Latest Arab Spring thread

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

It might not be "what can they offer us" but a more Pakistan style "there could potentially be serious damage to the US if Yemen falls into a civil war". Yemen is a terroristic hotspot right behind Af-Pak.

Agreed.

Both strategic issues and the different geo-political issues for each country in the Middle East that come into play, as much or more than "what they can offer us."

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Do they have anything the US or its allies wants? If not they'll get about as much help from us as Syria. :/

Maybe they will form a unified Pirate Navy, then they may have our ships.

[Bullitt]

Off the top of my head, they assert control over the Gulf of Aden. In conjunction with Somalia and Djibouti. Which is kind of a big deal.

[classicman]

So what you are saying is that the US will be calling for the leaderships ouster or resignation and then bombing soon after they decline?
Color me skeptical.

[Fair&Balanced]

That is not what I said at all.

We have been bombing al Queda targets in Yemen for the last two years, but that is not really issue regarding the current crisis over the removal of Saleh.

The US strategic interest as well as the geo-politics in Yemen should guide our further actions. Yemen is the poorest and probably the most tribal country in the region, where we have little influence.

Our strategic interest is that the popular movement in Yemen not become just a front for al Queda, which many indicators suggest is the case.

As to removing Saleh, it is in the US interest to let Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council lead in that effort in a way that does not threaten the region. It is in their interest that al Queda does not gain a greater foothold, something they dont want to see either.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by classicman

Do they have anything the US or its allies wants?

Sand?

[classicman]

exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.

See post #19 for confirmation.

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by classicman

exactly - all they'll get from the US is a lot of talk.

See post #19 for confirmation.

Or we could be more aggresive in forcing the president of Yemen out of office and strengthen al Queda, which already has considerable influence in the "populist" movement, in which the US is not very popular.

[classicman]

I find it rather interesting that the situation in Libya has gotten virtually ZERO press as of late.

[Fair&Balanced]

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).

While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.

All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place.

Not necessarily. One would hope so, but less coverage doesn't necessarily equal fewer massacres.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).

I dunno - A stalemate doesn't seem ideal to anyone.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

While at the same time more goverrnment leaders defect (5 more generals yesterday) and more pressure is put on Ghaddafi to leave, including from the president of South Africa who was in Libya yesterday.

didn't see that anywhere.

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

All with the US in a background role which is in everyone's best interest.

Agreed

[tw]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place. A stalemate is not a bad thing from the perspective of the side with fewer resources (ie the rebels/populists).

No press also means very important and necessary actions are taking place among Libya's future leaders. They are learning what is necessary to create a democratic type government. And to respect legitimate authority.

Many Libya rebel units had no leadership. Or had multiple leaders who gave contradictory orders. The previous supreme military commander (a former Libyan general and American college professor) has been replaced by a civilian equivalent of a Secretary of Defense.

As stated earlier, a long and tortuous rebellion is one the best things that could happen to the rebels. So that necessary respect and structures so important for 'planning for the peace' can be established and appreciated. So that so many factions that once only had one thing in common (a hate for Kaddafi), will now have respect for their current allies and once former adversaries.

A year long war could be a good thing for long term Libyan health. Those important accomplishments (ie nation building) would not be front page stories.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Zero press means fewer massacres taking place.

Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?

[Fair&Balanced]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Really? How'd that work out for Rawanda and subsequently The Congo in the years afterwards?

Putting aside the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion of Libya or the Arab spring uprisings, we knew about massacres in Rwanda and the Congo because of the press.

Try to stay on topic, please.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Putting aside the fact that it is irrelevant to the discussion of Libya or the Arab spring uprisings, we knew about massacres in Rwanda and the Congo because of the press.

Try to stay on topic, please.

Actually it was quite unreported in the press. And the follow on massacres in the Congo hardly made the press at all. Don't try to deflect your failure to keep the facts straight.