• Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Replies: 51   Views: 14375
Up one level

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-01 04:29 PM

Barry and Patrick,

In the last couple of posts I haven't been reasserting any position at all. But, I have been asking some pretty awkward questions which, if you are interested in seeking the truth, you should be welcoming. There's no better test of a theory, political or scientific, than its ability to provide satisfactory answers to difficult questions.

The question that you need to answer, more for your own benefit than mine, is how you can consider that the USA is behaving in a post imperialistic, progressive manner in Iraq when, in Palestine, and as the recent episode in Gaza shows, they are so obviously just the same old imperialistic , pro- Zionist, reactionary superpower that they have always been. The Iraqi people aren't totally unaware of what goes on in Palestine. If the US seriously wish to be considered liberators , rather than occupiers, in Iraq it is difficult to imagine that they would run a contradictory foreign policy in the region.

I can see that it might take more than a couple of days, so please take your time, and work out a sensible answer.

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by byork at 2008-02-01 09:55 PM

cyberman, the US may be considered liberators in Iraq because they acted in the people's interests (and their own) in overthrowing a fascist regime and then in supporting the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people (something you openly oppose).

 

You set 'deadlines' for 'predictions' to be tested when what matters are the general trends, which will develop in the expected zig-zag manner. You're like the frog sitting at the bottom of the well, confidently asserting that the sky is no bigger than the mouth of a well.

 

Bush is the only US president to acknowledge the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories. This carries huge implications and is entirely consistent with the swamp-draining theory. The US has little choice but to clean up the mess it helped create in the region, and that includes the Israel-Palestine issue. Bush is not just idly using the term 'occupied territories' in order to confuse the pseudo-left and its impotent anti-war movement.

 

The Saudi princes are not the only reactionary ruling group in the region to fear the success of democracy in Iraq.

 

You cannot see unfolding events that don't fit your pre-existing formulaic truth. And you cannot see, in your smugness, that that is your problem. If you could step outside your quasi-religious outlook for a moment and do that, it might begin to be worth taking you seriously.

 

Others can waste time with cyberman if they choose.

 

Barry

 

 

 

 

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-02 07:19 PM

Barry,

 

We've heard it all before, pretty much the same line on Iraq now comes both from you and the Bush administration. I bet they are pleased about that! WMDs have been all but forgotten, and you are both now promoting the same "its all about democracy" line.

 

You aren't singing from the same hymn sheet  on Palestine though. It cannot be thought that the very little GWB  says on the question of Palestine is in any way intended to confuse anyone, left of right, genuine or pseudo. And , especially after the half-hearted, and to call it that is being generous, attempt at a peace conference in Annapolis last year, no-one can be under any illusion that the Bush administration have had any real intention of  'cleaning up the mess', as you put it. Even if they suddenly saw the logic of the good reasons for doing so, there just wouldn't be time, nor would it be politically possible , to achieve much in the months leading up to the presidential election.

 

Israel/Palestine has been filed away in their "too hard" folder for at least the whole of the Bush second term. I'm not sure if it had been  appreciated that they could have greatly increased their standing in the Arab world , making their task so much easier in Iraq,  by helping the Palestinians achieve a reasonable outcome in their struggle with Zionism. Too late now though.

 

So, quite how you guys, and with your  understanding of Marxist- Leninism,  have got so confused on the question of US policies towards Palestine, under the Bush administration, which are clearly  reactionary, and little changed from previous presidential administrations is quite a puzzle.

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by youngmarxist at 2008-02-02 07:36 PM
Cyberman, some evidence for your assertions, such as:

And , especially after the half-hearted, and to call it that is being generous, attempt at a peace conference in Annapolis last year, no-one can be under any illusion that the Bush administration have had any real intention of  'cleaning up the mess', as you put it.

 the question of US policies towards Palestine, under the Bush administration, which are clearly reactionary
 would be nice.

And as for

Israel/Palestine has been filed away in their "too hard" folder for at least the whole of the Bush second term. I'm not sure if it had been  appreciated that they could have greatly increased their standing in the Arab world , making their task so much easier in Iraq,  by helping the Palestinians achieve a reasonable outcome in their struggle with Zionism. Too late now though.
 its a fairly simple point that there is a very strong pro-Zionist lobby in the USA, which has to be sidelined if any progress to a deomcratic solution in Israel is to be achieved. This is a tricky business at best.


