Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Getting back to the Great Arab Revolution of 2011...noticed that Libya, Bahrain and Algeria are now showing signs of unrest. Could be very interesting...the prospect of a democratic (or at least more democratic) swath across the entire Maghreb, from Egypt to Tunisia.

Also going to be very different dynamics with US involvement in each. We have little influence in Algeria, but the French have both influence and interest.

Bahrain is going to be a big problem for the US. It's the HQ for the US 5th Fleet and a crucial strategic ally in the region.

Libya is a fascinating case. A few years back, we'd have been dancing at the prospect of the Libyans taking out Qaddafi. But then he pulled his "coming in from the cold" manuever and he's been something of an arm's-length ally ever since.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

A friend of mine's allegedly going to Bahrain soon to work for the Navy in a civilian position. Hope any revolutionary sentiment is brutally quashed before that, otherwise he might well join in it...

[Dwarf]

Wait, did you just really say you hope the people of Bahrain don't get their say?

[Burnt Pies]

Yep. Sir P is of the opinion that everything would be better if we just sat down and accepted every despot that comes along.

[GamerKnight]

Getting back to the Great Arab Revolution of 2011...noticed that Libya, Bahrain and Algeria are now showing signs of unrest. Could be very interesting...the prospect of a democratic (or at least more democratic) swath across the entire Maghreb, from Egypt to Tunisia.

Also going to be very different dynamics with US involvement in each. We have little influence in Algeria, but the French have both influence and interest.

Bahrain is going to be a big problem for the US. It's the HQ for the US 5th Fleet and a crucial strategic ally in the region.

Libya is a fascinating case. A few years back, we'd have been dancing at the prospect of the Libyans taking out Qaddafi. But then he pulled his "coming in from the cold" manuever and he's been something of an arm's-length ally ever since.

One of the best things that could happen to the Middle East is an European-style coalition. Same for Africa.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Wait, did you just really say you hope the people of Bahrain don't get their say?

Yep. Sir P is of the opinion that everything would be better if we just sat down and accepted every despot that comes along.

You do remember that almost the whole of my involvement in this thread has been comprised of arguing that popular revolutions in third world shitholes only ever make things worse, except in the rare case where they stay exactly the same, right? I don't generally care, though I'll point out that people shouldn't expect anything but disaster, but in this case, I know someone who's going to Bahrain as a civilian contractor for the Navy in a few months. As a result, I hope any revolutionary sentiment is quashed before that.

[Duuvian]

There is a US carrier shifting to the area. Let's hope the US government uses it to support democracy openly. It's Obama's chance to become a hero to the poor muslim world. This in turn could go a long way to patching up relationships in the area if Democracy spreads throughout the middle-east with some sort of clear US action. It would have to be peaceful in nature, but even allowing something simple like sailor's shore leave or something to party with dissidents for example would make a huge statement to the people. I don't know, something to show that people actually would like to help them and are willing to do so.

I've read however, that there are Iranian ships planning to run the Suez canal for the first time in decades. I'd imagine the Iranian's are probably seeing Western interference in these flare ups, but they'd better not try anything or they will have found that they've misjudged their position very badly. Let's hope they don't have something that can sink a carrier on those boats.

[Dwarf]

Well, Obama being a hero to the muslim world = OBAMA ISLAMIC KENYAN SANDNIGGER!!11!!!1!

[GlyphGryph]

The US congressional system has nothing to do with the problems of the absurd US first-past-the-post electoral system, since there are plenty of parliamentary systems that work the same way in that respect.

On topic,
If we were REALLY concerned with realpolitik at this point, it certainly looks like a good time to start allying ourselves with the muslim population in general and maybe even start dropping some pressure on Israel to garner some good will. As far as people saying we're "turning out back on long time allies"... this is politics. If you screw us and our interests in the region over by knocking your country into open revolt, why the hell should we continue supporting you? Take some responsibility, dictators! You can't pass the buck if you've made sure you're the only one at the table!

Actually, I have a realpolitik question:
If we're really only looking out for our own best interests... why are we always siding so strongly with Israel?

[Leafsnail]

You do remember that almost the whole of my involvement in this thread has been comprised of arguing that popular revolutions in third world shitholes only ever make things worse, except in the rare case where they stay exactly the same, right?

...I'd like to object to your use of "third world".  Not out of political correctness, but because it's a) meaningless and b) misleading.

[Bouchart]

Actually, I have a realpolitik question:
If we're really only looking out for our own best interests... why are we always siding so strongly with Israel?

Part of it is probably to keep the oil-exporting Islamic countries off-balance.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You do remember that almost the whole of my involvement in this thread has been comprised of arguing that popular revolutions in third world shitholes only ever make things worse, except in the rare case where they stay exactly the same, right?

...I'd like to object to your use of "third world".  Not out of political correctness, but because it's a) meaningless and b) misleading.

Every political science or geography professor I've had has had a different idea of what the proper terminology should be, either condemning "first/third world" because it's outdated, or condemning "developed/developing" because it's an entirely arbitrary metric. The only time the modern use of the "first/third world" system breaks down is when you're talking about former second world countries, which are now (at least primarily) considered first world, despite having a drastically lower standard of living than most other first world countries.

Actually, I have a realpolitik question:
If we're really only looking out for our own best interests... why are we always siding so strongly with Israel?

They're Ax-Crazy, so they're all too willing to the US' dirty work in the region. If they ever go too far, we cut them loose and leave them to face the consequences of their actions, or prosecute them ourselves to further wash our hands of it.

Also the whole "keeping the middle east embattled and fragmented" thing.

[Bouchart]

These days it's "developed nations" and "emerging markets".

[olemars]

Bahrain and libya is where the shit's going on right now. In libya it seems several eastern towns and cities are pretty much under control by anti-Ghadaffi people, and they've even occupied the state-run radio in Benghazi: http://libya.blog-video.tv/. Meanwhile Muammar is sending in foreign mercenaries to kill.

[Ampersand]

Violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators in Bahrain and Libya. They can get away with this, because unlike Egypt, the eyes of the world are not so sharply focused on them, and in at least the case of Libya, we don't really have high expectations.