The Mess in Egypt

[CK86]

Curious what are everyone's thoughts on the disaster that is Egypt? As many smart and intelligent people as there are in this country, how in the hell are we wrong on just about EVERY SINGLE foreign policy decision that we make? With the comments by both President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, some think that we're pushing Egypt away from us and towards Russia or China.

At what point do we entirely rethink our foreign policy in general given the last decade's worth of decisions coming back to bite us in the ass?

[BedellBrave]

Mess indeed.

Link (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/355761/peaceful-brotherhood-protesters-torching-coptic-christian-churches-andrew-c-mccarthy)

[CK86]

Hundreds of people killed, buildings and churches burned down, and we're responding by trying to alienate one of our closest allies in the region. Sounds like we're winning.

[BedellBrave]

Yep - and another link (http://www.thetower.org/egyptian-govt-calls-on-morsi-supporters-to-end-violence-as-islamists-burn-down-scores-of-christian-churches-and-home/)

[BedellBrave]

To your point:

Link (http://freebeacon.com/obama-policies-turning-egypt-against-u-s/)

I can't figure out the administration's moves in Egypt or in Syria.

[goldfly]

I don't think we should be doing anything in Egypt

we should let Egypt handle Egypt and shut the **** up about it

[Julio3000]

This is certainly sad, but it's at least mildly entertaining to watch conservatives continue to hold their fingers to the wind and decide how they feel about the Middle East this week. If you're scoring at home, here's a hint:

Whatever Obama does is wrong. Advocate something different...without giving any specifics.

I'm interested to know what BB and the OP would rather see us doing in Egypt (and Syria, for that matter).

[The Chosen One]

To add on to Julio's point, BO has no winning strategy for Syra or Egypt with conservatives.

Option A: Sit and do nothing.

Result - Painted as weak leader, who is giving away influence and leadership to the East.

Option B: Send a few troops to try and do something.

Result - Painted as weak leader, should've sent MORE troops to intervene.

Option C: Sends a bunch of troops, nothing works and violence continues.

Result - Painted as erratic, with no leadership. Should've sent thousands of troops from the get go to try and "prevent" the violence.

Down the Line Result - We send in troops earlier, violence erupts, he's painted as wreckless for sending in troops in a hopeless situation and should've let the people of Egypt solve it. OR violence erupts and we leave, he's painted as a cowardly leader who doesn't love Israel (how that relates to Egypt, I have no clue, just know it'll be a GOP talking point).

I mean look at Iraq. We left at a high point when sectarian violence was lowering, and even then he got criticized for not leaving our guys in there to keep dying.

[sturg33]

Obama is somehow worse on foreign policy than Bush - and I didn't think that was possible.

We arm our enemies, and then fight them. It's really pretty funny if it weren't so sad.

The military industrial complex is thriving, that's for sure.

[BedellBrave]

This is certainly sad, but it's at least mildly entertaining to watch conservatives continue to hold their fingers to the wind and decide how they feel about the Middle East this week. If you're scoring at home, here's a hint:

Whatever Obama does is wrong. Advocate something different...without giving any specifics.

I'm interested to know what BB and the OP would rather see us doing in Egypt (and Syria, for that matter).

I've been consistent since Libya and the Arab Spring - if you are going to promote something, don't promote Muslim parties like the Brotherhood. I understand why they thought that might be a good idea (i.e., change the narrative about the US in the Arab & Muslim world) but it's a losing game.

The better policy is to consistently stay out of the affairs or back a secular-military-Christian coalition. And if the later do it entirely behind the scenes.

[BedellBrave]

Obama is somehow worse on foreign policy than Bush - and I didn't think that was possible.

We arm our enemies, and then fight them. It's really pretty funny if it weren't so sad.

The military industrial complex is thriving, that's for sure.


And then run guns for/to them. And then change course. And then...

[BedellBrave]

I'm interested in knowing what the Obama guys on here, who always rush to his defense by mocking his critics, would suggest the administration should do?

[CK86]

This is certainly sad, but it's at least mildly entertaining to watch conservatives continue to hold their fingers to the wind and decide how they feel about the Middle East this week. If you're scoring at home, here's a hint:

Whatever Obama does is wrong. Advocate something different...without giving any specifics.

I'm interested to know what BB and the OP would rather see us doing in Egypt (and Syria, for that matter).