 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-02 08:09 PM

Oh No!  Have we got to put up, again,  with Youngmarxist asking for evidence of every single statement?

If reads the papers,  he'd know that the Bush administration, far from welcoming the break out from Gaza recently, actively pressurised the Egyptian government, to reseal the border. It wasn't just Bush and Co. Congress backed the threat by voting to withhold $100m of loans.

Is that reactionary enough for you?

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by youngmarxist at 2008-02-02 08:55 PM
Yes Cyberman, I will ask for evidence for your statements. Sorry if you find that oppressive or offensive. This is meant to be a site for high-level debate.

 Anyone who wants to see why it would be good for Cyberman to provide evidence for his claims can read this thread.

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by byork at 2008-02-03 12:03 AM

Like the far-Right in general, cyberman cannot face the reality that Bush is the first US President to refer to 'occupied territories' and, most significantly, is also the one and only US President to support the issue of the Palestinian right of return.

 

This is profoundly important. No other US president has raised that concept while in power - and Bush did it in Israel at a press conference with PM Olmert only a few weeks ago.

 

Here's the link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080109-4.html

 

And here's the quote (9 January 2008): "You just heard the man talk about their desire to deal with core issues, which I guess for the uneducated on the issue, that means dealing with the issues like territory and right of return and Jerusalem. Those are tough issues -- the issue of Israeli security. And they're going to sit down at the table and discuss those issues in seriousness".

 

I'd urge other contributors not to waste time 'debating' about specific short-term predictions. The important thing is the big picture, the general direction of policy and strategy. No-one can say whether things will proceed at a cracking pace or a disappointingly slow pace but I think it can be said that Bush's use of 'occupied territories' and 'right of return' is something the Right in Israel don't like, and he is not using that terminology just to deceive the pseudos! It's a genuine position, arising - like the decision to topple the fascist regime in Iraq - from US strategic reassessment of the past several years.

 

cyberman cannot argue against this, so merely ignores its significance and resorts to: "We've heard it all before, pretty much the same line on Iraq now comes both from you and the Bush administration".

 

Woah! A devastating argument! grin

 

I think cyberman is basically a nutter. Sorry to say that because I had hoped, when he came to this site, that he really would stick to his promise of arguing against the main line here in a fair but firm manner. He's just having a bit of 'sport' with us. Obsessive sport, but sport none the less.

 

Barry

 

 

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-03 02:33 PM

Barry,

 

Well if President Bush is supporting the right of return of exiled Palestinians and their families to their former homes in what is now Israel , that is very good news indeed. If that is the case , it's just a pity that he didn't do it a bit earlier when it might have meant something more.

 

Your quotation shows that he actually mentioned the term "right of return". I doubt it will be enough to cause  dancing in the streets of Ramallah! Do you have any other quotes where he actually uses the words 'support' or  'in favour of' or similar in the same sentence?

 

The Palestinians may be forgiven for thinking that this report in the Jerusalem Post (9 Jan 2008) is nearer the mark: Upon his arrival at Ben-Gurion Airport, Bush said that the US's alliance with Israel helps "guarantee Israel's security as a Jewish state." This is widely considered code for a rejection of the Palestinian claim of the "right of return." http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1198517336421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by dalek at 2008-02-03 04:30 PM

GuruJane, Ok you have never actually said that Hamas is an "Islamofascist" organisation-Sorry. 

The LS attitude to Hamas is ambivalent to say the least; they are certainly characterised as Islamic and we keep getting references to their "right wing" nature etc.

I guess LS people are more comfortable with the with Fatah eh? That seems to be the position. This is the organisation that has offered to help israel and the US close the border. In other words to re-establish the walls in the largest prison camp in history.

What does that make Fatah?

 

Dalek

Gurujane, check this out

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by dalek at 2008-02-03 04:33 PM
Hamas vows to block Egypt from sealing border
By The Associated Press
February 2, 2008
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/950393.html

The Hamas leader in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, on Friday announced that his organization will do everything to prevent Egypt from sealing its border with the Gaza Strip, a week and a half after Palestinian gunmen blew holes in the barrier separating Gaza from Egypt, prompting hundreds of the thousands of Gazans to flood across the frontier.

So far Egyptian attempts to seal the border have been largely unsuccessful.

