We have a nice contrast: On the one hand, Egypt's "democratic revolution" and its supreme military council vis-a-vis Libya; on the other, the Saud dynasty vis-a-vis Bahrain.
Where are the covert warnings out of Cairo: "Stop, Colonel Q; go no deeper into Cyrenaica. If you advance on Benghazi, we will intervene massively."
If this were happening, Cairo right now would be declaring a refugee emergency and using it as cover for a massive military buildup on the Libyan border. There would be numerous violations of Libyan air space by Egyptian air force units, etc. etc.
But nope.
Whereas... ah, the great whereas... the Saud tyrany has in essence invaded the island of Bahrain and occupied it, securing it for the Sunni royal ruling clique.
The White House?
Egypt is obeying and the Saud fuckers defying... that's my take.
Comments (14)
The spam prevention word above expressed strong disapproval today, for what that's worth.
Posted by senecal | March 16, 2011 11:15 PM
Posted on March 16, 2011 23:15
I can't imagine that the Saudis invaded Bahrain without getting clearance from their military suppliers in Washington. The last thing the US policymakers want is democracy on the Arabian Peninsula, particularly in a little nation with a big military base on the Persian Gulf.
Posted by Charles D | March 17, 2011 8:23 AM
Posted on March 17, 2011 08:23
Clearance or tacit approval, which amount to the same thing. No way the Saudis are freelancing this one. Uncle's interests are clearly in squashing protests in Bahrain, not least for setting a chilling example for other uppity A-rabs.
Libya's more ambiguous, but Uncle would just as soon Col Q stay in power than deal with the unknown. Also, nice "demonstration effect" there too. But....political pressure will mount on Prez O, eyes fixed on 2012 American Idol, to "do something." So: ambiguous. In Uncle's interest that Col Stooge remain unmolested, but there are points to be gained by "being tough" and blowing up some of his stuff.
Posted by chomskyzinn | March 17, 2011 9:11 AM
Posted on March 17, 2011 09:11
cz
who said anything about free lancing ???
notice i said defy the white house
i didn't even dare add
the state department let alone
the various "independent " power cliques
many of which
applaud any move to
chill the thrill there
in greater arabia
i note however the genii seem to be out of the bottle
the lovely declensions
flowing step by step
from baby bush's iraq crusade
chiefly
the release of the arab Shia goblin
what a glorious
--and much foretold --
happenstance
Posted by op | March 17, 2011 10:51 AM
Posted on March 17, 2011 10:51
many "parts "
are now quite suddenly
in grindingly conflicted motion eh ??
it would be a mistake i think
to consider the empire faces something this broad
with monolithic perceptions and convictions
i doubt any widely held " position "
exists in ruling/influential circles ...yet
the range is still quite wide
from joyously incubating
hatching and nurturing
half a dozen more arab color revs
to stomping on each one of em
like the heads of so many nasty little
rattle snakes
Posted by op | March 17, 2011 10:58 AM
Posted on March 17, 2011 10:58
Col Stooge
Stooge ??
that is a label i think
doesn't apply here
one could list the differences between Q
and say the "king" of jordan
nope Q is somewhere near the middle
between the king of j
and ... pm nuttinhoney
Posted by op | March 17, 2011 11:02 AM
Posted on March 17, 2011 11:02
Good points, OP, particularly all @ 9:11 and this one as well:
"it would be a mistake i think
to consider the empire faces something this broad
with monolithic perceptions and convictions"
I say Col Stooge for this reason: Didn't he somewhat give himself over to Western neolib stoogedom when he "ceased" his (probably nonexistent) "WMD program." I've been getting a stooge vibe of late.
Look, I'm all for chaos and upending this grotesque, gluttinous status quo in the ME. I very much fear the forces of repression will squash it, but then I always fear that. But, yes, Barbara Eden is out of the bottle, and how fetching she is....
Posted by chomskyzinn | March 17, 2011 2:25 PM
Posted on March 17, 2011 14:25
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/africa/18nations.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1300407144-8mSJdFAeCHtkq5Pwy5BDnw
uncle is not going to let Col Q steam roll the rebels
"there was a growing consensus in the Obama administration that imposing a no-fly zone by itself would no longer make much of a difference and that there was a need for more aggressive airstrikes that would make targets of Colonel Qaddafi’s tanks and heavy artillery "
a no drive zone
so much for all the bull goose left
foolishness
about the demonstration effect
the fear of "democracy" etc etc
the WH shuttering from the color wave crossing the arab world
its now a nasty lebela white hat empire move
brace yourselves for the glory and wonder of it all
Posted by op | March 17, 2011 8:42 PM
Posted on March 17, 2011 20:42
given the carte blanche from the UN-SC
Col Q
might correctly in my estimation
hault his forces advance
right were it is
to check out the set up
the white hat emperor might only want a stalemate not a Col Q knock out ...for the interim
if CnC o'bummer sends the flyinh monkeys in for a leveling right away
then Q might as well go for broke
i see a certain pause here perhaps for each side to digest the situation
if Col Q sez damn the yankees full speed ahead
he deserves a fast knock out the damn fool
------------
i note some left elements are suggesting this could get to be quite a wrangle
nonsense Col Q's forces are a paper camel
any serious "western onslaught "
and they'll run for the hills
a few brave ones
might try to shoot Col Q in the head
chop it off and send it in a rocket to malta
Posted by op | March 17, 2011 11:05 PM
Posted on March 17, 2011 23:05
"Speaking to reporters in Tripoli after the vote, Khalid Kaim, the Libyan deputy foreign minister, took a conciliatory tone, offering to negotiate a ceasefire with the rebels."
Posted by op | March 18, 2011 7:19 AM
Posted on March 18, 2011 07:19
The "ceasefire" pause might not only be to check out the diplomatic lay of the land.
It could also be logistics. To assault Benghazi, Qaddafi has to bring up more supplies and do a bit of routine maintenance on the tanks, after having done a fair bit of fighting and advancing during the past week.
But if the ceasefire lasts more than a couple of days then Qaddafi is probably indeed chickening-out.
However, I can't understand why he would. Nobody's offering him a golden bridge. Ceasefire or not, the Westerners are going to bomb him anyway. I'm hearing a lot of regime-changey noises from Clinton, and the lapdogs of the Western Bloc (Cameron, Sarko, Harper) are straining at their leashes, so that they can show leadership. All the ICC global community types are yearning to Milosevize him.
There could be regime chance on the "rock soup" method. Could they have in mind be some kind of Libyan version of the Afghani Northern Alliance? Mostly local enemies of Qaddafi on the ground, backed by Western drones and daisycutters? Can they find a Libyan Karzai to become the Time Magazine "Man of the Year"?
Posted by Roland | March 18, 2011 8:29 PM
Posted on March 18, 2011 20:29
Paper camel op? Could be a wrangle yet.
Posted by Chomskyzinn | March 19, 2011 8:30 AM
Posted on March 19, 2011 08:30
Could be a wrangle yet op.
Posted by Chomskyzinn | March 19, 2011 8:36 AM
Posted on March 19, 2011 08:36
I'm starting to wonder if a partition scenario isn't emerging among the managers of the global Empire. They like that sort of thing -- vide Sudan and Yugoslavia.
Posted by MJS | March 19, 2011 10:23 AM
Posted on March 19, 2011 10:23