Why not just stay the hell out of the middle east and let them sort their crap out themselves? We've gotten involved in all sorts of affairs in the last decade plus, what do we have to show for it exactly? The drone strikes are especially going to bite us in the ass in the next 10-20 years as young kids that had their parents/brothers/cousins/friends who more than likely had no ties to any terrorist organization are blown to bits and decide they want to get revenge.

Conservative or Democrat, they've all been the same when it comes to foreign policy. It's not working, why not try something different?

Also I identify more as liberal than I do conservative anymore with the stupid policies they've attempted to implement the last few years.

[AerchAngel]

Why not just stay the hell out of the middle east and let them sort their crap out themselves? We've gotten involved in all sorts of affairs in the last decade plus, what do we have to show for it exactly? The drone strikes are especially going to bite us in the ass in the next 10-20 years as young kids that had their parents/brothers/cousins/friends who more than likely had no ties to any terrorist organization are blown to bits and decide they want to get revenge.

Conservative or Democrat, they've all been the same when it comes to foreign policy. It's not working, why not try something different?

Also I identify more as liberal than I do conservative anymore with the stupid policies they've attempted to implement the last few years.


Who the hell are you and why do you make so much sense?

[mossy]

If we play the knight in shining armor routine, where does the money come from to pay for it? If we do go, won't Obama's critics whip up the hysteria that he's purposely trying to bankrupt our country?

I say we stay the hell out of the Middle East. They don't want us there anyway.

Why can't some other country step in and figure it out? For example, If we have problems on our own soil, should the Russians spill their own blood to sort out our messes?

Between Iraq and Afganistan, I think we should be done with the sandbox.

[The Chosen One]

The middle East is a convenience for us to drill and import oil, so we don't have to drill and destroy our beautiful landscape here.

Nobody wants another gulf coast spill, and even the Republican Governor of Nebraska didn't want the pipeline because it ran right over a huge aquifer.

We can drill and buy oil there, let them screw up their environment, and go on with our daily lives there. So for us to stay the hell out of the middle east, that wouldn't be so good for our current economy.

[goldfly]

a small percentage of our oil comes from there

and "their environment" is all of our environment

[Coredor]

We need to work behind the scenes to try to make sure the Islamic Brotherhood doesn't get power back, but we need to see if we can get the military government to tone it down at least as far as stuff that makes it into the news. I'm for the military's people or the secular types can win it. I don't care if it's rigged either as long as it doesn't get screwed up.

[thethe]

They are animals in the middle east. NOthing has changed since the Persians.

[50PoundHead]

It's a new world out there and I'd say we've been feeling our way through things internationally since the fall of the Soviet Union. I would say all three of the post-Cold War presidents have dithered with the only departure being W's more aggressive tone. Of course, in the wake of 9/11, a more aggressive posture became necessary. I thought the war in Iraq would be a disaster because I figured winning the "war" would be easy, but keeping the peace would not. I'm not going to give W a pass, but, again, in the absence of an enemy we know how to fight, it's all going to be trial-and-error to some extent. Makes caution a more operative watchword.

I don't know what you do in Syria. Arm the rebels and topple Assad and every Christian in the country is either dead or in hiding. Egypt? I agree with Glenn Beck once every five years and I guess I'm good for a bit because I agreed with him when he predicted that Egypt was going to be a mess after the fall of Mubarak. I'm not apologizing for repressive dictators and I think the Arab Spring will be a positive development in the long run, but anyone who thought the situation was magically going to transform into a mature democracy without some major stumbling was kidding themselves. The Morsi government was democratically elected, but you know those guys were going to overreach and Egypt, if not as secular in tone as some believe, has had extensive contact with the West going back to the Roman Empire. It sits at a crossroads and because of that, it will be very difficult for a political party similar to the Muslim Brotherhood to institute and maintain the kind of regime they likely envision.

Foreign policy ain't for sissies. Woodrow Wilson's legacy has been a lot of intemperate moralizing on our part without much consideration of realpolitik. I know that sounds bloodless, but it's a dangerous world out there (even when you lap the field about five times in terms of military power). But all that power doesn't mean much in a world of skirmishes. One of the areas where I thought Rumsfeld was right was in his attempt to transform our military strategy and tactics for a more mobile world that probably isn't going to see traditional battlefronts. Of course, then he guesses wrong on the force levels needed to the "peace" part of the Iran situation and we all have witnessed what happened there.

