March 28, 2011
Posted by on
I may have addressed this before, but at the risk of being repetitive, I have to question the rhyme or reason behind the US getting involved in Libya. Further, I have to look at it from a different view–if we are going in there to help with regime change, or prevent a leader from killing his own people, how do we decide which places to stick our noses in and which ones to ignore?
President Obama publicly rebuked Libya leader Mommar Quaddfi, saying that the US and its allies would get involved in Libya to stop the killng that was going on there. On the surface, such actions are noble. who doesn’t want to see an end to slaughter and bloodshed by a tyrannical dictator? But the issue is a complex one. If we are going to take this stance on Libya, why not on other countries? There have been hundreds of thousands killed in Darfur. The people in Iran tried to rise up and got squashed. There are numerous countries in the Middle East where the citizens are currently protesting their government.
Of the situations mentioned, there is no plan for intervention from the US or otherwise.
So the question becomes, under what grounds do we decide to jump in? Does the situation have to be 100% winnable? Only under NATO approval? Only when invited by the Arab League?
Someone somewhere needs to spell this out.
February 1, 2011
Posted by on
In the last 24 hours, a crowd estimated to be nearly 2 million people took to the streets of Cairo to protest the current government led by Hosni Mubarak. The people are demanding an end to hs 30 year rule, amid cries of poverty and brutality. This has the US in a pickle. Continuing to support him would make it seem that we don’t support “the will of the people.” Supporting his removal could have major ramifications not only for the US but for the entire Middle East.
Tony Blankley addresses the dilemma in a piece at Real Clear Politics: “The Historic Dilemma in Egypt.”
Revolutions – French, Russian, Chinese and Iranian – have a typical trajectory. They are won on the street with the masses calling for freedom; they are stolen afterward by the best-organized, usually most malicious thugs (Napoleon, Lenin, Mao and the mullahs).
Once in a while – as in our Revolution – the cry of the street slogans becomes the principle of the government that follows – but usually not.
If the revolution in Egypt results in the fall of the existing governmental order, what are the chances that the people will be governed subsequently by a more just system? And what are the chances that America’s interests will be advanced by that result?