SS/Egypt

[The Stig]

Feb 21, 2011 21:53:14 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Feb 21, 2011 21:30:20 GMT -5 The Stig said:

The problem with the Glenn Beck Caliphate argument is that the last Arab Islamist regime was... the Caliphate.

Modern Arabs have shown no inclination towards accepting an Islamist regime. Some want more religion in their politics, but no more so than what you find in the Christian Right here in the US.

I think most would agree the current Iranian regime qualifies as an Islamist regime. Regardless of whether the middle class and younger Iranians want an Islamist regime that's what they got.

I would agree that the middle class and younger "educated" Egyptians don't want an Islamist regime similar to Iran. However, we will soon see whether that block can remain united in the face of a strong Muslim Brotherhood effort to control/be a major player in Egyptian politics. Their pronouncements don't give a lot of comfort.

And the idea that campaigns for Sharia law is the same as what the US religious right wants is both offensive and laughable.

The Iranian regime certainly is Islamist, but Iranians aren't Arab.

Sharia isn't a word that you hear very often in the Arab world. It's a big issue in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Indonesia, but not really in the Arab world. There may be elements of the Muslim Brotherhood that advocate for Sharia, but they're not in the majority.

There's a lot of things that Arabs, especially those in North Africa, want before they want Sharia. Jobs tops the list.

[theexorcist]

The problem with saying that there aren't any Sharia practitioners in the Arab world has been that most of them are (or were) ruled by militantly secular entities - the Baath party, for example - that crushed any opposition. Now that those dictatorships are threatened, there's a question as to what's coming next.

The big honking exception to the non-sharia rule is Saudi Arabia, which is as close to sharia as you can get.

Modification - Note that my caveat is that I want every single dictatorship to fall and find it abhorrent that Qadaffi is firing on his own people

[hoyawatcher]

The Arab versus Persian distinction does not seem to be holding when one looks at Iran's growing influence in Iraq. Shia seems to be a much stronger bond than Arab/Persian is a difference maker. Whether that will extend to places like Egypt is certainly debatable but you are already hearing the same "pan-Arab" discussions that were around when I was growing up. I doubt we ever get to an EU of Islamic countries but the religious mullahs are poised to be a very strong influence throughout the region in both Arab and Persian countries.

Exorcist already hit on one of the points about Sharia law - that it already permeates Saudi Arabia and places like Kuwait as well (though not as extreme as SA). But the larger dichotomy surrounds the Muslim Brotherhood and how strong it is and will be. I am not so dismissive that it will fragment as it becomes a legitimate party and be a passive minority party. There is a lot of the current Egyptian "revolution" that tracks what happened a long time ago in Iran. Especially the belief that the military would "control" the religious zealots and the secular middle would win out.

I do recognize the Muslim Brotherhood has chosen to play nice so far and says they will just participate in elections. But they also seem to be playing a very good game of speaking out of both sides of their mouth at once - sharia law/Islamic state on one side and we are just a harmless political party on the other. Time will tell whether the political process is strong enough to control them and/or the opposition to their view of the future remains united enough to control them. Both are longer shots to me than thinking the Brotherhood is going to fragment.

[The Stig]

I've got no problem at all with pan-Arab talk. If Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and so on want to put their Arab identity ahead of their Islamic identity, I'm quite happy with that.

[Bando]

Feb 23, 2011 19:32:13 GMT -5 The Stig said:

I've got no problem at all with pan-Arab talk. If Egyptians, Tunisians, Libyans, and so on want to put their Arab identity ahead of their Islamic identity, I'm quite happy with that.

Because that never ended badly COUGH! sixdaywar

[TBird41]

So, can someone explain to me why we haven't imposed some kind of no fly zone over Libya and jammed Quaddifi's communications?

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1

What's the end game in waiting? How does it help us to do nothing, or, to continue to wait before we act? What am I missing that explains why we haven't done anything yet?

[ksf42001]

Mar 10, 2011 20:55:55 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

So, can someone explain to me why we haven't imposed some kind of no fly zone over Libya and jammed Quaddifi's communications?

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1

What's the end game in waiting? How does it help us to do nothing, or, to continue to wait before we act? What am I missing that explains why we haven't done anything yet?

Because "imposing a no fly zone" means declaring war on Libya, since that involves taking out all of Libya's anti-aircraft capability right from the start. Also, from what I've read, the US doesn't even have the capability to setup a no fly zone in the area at the moment, since refueling tankers are tied up in Afghanistan at the moment.