Don't think I'm letting Obama off the hook. I don't like the drone position, but I guess it beats more kids coming home in boxes. I don't know if he's being tough enough on Iran, but what option do we have beyond the sanctions. I don't think a "hot" war in the region really helps keep things stable at a time when stability is going to be needed. Like I said, it's a new world with new types of challenges and it's probably going to be a couple of decades before the foreign policy/defense superstructure knows how to proceed with greater confidence.

[goldfly]

Of course, in the wake of 9/11, a more aggressive posture became necessary.

:facepalm

[goldfly]

They are animals in the middle east. NOthing has changed since the Persians.

yeah, they should try to be like the United States

where we are the bastion of non acting like animals.

as long as you ignore how awful our culture really is

[50PoundHead]

:facepalm

Let me amend that to "understandable."

[sturg33]

Ah yes - Iran. I remember when Michelle Bachman told me in October of 2011, that Iran was "literally within months of obtaining a nuclear weapon. And we know without a shaddow of a doubt that they will use that weapon to wipe our ally Israel off the map."

22 months later, and still no weapon...

But hey, we should probably get tougher, because it is "imminent."

[50PoundHead]

I'm fine with the Iran stance. I just wonder what is going to happen there when the place implodes, which it will.

I've only talked with the soon-to-be ex-member of Congress about creeping Stalinism in the United States, but that was more than a decade ago.

[thethe]

yeah, they should try to be like the United States

where we are the bastion of non acting like animals.

as long as you ignore how awful our culture really is

They are animals. We are nothing like them. They treat their woman like they are dogs. No, check that...they treat their women like they are less than dogs. Nothing changes with them.

[BedellBrave]

At the present there is no need to change course, as far as I can tell, on Iran - in either direction. Their weapons program has been slowed in numerous ways. Ahmadinejad is no longer at his post as president. And I'm hearing some really encouraging reports (from my perspective) out of Iran. I think it only bodes well.

[CK86]

They are animals. We are nothing like them. They treat their woman like they are dogs. No, check that...they treat their women like they are less than dogs. Nothing changes with them.

I disagree. Our country can pretend to care about human life all we want but the fact is we bomb more innocent people than not, rarely bat an eye much less apologize, and go on as if we have the moral superiority. We treat our women like crap (transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions in some states - why exactly is that necessary?) too. We have one party completely opposed to abortion but then once the baby is born, they then want to cut any sort of support for the mother.

We're more hypocritical than substance.

[thethe]

I disagree. Our country can pretend to care about human life all we want but the fact is we bomb more innocent people than not, rarely bat an eye much less apologize, and go on as if we have the moral superiority. We treat our women like crap (transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions in some states - why exactly is that necessary?) too. We have one party completely opposed to abortion but then once the baby is born, they then want to cut any sort of support for the mother.

We're more hypocritical than substance.

Yes, we are as bad as those that cut off the clitoris of their women so they don't cheat. Gotcha.

[BedellBrave]

I disagree. Our country can pretend to care about human life all we want but the fact is we bomb more innocent people than not, rarely bat an eye much less apologize, and go on as if we have the moral superiority. We treat our women like crap (transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions in some states - why exactly is that necessary?) too. We have one party completely opposed to abortion but then once the baby is born, they then want to cut any sort of support for the mother.

We're more hypocritical than substance.

:facepalm:

[thethe]

:facepalm:

I don't get how someone can actually make that statement.

[BedellBrave]

I know we do bad stuff - really bad - and yet to equate ultrasounds and opposing the killing of human life in the womb to the sort of treatment of women in many of the Muslim countries is just hard to figure out. Not to derail the thread, but if CK86 wanted a better example it would have been the horrors of abortion itself. Funny how differently we think.

[CK86]

I know we do bad stuff - really bad - and yet to equate ultrasounds and opposing the killing of human life in the womb to the sort of treatment of women in many of the Muslim countries is just hard to figure out. Not to derail the thread, but if CK86 wanted a better example it would have been the horrors of abortion itself. Funny how differently we think.

The point was (which I guess was unclear) we try to maintain moral superiority over everyone else and yet ignore the messed up stuff that our own country does. We say they're animals and they don't care about life - then we bomb innocent civilians all in the name of national security. Outrage? Nope, not a peep.

