It won't fit on twitter, and I don't like monologuing so much on there, so...
It's not about Assad.
The aim of any surgical strike (if it happens) on Syria, will be to destroy weapons that Israel believe to be threatening to themselves whether in the hands of Assad OR whoever might gain power following Assad's removal.
This explains in part the US & allies readiness to strike. They really don't intend to get dragged in to an Iraq war scenario here. It's just destroy the weapons then leave Syria to fight it out again.
But it raises some issues:
Firstly Israel must not only believe that it's strikes on Syria earlier this year were unsuccessful or limited in scope so a risk still remains. That or Russia has recently supplied Syria with more advanced weapons that Israel can't confidently deal with.
Next that it has reached a point where Israel doesn't believe it's safe for them to strike again to remove this threat as they have done in the past. Far safer for Israel to get America & chums to do it for them to avoid direct retaliation.
Next up? That Russia has knowingly provided more advanced weapon capabilities to Syria presumably in response to Saudi and US constantly funding the rebels for dubious reasons.
So if you stand back and take a look at it, it's once again super powers that be using another country as the playground of political gain with messy results.
This time however, there are some problems. The Syrian military has already said it would view an act of aggression by the US as an attack directed by Israel and would fire on Israel in retaliation. Bluff? Bit of a gamble? Israel / US counting on the fact they can neutralise the entire Syrian threat to Israel in one strike? Well ... If Syria does respond with a successful strike on Israel, all hell will break lose.
Now .. it's at this point I get a bit worried.
In the UK in recent days there's been a dramatic up turn in immigration control stopping and "taking away for interview" any ethnic minorities they can scoop up off the streets. Today it was Victoria station in London, and Oxford that I heard of. Want to minimise the risk of terrorism in response from within? Strike first and round up all you can?
Tenacious perhaps. But then there's the build up of military planes in Cyprus today. Easily the preferred point for US attack on Syria ... But ...
Look back up at the top there? We started this ramble on the assumption the original strike was simply to remove arms that Israel regards as a threat. Now all of a sudden, we're looking at contingency plans going in to place for a prolonged engagement and presumably a successful retaliation from Syria against Israel. If that does happen and it is being planned for as a side effect of the initial strike? Then the term "All hell will break lose" is very carefully chosen.
26 Aug 2013
15 Aug 2013
The Egypt Problem
Just for the sake of own sanity faced with the barrage of tweets on the subject.
Let's go back a few years, to a point where it was widely regarded that Morsi supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, was without a doubt the US backed preferred government in Egypt.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-struggles-to-install-proxy-brotherhood-in-egypt/31552
Now since then. On a wave of optimism that the Morsi solution would hold, one of America's big five buddies, the UK, has been busy selling arms to Egypt. All sanctioned and approved by American political interest in the region. (I don't have this kind of info for other countries, I'm sure the UK wasn't the only one).
http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/licence?rating=Military®ion=Egypt&n=0&date_from=2010-01-01
Most if not all of that weaponry and body armour goes to the police and armed forces in Egypt. In the eye's of America and it's arms dealing buddies, that was all totally fine because Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had the power and therefore the arms.
So what happened yesterday? The Egyptian Army moved to clear out a large Muslim Bortherhood protest encampment. There were preceding reports that the MB camp was getting heavily armed in readiness for a fight. If you dig through the AP post on what happened today, you'll find buried in there:
"Authorities said the encampment had been heavily armed and footage aired on state TV showed security forces uncovering stashes of ammunition and hand guns after storming the site."
Now I can't tell you which side is exaggerating the truth in their own favour here. I'm sceptical of the largely pro-US media coverage we get in the West, and I'm finding it a little hard to believe the Army just decided to go on a killing spree one day for no particular reason. If they did? America has problems, because someone high up in Egypt has decided to declare war on the MB using the very arms that America and it's allies have been happily selling them. It's worth also noting here, that many in Egypt reportedly view the Muslim Brotherhood as "terrorists". So in the eyes of much of Egypt, not a lot of sympathy is felt. They were told they had to clear the encampment, they didn't so ...
All in all, it's a complete mess, once again with a root cause looking like Western interests meddling in foreign affairs for many years leading to a complete breakdown.
So that's why I'm holding back on comment on the situation unfolding in Egypt on Twitter. It's simply too complex an issue to fit in to 140 characters and there's little I can link to that demonstrates my point of view. I don't trust the media bias in the official news sources that I have access to. I don't trust the knee-jerk reactions of many twitter posters on the subject. I don't trust Obama's intentions either. Many of the Egyptian tweets I've seen are virtually the opposite of the slant of the AP or VICE news reports for example.
Calls to end financial support or military aid are short sighted. The military aid has already been supplied with intent to give Morsi the fire-power to retain control (Ooops). Cutting more general financial aid is likely to harm the citizens that everyone claims they are most concerned about.
The media machine and Western government official lines are a bit stretched here. Obama condemns the violence mainly because it's focused on his own pet project the MB. A sane person would condemn the violence simply on the grounds that violence doesn't solve anything. However, Obama and his supporting nations have been arming and funding Morsi and his supporters precisely to gain control through violence, and then to retain that position via violence if necessary. The word "hypocrite" springs to mind again.
