Posts Tagged ‘Middle East’

A Few Quick Libyan Updates

Monday, February 21st, 2011

Before I hit the hay:

  • Some of Moammar Gadhafi’s own diplomats are disowning him.
  • Two Libyan pilots have evidently defected to Malta rather than attack civilians.
  • Gadhafi himself says he hasn’t fled the country.
  • You know who Gadhafi says is behind the protests, don’t you? That’s right: the Jews. Man those guys get around. With all this protest-leading, when do the Elders of Zion have time to sleep?
  • Pretty much everyone in America (with the possible exception of the Obama State Department) supports toppling Gadhafi. Unfortunately, so do the Islamists.
  • Including the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.
  • Ace of Spades asks: should we intervene militarily?
  • Both NRO and DailyKos Call for a No Fly Zone Over Libya

    Monday, February 21st, 2011

    No, really. Daniel Foster at National Review Online and “azizhp” at DailyKos both call for the U.S. military to impose a No Fly Zone over Libya to prevent the slaughter of civilians.

    And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood…

    So What the Hell is Going on in Libya?

    Monday, February 21st, 2011

    As a much more closed society, news is harder to come by, but depending on who you believe, there are conflicting reports that:

  • The Libyan Air Force is bombing protesters trying to enter an army base.

  • Gaddafi has fled Tripoli.
  • How strong are Islamists in Libya? Well, given the fact that they’re the ones seizing military bases, I’d say pretty strong.
  • Michael Totten offers some background.
  • As usual, the BBC has live updates.

    A popular uprising that toppled Ghaddafi would be great news, but I’m not sure I’m willing to believe he would be that easy to topple. Ghaddafi seems like the sort of dictator who would happily slaughter tens of thousands of his citizens if he thought he needed to to stay in power.

    Of course, one big difference was between Egypt and Libya is that Egypt’s military is (by Arab standards) professional and pretty competent, and even though they lost the Yom Kipur war, Egyptian troops in Sinai bloodied the Israelis enough that Egyptians felt they had sufficiently restored the nation’s honor that Anwar Sadat was able to sign to Camp David accords. (The previous three Arab-Israeli wars had resulted in Israel delivering a complete ass-kicking to all the Arab armies, so only receiving a partial ass-kicking was indeed a vast improvement.)

    By contrast, Libya’s army seems pretty incompetent: they got their asses kicked by Chad in the Toyota War, in which Chadian forces armed with Toyota-pickup-mounted anti-tank guns left a billion dollars worth of Soviet equipment burning in the Aouzou Strip. It would not surprise me at all to find that the Libyan army is too poorly trained to suppress a real popular uprising.

    Whether they want to or not, it looks like people all across the Middle East are fated to live in interesting times…

    Obama’s Handling of Egypt: The Reviews Are In

    Monday, February 14th, 2011

    And they’re every bit as warm as those for Spiderman: Turn off the Dark:

  • Mary Steyn: “For the last three weeks, the superpower has sent the consistent message to the world that (as Bernard Lewis feared some years ago) America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend.”
  • Niall Ferguson in Newsweek (yes, it’s evidently still being published):

    “Last week, for the second time in his presidency, Barack Obama heard those footsteps, jumped up to grasp a historic opportunity … and missed it completely….This failure was not the result of bad luck. It was the predictable consequence of the Obama administration’s lack of any kind of coherent grand strategy, a deficit about which more than a few veterans of U.S. foreign policy making have long worried….The defining characteristic of Obama’s foreign policy has been not just a failure to prioritize, but also a failure to recognize the need to do so. A succession of speeches saying, in essence, ‘I am not George W. Bush’ is no substitute for a strategy.”

  • Michael A. Walsh in the New York Post: “No matter how things shake out in Egypt, one thing has become depressingly clear: Something is very wrong with the American intelligence services.”
  • Investor’s Business Daily:

    “As our once-stable ally Egypt hurtles down a path leading into the dark unknown, the U.S. can blame itself. The White House apparently did little after our intelligence agencies warned late last year that President Hosni Mubarak’s government was wobbly. Like Jimmy Carter’s handling of Central America, the U.S. backed a revolution, hoping it would make the revolutionaries our friends.”

  • Victor Davis Hanson in National Review: “For nearly three weeks, the Biden/Clinton/Obama policy concerning the tottering Mubarak regime was contradictory, incoherent, and predicated entirely on the perceived pulse of the demonstrations.”
  • Like Julie Taymor’s production (which I have not seen, but I have seen enough of Ms. Taymor’s previous work to trust the reviews of it I’ve read), Obama’s foreign policy is far more concerned with flash and spectacle than the boring matter of actual substance. Unfortunately, there’s no chance that Obama’s foreign policy will fold in previews, and we can’t make things better by getting Bono and The Edge to write us a few new tunes…

    Stratfor: Police and Army Redeploying, Both Suporting Mubarak For Now

    Sunday, January 30th, 2011

    Or so say their sources:

    The Egyptian military and internal security forces have coordinated a crackdown for the hours ahead in an effort to clear the streets of the demonstrators. The interior minister has meanwhile negotiated his stay for the time being, in spite of widespread expectations that he, seen by many Egyptians as the source of police brutality in the country, would be one of the first ministers that would have to be sacked in order to quell the demonstrations. Instead, both Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and al-Adly, the two main targets of ire for the demonstrators, seem to be betting that they can ride this crisis out and remain in power. So far, the military seems to be acquiescing to these decisions.

    More Live Egypt Updates

    Saturday, January 29th, 2011

    Not a lot of news coming out. The longer it takes things to happen, the more likely Mubarak is to hold onto power. Yesterday brought scattered reports that the army may be wavering in support of Mubarak. Today? Not so much. There are sporadic reports of gunfire, and lots of reports that citizens groups are banding together to prevent looting.

