I ought to pay more attention to political chatter; I ignore much of it as it's pretty pointless...

Take our V.P. for example (who's really not all that bad but does tend to talk too much and say strange things...).

[Cliff]

The specific methods were for example delivery of arms (Saudi-Arabia's army is not hesitant at all to proclaim that its primary purpose is to keep the royal family in power), money aid and political backing.

What the U.S. could do:
Support the opposition instead of dictatorships or at least drop the support for dictators.
Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.

I would argue that the a big part of why the Egyptian Military hasn't overtly attacked the people is because they have had 30 years of association, education, and training with the US. This has built personal relationships that can be used to influence the military. OBTW we can leverage spare parts and technical help to provide material pressure. The Saudi military

Cutting off military ties is one of the dumbest things you can do in most of these countries IMHO. The police forces or gendarmes as well as the intel agencies tend to be the main sources of repression - not the military.

I'm not saying we should blindly support those who commit atrocities - but at the same time, I wouldn't conflate military support (which tends to be stabilizing) with support for repression.

V/R,

Cliff

[Bob's World]

Police are typically lifers. The average soldier is a two-year draftee with no professional lifer NCO corps over him. He was a university student last year, and will likely be one again next year. He associates far more with the people around him in the street than he does with the officers over him.

But yes, I am sure the officer corps has profited from long association with the U.S. as well. I have fond memories of my time spent with the Egyptian Ranger BDE and their 6th Mech Division during the Gulf War.

But bad things can happen, take our own Kent State example. One group of Americans with student deferments square off with another group with National Guard deferments (most likely primarily those who's student deferments had expired but who had the political clout to get a coveted billet in the Guard and avoid going into the draft). Two groups of elites with deferments from going to Vietnam square off and a tragedy ensues.

We need to keep this in mind if at some point a similar event occurs in Egypt, if some scared kid in uniform inadvertently opens fires on some some group of emboldened civilians who see him as a convenient symbol of the government they rally to oppose.

Kent State was not "the military" firing at students, it was two groups of like-minded Americans trying to stay out Vietnam but suddenly pushed together in a tragic exchange. Similarly, if there is an exchange in Egypt it will likely be misinterpreted by the media as something that it probably really is not.

[Dayuhan]

Do not supply arms. The point here is not so much that this will deprive them off arms (others will sell them), but it'll make the army less happy and thus more inclined to not support the dictator in a critical moment.

Not supplying arms is a tough one at the moment, especially to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. We're not giving the stuff away to them. They are paying, and paying plenty: the Saudis alone are in for $60 billion. I've read that this amounts to some 75k US jobs, no doubt strategically distributed among key legislative districts... that total is probably massaged a bit, but any way you slice it the number will be large. The other Gulf states have another $60 billion on order, with similar implications for US employment figures.

Withdrawing these sales would leave much of the US defense industry is a position of doubtful viability and would generate a significant domestic backlash. I don't think any US politician is going to propose blocking $120 billion in orders from US factories in this economic climate... to put it simply, it ain't gonna happen.

People who think the US has leverage over these regimes badly need to recalibrate their assumptions. If anything the leverage is running in the other direction.