Also worth noting here, that amongst some, the assumption that all protesters must be the good guys is a little jarring. It wasn't the MB protesting that caused the coup that wasn't a coup. That was most of the rest of Egypt against the MB / Morsi. But people seem to like thinking in little boxes without too much analysis, so somehow, the MB protesters are now the good guys because it was a protest. Sure there should always be a right to peaceful protest, but that doesn't mean the protester is always right. Sigh. Anyway. That's one example of the kind lazy thinking that got me to write this.
If you blindly cheer for the MB on this one, you're cheering for America's interests against the will of Egyptians that was shown by the largest turn out for sustained protest in human history just weeks ago. If you cheer for the Army, you're cheering for what does seem to be unjustifiable force from an outside perspective. Who knows? What if the MB was shooting at the Army and police from an encampment containing women and children? Who gave the orders for the Army to move in? As yet, I don't know. What we lack as usual is clear unbiased reporting.
For now, it simply looks like both sides are deeply in the wrong.
It's a horrible mess. The best I can do is hope that somehow out of the smoke, Egypt manages to emerge with a non US installed government and some form of peace. Some in Egypt are predicting civil war and an eventual geographic divide. I hope not. But I guess those in Egypt probably have a better insight in to what's going on than I or most the commentators I've seen in the West do.
Let's go back a few years, to a point where it was widely regarded that Morsi supported by the Muslim Brotherhood, was without a doubt the US backed preferred government in Egypt.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-struggles-to-install-proxy-brotherhood-in-egypt/31552
Now since then. On a wave of optimism that the Morsi solution would hold, one of America's big five buddies, the UK, has been busy selling arms to Egypt. All sanctioned and approved by American political interest in the region. (I don't have this kind of info for other countries, I'm sure the UK wasn't the only one).
http://www.caat.org.uk/resources/export-licences/licence?rating=Military®ion=Egypt&n=0&date_from=2010-01-01
Most if not all of that weaponry and body armour goes to the police and armed forces in Egypt. In the eye's of America and it's arms dealing buddies, that was all totally fine because Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood had the power and therefore the arms.
So what happened yesterday? The Egyptian Army moved to clear out a large Muslim Bortherhood protest encampment. There were preceding reports that the MB camp was getting heavily armed in readiness for a fight. If you dig through the AP post on what happened today, you'll find buried in there:
"Authorities said the encampment had been heavily armed and footage aired on state TV showed security forces uncovering stashes of ammunition and hand guns after storming the site."
Now I can't tell you which side is exaggerating the truth in their own favour here. I'm sceptical of the largely pro-US media coverage we get in the West, and I'm finding it a little hard to believe the Army just decided to go on a killing spree one day for no particular reason. If they did? America has problems, because someone high up in Egypt has decided to declare war on the MB using the very arms that America and it's allies have been happily selling them. It's worth also noting here, that many in Egypt reportedly view the Muslim Brotherhood as "terrorists". So in the eyes of much of Egypt, not a lot of sympathy is felt. They were told they had to clear the encampment, they didn't so ...
All in all, it's a complete mess, once again with a root cause looking like Western interests meddling in foreign affairs for many years leading to a complete breakdown.
So that's why I'm holding back on comment on the situation unfolding in Egypt on Twitter. It's simply too complex an issue to fit in to 140 characters and there's little I can link to that demonstrates my point of view. I don't trust the media bias in the official news sources that I have access to. I don't trust the knee-jerk reactions of many twitter posters on the subject. I don't trust Obama's intentions either. Many of the Egyptian tweets I've seen are virtually the opposite of the slant of the AP or VICE news reports for example.
Calls to end financial support or military aid are short sighted. The military aid has already been supplied with intent to give Morsi the fire-power to retain control (Ooops). Cutting more general financial aid is likely to harm the citizens that everyone claims they are most concerned about.
The media machine and Western government official lines are a bit stretched here. Obama condemns the violence mainly because it's focused on his own pet project the MB. A sane person would condemn the violence simply on the grounds that violence doesn't solve anything. However, Obama and his supporting nations have been arming and funding Morsi and his supporters precisely to gain control through violence, and then to retain that position via violence if necessary. The word "hypocrite" springs to mind again.
Also worth noting here, that amongst some, the assumption that all protesters must be the good guys is a little jarring. It wasn't the MB protesting that caused the coup that wasn't a coup. That was most of the rest of Egypt against the MB / Morsi. But people seem to like thinking in little boxes without too much analysis, so somehow, the MB protesters are now the good guys because it was a protest. Sure there should always be a right to peaceful protest, but that doesn't mean the protester is always right. Sigh. Anyway. That's one example of the kind lazy thinking that got me to write this.
If you blindly cheer for the MB on this one, you're cheering for America's interests against the will of Egyptians that was shown by the largest turn out for sustained protest in human history just weeks ago. If you cheer for the Army, you're cheering for what does seem to be unjustifiable force from an outside perspective. Who knows? What if the MB was shooting at the Army and police from an encampment containing women and children? Who gave the orders for the Army to move in? As yet, I don't know. What we lack as usual is clear unbiased reporting.
For now, it simply looks like both sides are deeply in the wrong.
It's a horrible mess. The best I can do is hope that somehow out of the smoke, Egypt manages to emerge with a non US installed government and some form of peace. Some in Egypt are predicting civil war and an eventual geographic divide. I hope not. But I guess those in Egypt probably have a better insight in to what's going on than I or most the commentators I've seen in the West do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)