    The old links down the page stopped updating at the end of the day. The new links are:

  • The BBC.
  • The Atlantic.
  • Egyptian blogger Sandmonkey’s Twitter feed
  • As for what an actual popular Egyptian government might look like, Michael Totten reminds us that the answer might be pretty ugly:

    In Egypt, 82 percent want stoning for those who commit adultery; 77 percent would like to see whippings and hands cut off for robbery; and 84 percent favor the death penalty for any Muslim who changes his religion.

    Asked if they supported “modernizers” or “Islamists” only 27 percent said modernizers while 59 percent said Islamists.

    Elsewhere in the Middle East, there are reports of unrest in Yemen. Conversely, yesterday’s reports that Syria had also taken down nationwide Internet access appear to have been false.

    Egypt’s Tipping Point?

    Friday, January 28th, 2011

    Latest update from The live BBC feed:

    1724: BBC Arabic correspondent Khaled Ezzelarab in Cairo reports: “Despite the curfew, demonstrators are surrounding the building of Egyptian radio and TV and trying to break into it. The building is guarded by armed forces, and the demonstrators are cheering for the army, while the latter is not getting into confrontations with the people.””

    The vast majority of modern revolutions are not won by beating the government’s armies in the field, they’re won when the army no longer has the heart to fire on the people. If Mubarak still has the army on his side, he’ll survive the unrest. However, if he doesn’t, as the report above indicates, then it’s all over. The instant a dictator loses the army, he loses power. That’s why the Communist Chinese are still in power and Nicolae Ceausescu died of acute lead poisoning.

    There Is No Internet, Only Zuul

    Thursday, January 27th, 2011

    In Egypt, at least.

    That’s probably a really, really bad sign…

    Fascinating Michael Totten Piece on the Druze of the Golan Heights

    Monday, October 4th, 2010

    Michael Totten’s pieces are always worth reading, and this piece on the Druze of the Golan Heights is no exception.

    I especially liked this bit on the religious beliefs of the Druze:

    They’re monotheists who emerged from Islam a thousand years ago, but their religion changed so drastically it became something else. They don’t proselytize or wage wars of conversion or conquest. No one is even allowed to convert. That door closed in the year 1043. You’re either born a Druze, or you aren’t a Druze. And if you die a Druze, they say you’ll be reincarnated as one. Their religious texts are kept secret, not only from non-Druze, but from most Druze, as well. The “uninitiated” majority aren’t required to observe any rituals. They aren’t even allowed to know much about the religion.

    Why is it that this one reader-funded world traveler always seems to bring back more interesting and detailed stories than all the Middle East bureaus of The New York Times combined?

    As always with Totten’s work, read the whole thing and hit the tip jar if you feel so inclined.

    Israel’s Possible Strike on Iran: Reactions

    Wednesday, August 18th, 2010

    There have been a lot of reactions to the Jeffrey Goldberg piece on the coming Israel attack against Iran’s nuclear weapons program I talked about here.

    The issue is discussed with the ever-irrepressible Christopher Hitchens. Conclusion? If Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, “I see no reason not to take out the regime.”

    As usual, Ezra Klein and Juan Cole are clueless.

    JournoList-founder Klein believes a strike would “make the Arab world in general, and Iran and various terrorist organizations, hate Israel even more.” The problems with this statement:

    1. Only for organizations already committed to Israel’s destruction and/or Iranian-backed groups (Hezbollah and Hamas), who will mainly be angry that Israel deprived them of far more potent weapons. A temporary increase in activity from the people who already want to see you dead seems like a good tradeoff for preventing a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran.
    2. Probably not for the majority of Sunni Arabs, most of whom regard Persian Shias with at best indifference and at worst racist xenophobia and contempt. Sure, they hate Jews worse, but beyond certain Muslim Brotherhood offshoots, there is very little in the way “Pan-Islamic Unity” in the Middle East.
    3. Ditto for for the Turks. Erdogan’s Islamist- and Iranian-leaning government would no doubt make a great deal of noise, but do very little in the way of concrete actions that they weren’t already pursuing against Israel, and the average Sunni Turk is likely to lose little sleep over an attack against Shia Persians.
    4. The leaders of most Arab countries seem to want the Iranians stopped as well. That would suggest that there will be very little response from those states beyond pro forma disapproval.
    5. Given that Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already called for Israel to be wiped off the map, how much more could they hate Israel?

    For his part, Juan Cole (after the usual conservative-bashing and name-calling) says:

    Bibi Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, is for all his bluster far too personally indecisive to take such a major step (and certainly not without an American green light; Bibi thinks Clinton had him undermined and moved out of office for obstructing the Oslo accords, and does not want to risk the same fate for causing trouble for Obama in Iraq and Afghanistan)

    This ignores the fact that the Dovish wing of Israeli politics has all but disappeared since the Oslo accords, in the wake of Arafat’s intransigence, Hamas’ takeover of Gaza, the war against Hezbollah, etc. Kadima, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu are the three largest parties in Israel, and none are going to bring down the Netanyahu government should he order a strike on Iran. Even Kadima, the leftmost of those three, considers Iran’s nuclear program an existential threat. Kadima leader Tzipi Livni sounds only slightly less firm than Netanyahu, stating that “the free world cannot afford Iran with a nuclear weapon.”

    Also, he ignores the fact that if it did come down to losing his job, or failing to prevent a nuclear holocaust against his nation, Netanyahu’s choice will still be pretty easy to make.

    Finally, former UN Ambassador John Bolton says Israel needs to strike within eight days.