`The Palestinian people have many options` Haniyeh was quoted as telling the pro-Hamas daily Palestine in an interview published Friday, when asked about the methods Hamas was planning to use to prevent the closing of the breached border. He did not elaborate.
Advertisement

Hamas militants on Friday hauled away metal spikes Egyptian soldiers placed at sections of the Gaza-Egypt border so vehicles could pass through, defying Egyptian attempts to reseal the breached frontier and curb the influx of Gazans.

Hamas blew open the border wall on Jan. 23, ending a seven-month blockade of the Gaza Strip that began after the Islamic group violently wrested control of the territory in June of last year.

Hundreds of thousands of Gazans have been moving in and out of Egyptian border towns since, and in the meantime, Hamas bulldozers have pried open new gaps and blocked Egyptian efforts to narrow existing ones.

Early Friday, Egyptian troops poured cement and laid down metal spikes around various breaches to try to choke off the flow of vehicles through gaps in the 12-kilometer-long border. They also sent dozens of riot police to the area, but continued to allow pedestrians to cross over freely from Gaza to Egyptian border towns.

Shortly after, Hamas militants dragged away metal spikes that had been placed at the main breach. Egyptian soldiers, who have been avoiding confrontation with Hamas, removed the remaining obstacles there. Witnesses also reported that a Hamas bulldozer shoved aside spikes at a gap about 100 meters to the east.

Several hours later, dozens of vehicles were lined up on either side of the frontier as trucks tried to negotiate their way through a narrow, muddy border gap.

Hamas blew up the border days after Israel, with Egyptian backing, imposed a complete blockade on Gaza in response to a rocket barrage from Gaza on Israeli border towns. The blockade tightened already severe Israeli and Egyptian restrictions on access to the territory that have been in place since Hamas` Gaza takeover.

On Friday, about 600 Hamas supporters rallied at the border to demand it remain open. One large banner read: `Egypt and Palestine are one people, not two.` A protester shouted, `Keep the border open.`

Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior Hamas hardliner, told the crowd that we will not return to the siege, and accused the Abbas government of working for the interest of Israel.

Some of the protesters jumped over metal barriers into Egypt, raising Hamas flags on the Egyptian side. Dozens of Egyptian border guards watched the scene, but did not intervene.

Gaza`s Hamas rulers want a role in running the border with Egypt, a demand rejected this week by Egypt and Hamas` rival, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

Egypt and Abbas have proposed returning to an internationally backed arrangement for the Gaza-Egypt border that would shut out Hamas, but grant Israel the final say over operations there. The arrangement was negotiated in 2005, after Israel`s pullout from Gaza. However, the border has been closed for long stretches since then, including in response to the Hamas takeover.

Since the border breach, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians have rushed into Egypt, shopping and visiting relatives on the other side. Most have returned to Gaza after brief visits to Egyptian towns along the shared border.

Meanwhile, Egyptian authorities on Friday reported that they had arrested 12 Hamas militants, armed with explosives, within Egyptian borders. The men, having entered Sinai through the breach in the border, were apparently planning to carry out attacks against tourists in Sinai.

A.K.

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-05 08:19 PM

You've been kind enough to let me know    "A Palestinian state is coming to a region near you Cyberman."  I'm not sure how the Palestinians would feel about life in North Queensland or the Northern territories but there are a few Israelis who'd be quite happy with this location!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948907.html

"No imaginary one state solution but a real democratic Palestinian State not a 2nd class country but a country with full dignity led by Abbas who is the democratically elected President and not any sort of sell- out puppet. "  

However, its not me that you need to be convincing. If you read the comments of the Palestinians themselves they are quite despondent.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/EBF448E3-CBCD-46BF-9C5D-1BE59A7AE68C.htm

So if you do have a bit of good news, you might like to post it up on one of their forums. 

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by patrickm at 2008-02-06 04:23 PM

I have speculated that Olmert may be trying to delay till the next US president (Clinton?) turns up, and who knows what then, presumably an imagined better deal could be done, but it really can’t, and the situation is not improving, as Gaza breaking free of Israel has demonstrated.


Now that Obama is looming large and growing, so that either he or Hillary Clinton will face McCain as a very strong war time Republican candidate that appeals to a great many Democrat voters, it looks very Tweedledee and Tweedledum for Olmert. 


