Unless Lybia, Syria isn't ********ed up because of us doing business with the rulers (like selling arms and buying oil), and refugees would hit us less hard than from Lybia. This is more Jordan's, Turkey's and Iraq's problem (not to mention Lebanon), and less ours.
With regards to sanctions, Syria has invested plenty in Europe, and their leaders have been feted in European capitals. If anybody is going to put sanctions in on Syria that hurt it, the Europeans have to do it.
No, I'm not implying that Egypt will arm and support them in fighting Israel. I think they will lift the blockade which will result in more lethal supplies going into the Gaza Strip. If you ease the blockade, the border becomes more porous and as a result more weapons enter the Gaza Strip. Hamas has its ideology rooted in the Muslim Brotherhood (ie. an Egyptian creation). IOW, the direction of Hamas will change from being an Iranian patron to an Egyptian patron. That's merely speculation. I could definitely be wrong. At first, the IRI will support the Egyptian government recognizing Hamas. But over time, the IRI will abandon Hamas.
Egypt will never support Hamas in the same way that Iran does. Iran actually supplies them with missiles, guns and other weapons. If Egypt ever did that, they'd find themselves cut off from a lot of things they like, namely billions of dollars and advanced weaponary which gives them a military advantage over their troublesome neighbors Libya and Sudan.
No, they won't support Hamas (in its current form) the way Iran does. But given Egypt's close proximity to the Gaza Strip relative to Iran, I suspect that the new Egypt will try to influence that and try to take Hamas out of the "Iranian orbit". I agree that they would cut off from billions of dollars and advanced weaponry from the US. Do you support the use of "bribe money" to keep peace in the Middle East? Personally, I think it's a bandaid but I don't know any other solution.
I'd rather we spend our billions at home. I'm not sure who said it, Ron Paul maybe, but I would cut off all foreign aid to Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia whoever and say when you figure something out between yourselves we'll be back. Then take that money and spend it here.
I agree with that. There was an African woman who has a PhD from Harvard who even argued that foreign aid to Africa actually does more harm than good. I don't think Saudi Arabia gets direct foreign aid. I think the bulk of the foreign aid goes to Israel and Egypt.
I'm not an expert on foreign aid by any means, but I think we should continue to provide money for things like curing Malaria, AIDS/HIV prevention/treatment and other things like that that have a lot of positive results and actually are a positive investment for us. However, what we do in Egypt is essentially our government buys weapons for them, and I seem to think the Saudis too, but again, I'm not an expert. I don't think we need to be putting our money into weapons for these countries. We might lose influence, but how much influence do we have over the Saudis and Israelis? I'd say little to none. I think both of them have more influence over us. Egypt is different, but I'm not sure its really the best use of our money.
It depends on what you mean by deployment of forces. I wouldn't favor anything on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan. But something more limited such as is currently the case in Libya or the no-fly zone over Northern Iraq when Hussein was still in power is something I would consider. But there are situations where even a limited application of force is not possible. Examples would be the current situation in Syria or the situation in Iran a year ago. As for allies, I take it you refer to Bahrain and potentially Saudi Arabia down the road. I think in those situations we should use what leverage we have to try to persuade the powers that be to open up their political systems via some sort of negotiated solution. That's the best hope for those countries. It is the best hope for Syria too.
I do think that weapons are viewed by those living in the Middle East NOT as weapons for self-defense but as weapons for various governments to repress their people. This means that tear gas or whatever that is manufactured in the US ends up resulting in those populations not liking the US governmemt. How much influence does the US have over Saudi Arabia and Israel? ALOT!!!! Are you drinking too many Coronas?!?!?! For Israelis, their relationship to the United States is their primary concern. In effect, the Clinton administration took out Netanyahu from power in the 1990s. The United States went to war against Saddam in the early 1990s to keep the Saudi regime in power. The Saudis know that without the US, they are a done deal, the only question is when. So, I think the US has significant influence over both governments.