[TBird41]

Mar 11, 2011 0:09:52 GMT -5 ksf42001 said:

Mar 10, 2011 20:55:55 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

So, can someone explain to me why we haven't imposed some kind of no fly zone over Libya and jammed Quaddifi's communications?

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10kristof.html?_r=1

What's the end game in waiting? How does it help us to do nothing, or, to continue to wait before we act? What am I missing that explains why we haven't done anything yet?

Because "imposing a no fly zone" means declaring war on Libya, since that involves taking out all of Libya's anti-aircraft capability right from the start. Also, from what I've read, the US doesn't even have the capability to setup a no fly zone in the area at the moment, since refueling tankers are tied up in Afghanistan at the moment.

No, it doesn't. Read the article I linked. It's an interview with Gen. Merrill McPeak, a "former Air Force chief of staff. He flew more than 6,000 hours, half in fighter aircraft, and helped oversee no-fly zones in Iraq and the Adriatic"

"There would be no need to maintain 24/7 coverage over Libya. As long as the Libyan Air Force knew that there was some risk of interception, its pilots would be much less motivated to drop bombs and more inclined to defect."

"General McPeak said that the no-fly zone would be imposed over those parts of the country that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi doesn’t control. That may remove the need to take out air defense systems pre-emptively, he said. And, in any case, he noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense systems in that time."

Also, since when do we need to declare war to bomb some air defenses? The only military actions authorized by Congress ahead of time since 'Nam are the current Iraq & Afghanistan wars (and even if I'm missing one, why wouldn't Congress authorize a No Fly Zone? Qaddafi isn't Mubarak--there's no history of being allies, or really any sense of trust whatsoever).

I also think you are underrating the ability of our fighters if you think the tankers being in Afghanistan prevents us from flying missions over Libya. Not to mention the fact that we could have moved a Carrier nearby, oh, say, two weeks ago and flown missions off that. Or asked Italy to let us fly missions from air bases there.

Edit I forgot about the AWACs...they would need the tankers. Duh. Though, I wonder if the Carrier can't do essentially the same thing? Anyone know about that?

And, none of your reasons explain why we can't jam Quaddafi's communications.

Why aren't we helping the Libyan rebels? At least something? It seems the answer is "it's just too hard". And damn if that isn't a sad answer, and one that isn't going to help prevent bloodshed in Libya nor help ensure that the folks that replace Qaddafi like us.

[SirSaxa]

Tbird, you are VASTLY underestimating the personnel and resources necessary to undertake a "no fly" zone over Libya. The one over IRAQ was known and acknowledged by a defeated IRAQ, thus their anti-aircraft defenses were not much of an issue.

Libya would be a hostile enemy and we have no way of knowing how they would employ their antiaircraft defenses -- which are very sophisticated of Russian design.

It would require 24 hours/day, 7 days/week for.... how long? no one knows. Why should the USA be the only ones making such a commitment? Where are the other ARAB nations? Europe?

Our military is stretched incredibly thinly due to 10 years of un-ending wars in IRAQ and Afghanistan, making it extremely difficult to mount yet another campaign with no end in sight. It is just one more reason why the reckless and strategically imbecilic invasion of Iraq, and the complete failure to finish the job in AFG 10 years ago have proven to be catastrophic for the US. Now you want us to jump in to yet another middle eastern morass?

Sounds like Dick Cheney -- shoot first and aim later, and oh, never bother to ask any questions or consider any consequences .... as so aptly demonstrated on his hunting "adventures".

[Bando]

An Air Force general is touting an all air operation as quick and riskless? I am shocked by this!

Seriously, though, my reasons for opposing a no-fly zone:

• It's a gateway intervention that leads to all out war. What happens if we establish a no-fly zone and the rebels keep losing? We've already picked a side, and pressure will be high to invade.
  
• The US has literally nothing at stake here. Only a ridiculously contortionist definition of "national security interest" would encompass the Libyan civil war.
  
• "Hey, let's give a bunch of military assistance to a group of people who's motives and intentions we don't truly understand, simply because they're agin' who we're agin'. Because something like this has absolutely never come back to bite us in the ass before".
  
• There is not a single person on the ground asking for US assistance. They (wisely) don't want to be the next Iraq. An MI5 agent and British special forces landed recently simply to make contact with the rebels and were promptly arrested.
  