If the situation is not going to get better for the Zionists and it hasn’t over the last few years, then it may be wise to look for change rather than reproduce the ravings from settler type Zionists.


Now that the most wacko Zionists are raving like lunatics about expelling Gazans into Egypt, pseudo-left's think we ought to read such drivel in order to get a grip on where events are heading. 


The more mainstream Zionists are spinning about expelling Gaza


Barn-door, bolted, horse, shut.  People can rearrange the words anyway they like, but Hamas is IMV turning its back on Israel, and a Palestinian state is looming on the political horizon because dragging on this failed war is not in Israel's interests.  The Palestinians want it and so do the US. 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Lupin3 at 2008-02-10 09:18 AM
One of the criticisms I have of LS is it's sometimes naive or shallow understanding of American domestic politics.  Hopeful expectations of a last minute presidential campaign by Condoleeza Rice is one example.  Patrick's comments about Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and the prospects for McCain's election, is another.

While I myself would find a McCain/Lieberman ticket interesting, at least with respect to the war in Iraq (McCain has very troubling views of the meaning of freedom of speech), he cannot be considered a "strong" candidate for election.  In addition to the many structural and historical difficulties confronting the Republican party in this election cycle, from the tendency of American voters to turn out parties in power as long as the Republicans have been to the unprecedented level of Democratic voter participation in the primaries, the so-called "conservative base" is actively attempting to depress it's own participation in the election.  In an election which would be difficult enough to win with full Republican voter participation, McCain will have little chance without it.

The Clinton/Obama battle is the one to watch, and it is a very interesting battle indeed.  It was Clinton's battle to lose, and she has been a very ineffective candidate, and has squandered a very significant lead both in general support and in fundraising.  The nomination is now Obama's to win - and he appears to be doing just that.  What this means in terms of Olmert's stalling is unclear, but the Right Zionists are in a tizzy about his supposed connections to Islamist-tinged and pro-Palestinian advisors - political and otherwise.

Expect this issue to become a central focus during the national election.  In a close election between Obama and McCain, Israel's many supporters in the US will become an important constituency to win over.  If Olmert really is stalling as you suggest - and I think that is a reasonable analysis - it's quite possible that the outcome of the election will signal important changes in US policy towards Israel.

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by patrickm at 2008-02-10 09:21 PM

I plead guilty to a ‘naive or shallow understanding of American domestic politics.’   For example if I were McCain I would pick Condoleeza Rice for my VP running mate (if she would be in it, and I don’t have a clue if she would).  That would help with both the woman and black issue that are clearly out there. 

 

 

Seems to me to be a situation where the conservative base has nowhere else to go, and at least can vote for a veteran with heroic credentials (who sensibly backed the surge that is now producing good results) to stop Obama, or the increasingly unlikely, ‘that woman’. 

 

 

As I understand it McCain is the one Republican that most Dem voters would be comfortable either voting for, or not bothering to show up to vote for the Dem.  With him, they might not deliberately want to stop the Rep candidate (though I admit that the inclusion of Rice would change that for some people).  But yes the Rep party has been in for eight years and there is no doubt some desire in the electorate for something new.  So it probably is time for Tweedledum to replace Tweedledee.

 

 

Previously, my point was what would a change of administration do for Israel's Olmert as he brings the war for greater Israel to a close in obvious defeat? 

 

 

There is no way that an Obama Administration will help him get any better outcome than he will get now under Bush.  So, I think that Bush and Rice ought to get the chance to bask in the glory of getting a settlement of the Israel Palestinian ‘dispute’.  Such an outcome would help McCain big-time.  But I admit that he would still be the underdog to Obama.

 

 

If Obama gets the numbers, I feel confident he would not pick Clinton as a VP.(whether she would be in it or not, and I am not sure she would not do it, given that she would be a heart beat away from the job she covets, and with not much chance of another shot)  But as I say he probably won’t pick her because that would not be to ‘turn the page’.

 

"We won north, we won south, we won in between," Obama told 6,000 cheering guests in an electrifying speech at a Democratic dinner in Virginia. "People want to turn the page. They want to write a new chapter in American history. And today the voters from the west coast to the Gulf coast to the heart of America stood up to say yes, we can," Obama said.