Did the no-fly zone over northern Iraq result in the overthrow of Saddam? Is the current Libyan no-fly zone and associated covert operations likely to result in the toppling of the Qaddafi regime? Yup. Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. I think the solution you lay out: using leverage to persuade the powers that be to open up their political systems...and putting pressure on them if they don't. It's hard to pressure an ally but it must be done. That is the problem US had with Iran in the 1960s and 1970s..other than the Nixon administration, the US was using leverage to open up its political system...but then, the shah basically said 'nah' and due to geostrategic concerns, the US backed off and continues to pay the price today. The same thing happened with Egypt. The Bush administration pressured Mubarek in 2005 to open up the political system but Mubarek resisted and then it became too late and no one knows what government Egypt will take after this whole ordeal. I do not think it will be a true democracy. There hasn't been a sufficient "opening up". The military will be running the show. But you will have slight tweeks in Egyptian domestic and foreign policy that will largely be set by the military.
Answers are no and too early to tell to these two questions. But I think both operations succeeded in saving hundreds maybe thousands of lives. It allowed the Kurds in Northern Iraq to build up their capabilities and although it wasn't part of the plan I think this has allowed the Kurds to be a force for stability in Iraq today. As for Libya, it is hard to say how the situation evolves. My hope is that the no-fly zone will buy the rebel forces in eastern Libya the time to allow them to organize themselves and build up institutions that will someday make a positive contribution to a post-Qaddafi Libya.
The thing is, these are all states that run the gamit from authoritarian to totalitarian. Even the relatively liberal states (Qatar, the UAE) are not liberal in the classical western sense. I think that what happens (and this is not my own original thought) is that these states spend so much time telling the people how happy they are with the regime that the people actually believe it, or maybe believe that everyone else is happy. Then when something happens and someone says no, openly and visiablly, that sets off a cascade effect. I drew the following lessons so far 1. No Arab leader will no voluntarily relinquish his WMD program, such as Gaddafi did. 2. Stability as a goal is wasted 3. When things are going well, that is when the long serving leaders need to be encouraged to retire and go on the Davos circuit. 4. These things need to run their course and we (the west) need to stay as far out as possible 5. NATO has passed its sell by date and needs to be wound up.
It actually works this way (Military complex) The "aid" to Egypt and Israel is so they can buy American weapons. So we are using tax payer money, give it to them, and then they turn around and buy tanks, planes, etc. from us. What a wonderful scam!
Tunisia check Egypt check Libya check Next most likely: Yemen and Syria. Eventually, all of them. The Arab Spring...now Arab Summer...is one of the best things that's happened in history. There will be ups and downs. Reversals. Periods when the fundamentalists look like they will be running things. But a hundred years from now the historians will note 2011 as a great turning point.
The ones that have fallen are largely the more socialist-leaning states. Until you see such changes in Morocco and Lebanon, it would only be a partial victory.
I was more thinking along the lines of authoritarian vs democracy, (as those were also the line 1848 and 1918 were fought on), but sure.
They're also the states where the levels of education have been reasonably high. Well, the two probably go together to an extent but that's another matter.
Socialist leaning? Maybe we have a different opinion of what socialist means but I wouldn't call Mubarak or Gaddafi's politics socialist. Lebanon already had their Cedar revolution which changed everything and changed nothing. If we use them as an example then I fear there won't be much progress. Then again the situations in each country is so different that I don't even think Lebanon is relevant.
They came out of the same Nasser pot. Arab Socialism was popular since it provided an alternative to the traditional ties that existed in the Arab world. Yemen and Syria were also countries whose leadership was based on the Arab Socialist ideal. Getting rid of Hezbollah isn't progress?
I see what you mean now about socialism. Still think that word gets misused a lot but what can you do... I'm not sure Lebanon got rid of Hezbollah. I think they are stronger now than before.