We allow abortions in the first place but then compound it by mandating rape via transvaginal ultrasound upon them should they go through with the procedure - both actions are considered "civilized". Once a baby is born, the support necessary for some - food stamps - are then cut by the same people mandating they don't get an abortion. Are the women only important when they have a baby in their womb? Why the lack of support for them and the baby when it's born? How do we value life so much better than others around the globe?

There are plenty of messed up things in this world, my sole point was that our country contributes our fair share of them (some more egregious than others) and shouldn't be acting like we're alone on the pedestal.

[sturg33]

1. We don't treat our women nearly as bad as the ME.

2. We kill more people in the world than every other country combined. Just collateral damage though so no big deal

3. We lock up our own citizens more than any other country in the world. Land of the free, you know.

So, CK86 is wrong to try to compare the women thing, but he is totally right about the hypocrisy of the US. We should be ashamed of much of what we do, especially in other countries.

[goldfly]

a person i met in Egypt just posted this on their facebook page (in case you want at least 1 perspective of what is going on on the ground there)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/563373_557226314340289_1857492045_n.jpg

[Hawk]

I'm curious, goldfly ... do you agree with that particular stance? Or do you believe intervention is necessary?

[goldfly]

i think this is their matter and don't think we or anyone else should intervene

at this time of course. it is a matter and opinion that could evolve at anytime though of course


side note, it is crazy to me to see Americans ***** and moan about Muslim Brotherhood and call them terrorists etc etc here for months and complain that Obama is giving them money and all that. Then Egypt determines they want nothing to do with them and starts a campaign of "you can join us or you will be left out but we aren't going to be like you (MB)" and the same people that complained about Obama on this issue complain he let this happen etc etc etc

and i am in no way a fan of Obama but this is more a comment on why i hate American politics

[BedellBrave]

I have no angst whatsoever with him not intervening - certainly not to help the Brotherhood.

[Dalyn]

The Egyptian people need this. And they need to do it for themselves (by themselves).

[BedellBrave]

And Mr. President please don't take the advice of the likes of McCain and Graham.

[thethe]

The Egyptian people need this. And they need to do it for themselves (by themselves).

More importantly in my opinion is that the non radical Muslims of the world need this.

[Dalyn]

More importantly in my opinion is that the non radical Muslims of the world need this.

You can argue that it is also important, but I don't think it is MORE important. Not even close.

[BedellBrave]

The work of the Brotherhood: link (http://www.asianews.it/news-en/The-list-of-Christian-churches,-schools,-institutions,-shops-torched-by-the-Muslim-Brotherhood-in-the-last-three-days-28764.html).

[BedellBrave]

My disdain for McCain and Graham is growing. SC please get rid of Lindsey.

[Hawk]

My disdain for McCain and Graham is growing. SC please get rid of Lindsey.

We managed to get lucky when DeMint walked away. Unfortunately, Lindsey is going to be a lifer. As a constituent, I generally appreciate his authority in the senate -- but he's pushing too hard on Egypt right now.

[Julio3000]

We managed to get lucky when DeMint walked away. Unfortunately, Lindsey is going to be a lifer. As a constituent, I generally appreciate his authority in the senate -- but he's pushing too hard on Egypt right now.

Speaking as a South Carolinan who's been disappointed by Graham more times than I can count, at least I can say that he seems to care about the responsibilities of governing—something that Jim DeMint showed absolutely no interest in during his tenure in the Senate.

[Julio3000]

My disdain for McCain and Graham is growing. SC please get rid of Lindsey.

Jeez, Bedell, you pick the one time Graham isn't blithely cheerleading us into a war to criticize him.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you about the larger situation, and I think that the magnitude and import of ME policy should transcend partisanship.

As others have noted, there's not a particularly good move on the board right now. This is a quote from the British Foreign Secretary:

'In a radio interview on Monday, William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said he did not accept that outsiders were powerless to influence events. “But we have to do our best to promote democratic institutions, to promote political dialogue and to keep faith with the majority of Egyptians who just want a free and stable and prosperous country,” he told the BBC.

“What we’ve done in Britain so far is that we have suspended projects with the Egyptian security forces. We have revoked a number of export licenses, and I think then among the European countries we should review together how we try to aid Egypt, what aid and assistance we give to Egypt in the future,” he said. He added, “Foreign policy is often about striking the right balance.”

