tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post5246101417361142288..comments2024-03-26T06:17:49.527-07:00Comments on Had Enough Therapy?: America on Egypt: An Attitude or a PolicyStuart Schneidermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12784043736879991769noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-85330242798950768442017-04-17T14:19:23.774-07:002017-04-17T14:19:23.774-07:00Thanks for having this article available. I agree ...Thanks for having this article available. I agree with Stephens more than the Dems, but he changes his mind in a way Presidents don't get to. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-28392988496084442352013-08-21T05:45:38.122-07:002013-08-21T05:45:38.122-07:00"What's realistic and desirable is for th..."What's realistic and desirable is for the military to succeed in its confrontation with the Brotherhood as quickly and convincingly as possible. Victory permits magnanimity. It gives ordinary Egyptians the opportunity to return to normal life. It deters potential political and military challenges. It allows the appointed civilian government to assume a prominent political role. It settles the diplomatic landscape. It lets the neighbors know what's what."<br />If one pays the slightest attention to history one begins to notice that wars will continue until someone wins decisively. Much of the above paragraph states the reasons why this is so.<br />Now I don't expect a "community organizer" like Obama to understand this because much of his experience is creating agitation and division and not solving problems. Much like the Saudis he is a fire starter.<br />It is why Obama creates one disaster after another and then blames others or runs away from his very actions. Whether it is foreign or domestic one can almost always note the disasters that follow. The typical progressive never seems to ask "What is this ultimately going to result in after the fire dies out?<br />I suspect what we need right now is a reevaluation of what compassion is and what it is not. I would suggest that our current definition of compassion has killed far more people than almost any other action we have taken.<br />The interesting thing here is that the prime funder of terrorism in the world now is one of the prime funders of destroying the very same people. A bit of irony and a lesson of what happens when one starts fires and thinks they won't get burnt.<br />Another aside is that Obama's blundering may create the very conditions to bring the Israel and many in the Middle East together because of fear of Obama's friends the Muslim Brotherhood.<br />It is indeed a strange world.<br />Dennishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14962996070458991675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-21521050193773895922013-08-20T14:04:06.721-07:002013-08-20T14:04:06.721-07:00Teh MBs have a document descibing their policies; ...Teh MBs have a document descibing their policies; democracy is not one of them. Tolerance of/for others, likewise.Sam L.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00996809377798862214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8078379512095504946.post-67687538405881334222013-08-20T09:36:56.768-07:002013-08-20T09:36:56.768-07:00"What's realistic and desirable is for th..."What's realistic and desirable is for the military to succeed in its confrontation with the Brotherhood as quickly and convincingly as possible."<br /><br />Quite so. "Convincingly" means crushing the Brotherhood by eradicating the organization -- including detaining its leadership, confiscating the Brotherhood's physical and financial assets, destroying its property, closing its offices, and shutting down its grassroots social programs. (Viable substitutes for some of those programs will need to be put in place.)<br /><br />It means removing Brotherhood operatives from the key posts they have spent decades infiltrating as part of their long march to power.<br /><br />It also means ensuring elements dependent on the state (i.e. university professors) are instructed that agitation on behalf of the Brotherhood is unacceptable.<br /><br />I think the Administration does indeed have a policy: to back and promote the Islamists -- not only in Egypt, but everywhere else. The US is joined with the Europeans in this. Now that their policy is smashing up against the demands of a new realpolitik (the need to curry favor with the Saudis, Egyptian military, etc.), it will be interesting to watch how the Administration postures, straddles, and triangulates.<br /><br />No doubt the Administration was encouraged by the American public's disinterest in Benghazi. The Administration (aided by Washington Republicans) was able to wholly escape the obligation to take any retaliatory action whatever, or even to examine and explain its conduct before and during the overthrow of Libya's government and the ensuing debacle. Due to the open warfare in Egypt, there won't be any such luck this time. That presents the Administration with a new, wholly political challenge: how to temporize until the situation becomes the next American president's problem.<br /><br />I'm guessing the first practical step the Administration will take to mend fences with established power-interests like the Saudis will be to increase (not reduce) aid to Egypt, but to publicly earmark it as strictly for humanitarian purposes. Much flying in & out of Arab capital cities, foreign dignitaries visiting the White House, and other forms of diplomatic theater will ensue as the State Department tries to conjure the image that American is still playing a key role in the Mideast. <br /><br />Lastangonoreply@blogger.com