 

 

If it were down to the wire with the super delegates and they demanded the VP be Hillary Clinton then in order to get the nod he no doubt he would, but apart from that increasingly remote possibility, I think Clinton might be slipping out the back door.  Just have to wait and see. 

 

 

However, if the now unlikely Clinton gets the nod for the Dems I feel confident she would pick Obama as her VP (if he would be in it and I’m not sure he would, I wouldn’t if I was him). 

 

 

Given the proportional selection of delegates for the Dems, I think it quite likely that the outcome will come down to the super delegates (all the party heavy weights) and given my lack of knowledge of U.S. domestic politics I don’t really have a clue how they would go, but I would guess that if the momentum is with Obama as it now appears to be they will swing behind him and he would get it.  If Clinton is just in the lead they would probably give her the nod.



Can’t see a McCain/Lieberman ticket, though I admit it would be interesting; but if it eventuated this would tend to confirm the Tweedle thesis, would it not?  

 

I agree that;

 

In an election which would be difficult enough to win with full Republican voter participation, McCain will have little chance without it.

 

 

But I think that by the elections they will be right behind McCain as they have nowhere else to go and Obama will be seen as the real enemy.

What this means in terms of Olmert's stalling is unclear, but the Right Zionists are in a tizzy about his supposed connections to Islamist-tinged and pro-Palestinian advisors - political and otherwise.


So despite my lack of knowledge of U.S. domestic politics, overall events are moving in a direction that would suggest that the Bush time table for the establishment of a Palestinian state is now the more likely.

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by dalek at 2008-02-11 03:36 PM

Patrick, maybe I am really thick, but I do not understand why Bush would be at all interested in establishing a Palestinian state.

I would say that there is a high probability of another Israeli invasion and occupation of Gaza; a final solution. This will be supported by the US, in the way it supported the attack on Lebanon. (The ambivalent attitude of LS to the Lebanon incursion by Israel has been well noted by many observers of this site). Very diificult for you.

The Israelis have only one solution to the Palestinian "problem". The extermination of the Palestinian people. This has been their policy since WW2, it is unchanged today. The establishment of a Palestinian state that is to comply with US rules is simply a smokescreen for the genocidal oppression that is taking place in the huge  prisons that are Gaza and the West bank. 

Dalek

 

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Lupin3 at 2008-02-11 04:09 PM
I agree that Obama is now the ascendant candidate.  If Olmert had been attempting to outlast Bush, he would have been calculating on a succeeding Clinton presidency.  One question is, how will the increasing possibility of an Obama presidency affect his thinking?  If there is any substance to the ramblings of the right-Zionists about Obama - or if Olmert's advisors think there is - it may change his thinking about Bush.  I agree that an Obama presidency only reinforces the likelihood of the US supporting a Palestinian state, but even this path is not without complication.

Prior to the Florida primary, I would have agreed with you about McCain's likelihood to retain conservative voters.  However, it appears that the influential, conservative talk-radio hosts have chosen the moment to stake the election (which, in their view, is a long-shot anyway) on maintaining primacy in the Republican party.

I listened recently to a man on local radio proclaim that he would not sacrifice his principles merely to maintain party unity, and could not therefore vote for McCain.  This is the line being sold by Limbaugh and others of his ilk and the basis of their attacks against McCain.  That the man's actions could only result in the outcome he said he could not "vote" for was an irony obviously beyond him, an indication that the cognitive dissonance being planted in an effort to maintain "conservative" control of the Republican party is working to some extent.  I don't think that the surprisingly strong showing, especially in economic terms, of Ron Paul's candidacy is entirely unrelated to this kind of thinking.  The coalition that Bush has managed within the Republican party shows signs of finally unraveling.

There is an argument among Republicans about whether McCain is the inheritor of Reagan's politics.  This is the same argument waged previously between Bush and McCain.  Bush won then, and brought with him a contingent of neocons into the Whitehouse, a legacy of the Reagan years.  A central feature of the argument about Reagan's heritage will be the place of neocons in any future conservative policy-making.

The result of this unraveling, and however true it may be, may well have an important, if not profound, effect on the future of US policy toward Iraq.  If the unraveling comes to pass, I suspect the neocons will find themselves increasingly isolated, and as their influence wanes, the paleos will find common cause with the old school liberal foreign policy wonks.  This to me suggests that the old politics of "realism" will become new again - the incoherency of Obama's statements on Iraq reek of this.