• Where exactly are these troops coming from? I don't know if you noticed, but we still have two wars currently happening in the region?
  

[Boz]

An interesting conundrum from Foggy Bottom:

A. Madeleine Albright touting for years how well the no-fly zone worked against Saddam Hussein as an argument against the Iraq war.

B. Hillary Clinton: No-fly zones don't work. Never have.


(FWIW, I'm with Hillary on this one.)

[Bando]

Mar 11, 2011 16:35:06 GMT -5 Boz said:

An interesting conundrum from Foggy Bottom:

A. Madeleine Albright touting for years how well the no-fly zone worked against Saddam Hussein as an argument against the Iraq war.

B. Hillary Clinton: No-fly zones don't work. Never have.


(FWIW, I'm with Hillary on this one.)

I mean, the NFZ in Iraq did and didn't work. Did it keep Iraqi forces out of the air? Yes. Did it help the people we urged to revolt to avoid slaughter? No it didn't.

[EasyEd]

We should stay the hell out of Libya.

[hoyawatcher]

Just to add another layer to the conundrum Bubba Clinton has endorsed a no fly zone for Libya

www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BBEXCLUDE-BNALL-BNCOPY-BNSTAFF/2011/03/10/id/389081

I am not really excited about a no fly zone but I do think folks here are over stating the logistics of doing it. Libya is 95% desert and that part doesn't count - only the part where planes are attacking the rebels. One carrier could do it. The key part is being willing to support the rebels while they have a chance but also being willing to walk away if their ground war goes bad. Messy for sure but not a requirement for ground troops. We have already Editeded off Ghadafi so whatever he is going to do if he wins he is going to do. Flying over Libya won't change anything post rebellion if he wins - but would be major if he doesn't.

I actually think Mama Clinton's comment that we don't want to be percieved as invading another Middle Eastern country holds a lot of water here. More than I am worried about the logistics of a no fly zone.

[The Stig]

Mar 11, 2011 20:30:41 GMT -5 Bando said:

Mar 11, 2011 16:35:06 GMT -5 Boz said:

An interesting conundrum from Foggy Bottom:

A. Madeleine Albright touting for years how well the no-fly zone worked against Saddam Hussein as an argument against the Iraq war.

B. Hillary Clinton: No-fly zones don't work. Never have.


(FWIW, I'm with Hillary on this one.)

I mean, the NFZ in Iraq did and didn't work. Did it keep Iraqi forces out of the air? Yes. Did it help the people we urged to revolt to avoid slaughter? No it didn't.

That's probably what would happen in Libya too.

I think people are vastly overstating the impact of the airstrikes in these operations. Gadaffi's counterstrikes have been successful because his troops are better armed and better organized than the rebel troops, not because he has air superiority. An NFZ would keep the Libyan Air Force out of the sky, but it probably wouldn't reverse the situation on the ground.

The only surefire way for the US to help the rebels would be to put boots on the ground, and that's simply not happening.

Other options that could have a real impact include intelligence cooperation with the rebels and providing the rebels with weapons. However, both of those options have significant risk of blowback.

[SSHoya]

Does the SECDEF's position on NFZ have any bearing on this discussion?

www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/africa/03military.html?pagewanted=2

[Bando]

Mar 11, 2011 20:48:43 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

We should stay the hell out of Libya.

I think if Ed and I are in agreement about anything political, that's probably the right action (or in this case, non-action) to take.

[DFW HOYA]

Another parallel issue in Libya: stability.

However much an eccentric Gaddafi is, he represents a level of stability in the region, and at this point the US is not well served by instability in the Persian Gulf, which is why it put up with Mubarak all these years. Adding a no-fly zone may destabilize Gaddafi, but it's not like democracy is going to take root in a country that's never seen one. There may be a sense that the US sits this one out because it's not worth the risk if there becomes an Islamist government as a result and "maybe" Gaddafi's son is a little more Western friendly than a vacuum in power there, given its oil reserves.

The enemy you know is often better than the enemy you don't.

[Bando]

And the UN has authorized force. We're going to war, everyone!

[Boz]

Mar 17, 2011 19:21:38 GMT -5 Bando said:

And the UN has authorized force. We're going to war, everyone!

OK, that's important enough to take a break for a bit from basketball. (Also Japan, but not Sarah Palin).

Was really not expecting that at all. Not sure what "all necessary measures" means. Will have to read up more about that.