He described the current crisis as bleak. “I think it will take years, maybe decades, to play out,” he said, “and through that we have to keep our nerve in clearly supporting democracy, democratic institutions, promoting dialogue and there will be many setbacks in doing that and we should not be surprised when they take place.”'

I think this is a pretty realistic assessment of the situation, particularly the sections that I highlighted. I don't think it was necessarily a bad play to give qualified support to the Morsi government initially, in that it was democratically elected and replacing a corrupt, autocratic regime. Right now, though, supporting either the military or the deposed government seems like contributing to more bloodshed. Your suggestion appears to support what would, in effect, be another Mubarak regime. Perhaps that's the best of a bunch of unattractive options, but I can't say it's a clear-cut favorite.

[Hawk]

Speaking as a South Carolinan who's been disappointed by Graham more times than I can count, at least I can say that he seems to care about the responsibilities of governing—something that Jim DeMint showed absolutely no interest in during his tenure in the Senate.

Agreed.

Whereabouts in SC, Julio?

Charleston here. And yes, I voted for Mark Sanford.

[Julio3000]

Agreed.

Whereabouts in SC, Julio?

Charleston here. And yes, I voted for Mark Sanford.

Upstate. I wish I were closer to your zip code.

Ha, good ol' Mark Sanford. I think he's a smart, talented guy whose main flaw is that he's about 10% as smart and talented as he thinks he is. I wouldn't have voted for him, but he's qualified to do the job.

[BedellBrave]

Jeez, Bedell, you pick the one time Graham isn't blithely cheerleading us into a war to criticize him.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with you about the larger situation, and I think that the magnitude and import of ME policy should transcend partisanship.

As others have noted, there's not a particularly good move on the board right now. This is a quote from the British Foreign Secretary:

'In a radio interview on Monday, William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said he did not accept that outsiders were powerless to influence events. “But we have to do our best to promote democratic institutions, to promote political dialogue and to keep faith with the majority of Egyptians who just want a free and stable and prosperous country,” he told the BBC.

“What we’ve done in Britain so far is that we have suspended projects with the Egyptian security forces. We have revoked a number of export licenses, and I think then among the European countries we should review together how we try to aid Egypt, what aid and assistance we give to Egypt in the future,” he said. He added, “Foreign policy is often about striking the right balance.”

He described the current crisis as bleak. “I think it will take years, maybe decades, to play out,” he said, “and through that we have to keep our nerve in clearly supporting democracy, democratic institutions, promoting dialogue and there will be many setbacks in doing that and we should not be surprised when they take place.”'

I think this is a pretty realistic assessment of the situation, particularly the sections that I highlighted. I don't think it was necessarily a bad play to give qualified support to the Morsi government initially, in that it was democratically elected and replacing a corrupt, autocratic regime. Right now, though, supporting either the military or the deposed government seems like contributing to more bloodshed. Your suggestion appears to support what would, in effect, be another Mubarak regime. Perhaps that's the best of a bunch of unattractive options, but I can't say it's a clear-cut favorite.


I've never been a Lindsey fan....never. And I have specifically said to stay out of this. Or if not that, then support a secular-military-Christian coalition behind the scenes.

[BedellBrave]

We managed to get lucky when DeMint walked away. Unfortunately, Lindsey is going to be a lifer. As a constituent, I generally appreciate his authority in the senate -- but he's pushing too hard on Egypt right now.


He's McCain's toadie.

[Julio3000]

What is it with you and my posting history? I've never been a Lindsey fan....never. And I have specifically said to stay out of it. Or if not that then support a secular-military-Christian coalition behind the scenes.

Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean for that to be a dig at you or suggest any previous affinity for Lindsey. My point was that you don't strike me as a particular warmonger or being in favor of precipitous intervention overseas, in contrast to John McCain's Mini-Me, who seems to always be popping off about writing bloody checks that other people's kids—here and elsewhere—are going to have to cash. So it was funny that you singled Lindsey out for criticism when he was somewhat uncharacteristically promoting slow play and soft power.

[BedellBrave]

No need to be sorry Julio. I went back and edited my response a bit to take the edge off. It was a rough day and I had responded too harshly.

[50PoundHead]

Walter Russell Mead article in a recent Wall Street Journal. Agree or disagree, some good information and viewpoints.

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324619504579028923699568400.html