How this reaction to Bush's foreign policy will play out in the aftermath of the Iraq war is unclear - if the reaction happens at all.  It could simply be the cognitive dissonance introduced by the gulf between official and real policy, continued by another administration.  But the domestic political forces driving this reaction are very real.

I'd like to see LS give more attention to this aspect of their argument, since a great deal of it depends on the acceptance of their view by the US political elite.  I fear, however, that LS has not looked closely enough at the real ideological split at the mid and grass roots levels.

Apologies for the rambling aspect of this post, and it's lack of detail.  I'm pressed for time at the moment but I hope to return to this in future with a more coherent criticism.

In the meantime, a question: if the realization LS claims the Bush administration came to after 911 about the failure of the previous 80 years of American policy in the middle east is not shared by succeeding administrations, how might this affect the thinking among LS advocates?  Particularly in light of the possibility that future Democratic administrations may decide to cut losses and partition Iraq, balancing rivals against each other in order to maintain "stability?"

Lupin3

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by Cyberman at 2008-02-12 02:56 AM

Dalek,

"Patrick, maybe I am really thick, but I do not understand why Bush would be at all interested in establishing a Palestinian state"

You've not been paying attention properly to the draining the swamp theory! Kerry explained it all very well in an article for that nice old Aussie ( or maybe he's an American now? ) Mr Murdoch in his local newspaper "the Australian"

" he (Bush) has managed to create the perception that he is the most pro-Israel President in history while at the same time also insisting that Israel must withdraw from both Gaza and the West Bank. Due to the continuing (very careful) US rhetoric about the necessity to defend Israel against terrorism, many from the Right who supported the war have not yet caught on to this.”

You've got to marvel at his cunning plan!

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by dalek at 2008-02-12 04:09 PM

Thanks, Cyberman for your lucid exposition. I get it; Bush read Chomsky late one night and thought "that's a good idea "drain the swamps" duuhh. What I want to know next is what has happened to the "Islamofascists"? They have dissapeared from LS.

Any-way Mcain is going to get elected on a program for a 100year war against Islamofacsism and Bush is going to Liberate Palestine.

Wow.

 

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by byork at 2008-02-12 11:47 PM

The previous two posts show why it is pointless trying to engage in debate with dalek and cyberman. They are unable to argue convincingly against the 'draining of the swamp' analysis and are satisfied to just have a bit of 'sport'.

 

It's not what the site was established for as far as I am concerned (as someone who joined it early on but did not play a part in setting it up).

 

Barry

 • Re: Some thoughts on the Middle East.

Posted by dalek at 2008-02-13 04:37 PM

Barry, The draining the swamps theory has one serious problem: In 2003/4 the invasion of Iraq and the establishment of democracy there was going to rid Iraq  of "Islamofascists". What happened of course was that the draining the swamps program gave rise to the obscenity of Abu Grahaib, numerous massacres by US troops and mercenaries the humiliation of the Iraq people and a massive boost to every fanatic, jihadist and retrograde tribal gang. It was dumb then and it is dumb now.

Do you and all your acolytes really believe that the Iraqi people are going to allow the US to install permanent garrisons in their country, gain control of their natural resources and generally turn Iraq into some McDonald's bastion in the Middle East?

There is a well established historical adage, when it comes to insurgency against colonial oppression. It is better to do a deal with the first bunch of insurgents because the next bunch that arise after you have killed the first will be even more extreme. (The De Gaulle solution) It's either that or kill ever-body who has the slightest link to the insurgency - the Suharto solution.

The problem you have is that it's too late for both the De Gaulle and the Suharto solution and the guys you will have to deal with in the future are going to be really pissed off and radical. 

The "democracy" that you praised to the skies has been demonstrated to be impotent and totally subservient to the US; so much so that 200,000 US paid mercenaries rampage through the country with total impunity, immune from Iraq law. You write that the "surge" is working, all it is working is the US army to death. Meantime the US arms their "friends" inside Iraq to attack US "enemies". How dumb is that.

Meantime the entire ME trembles on the brink of an incendiary explosion. Some swamp drainage program.

Stop advocating the Suharto solution and you will get a lot of respect from me and others who visit this site.

Dalek 

 

« Previous 20 items Next 12 items » 1 [2] 3