Foreign Affairs

unhappycamper

(60,364 posts) Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:01 AM Sep 2014

IS gives US its 'Suez Crisis' moment

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-01-170914.html

IS gives US its 'Suez Crisis' moment
By Peter Lee
Sep 17, '14

Though an anti-war type, I am not on the same page with many anti-war types when it comes to poo-pooing President Barack Obama's call for military action against the Islamic State caliphate.

The caliphate is a big deal, in my opinion, a big bad transnational deal with significant consequences throughout Asia, and something should be done. "Something", unfortunately, would be a big, disruptive military campaign coordinated through the UN Security Council and Arab League, spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and involving lots of Saudi and Turkish casualties, both military and civilian, and a prolonged, agonizing, and expensive effort to reassert the control of the Iraqi and Syrian governments over the territory they had lost.

Understandably, nobody, including the United States, is willing or able to make sure that something actually gets done, and it looks like what we are getting is a collection of ineffectual half-measures justified by hyped-up "threat to the homeland" agitation whose main purpose is to exploit the crISis in order to enhance US clout in the region.

IS took root in Iraq and Syria, in large part because of the Obama administration's willingness to enable a jihadi solution to its dump-Assad problem and the very, very bad decision of Turkey and Saudi Arabia to support the operation.

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IS gives US its 'Suez Crisis' moment (Original Post) unhappycamper Sep 2014 OP

Is "moment" the new "gate"? merrily Sep 2014 #1

The struggle to liven up these worn-out cliches is constant. bemildred Sep 2014 #2

You sure you only want to bet ten bucks on that? merrily Sep 2014 #3

merrily

(45,251 posts)

1. Is "moment" the new "gate"?

Reply to unhappycamper (Original post)

Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:21 AM

Sep 2014

Each bit of fodder for political gossip used to be a "gate." Now it's a "moment."

Is this Obama's Katrina moment? No? Well, then, is this Obama's Gulf of Tonkin moment? No, not even similar. Well then, is it Obama's Suez Crisis moment?

I don't think Obama willingly enabled a jihadi solution to his dump Assad agenda. I don't even think dumping Assad was his agenda. His Secretary of State called Assad a good friend, didn't she?

Trust me, the Arab Spring was not our idea. We were well aware that Middle Eastern rulers like the Shah, Hussein Iraq, Hussein Jordan, the Sauds, Mubarek and Assad, Sr. and Jr., the Sultan of Brunei, etc. were keeping a lid on a lot of stuff that could come back and smack us upside the head. That's why we loves us Middle Eastern dictators so darn much. (Let's not get into why we hit Hussein Iraq--twice--despite that.)

And Obama was on the verge of going to war with Syria until a Republican member of Congress started a movement to stop Obama from doing that. That culminated in over 100 members of the House signing a bipartisan letter to Obama and Speaker Boehner sending him a letter with 14 legal questions relating the authority of the President to proceed without a vote of Congress. And that is why Obama stopped short of the red line, not because his plan was to get jihadis to do it.

That is a lot closer to McCain, who thinks he can ID a Middle Easterners ideology by looking and talking briefly, then gets snapped in a photo with terrorists, grinning broadly about his new-found friendships. Or Dimson and Curveball.

bemildred

(90,061 posts)

2. The struggle to liven up these worn-out cliches is constant.

Reply to merrily (Reply #1)

Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:46 AM

Sep 2014

There are only so many ways you can allude to WWII-Hitler-Chamberlain-Etc. for example and expect to be understood, especially when talking about muslim religious insurgencies in the Middle East and elsewhere. And with other, more revelant crisis analogies you run the risk of nobody knowing about them, the Suez crisis here for example. I have ten bucks that says well over 90% of Americans can't tell you what country that happened in and what decade it was.

merrily

(45,251 posts)

3. You sure you only want to bet ten bucks on that?

Reply to bemildred (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:53 AM

Sep 2014

The most I ever gambled in one day is two dollars. I think I did that once, as a newlywed, at horse race going off at 43 to 1.

I got more risk averse over time. Now, I only bet on message boards and only smilies. I'd put the deed to my home on that, though.

Stewart just proved that more Americans now want to bomb Syria than can find it on a map. That's American Exceptionalism for yiz.

Gots to go. Have a great day.

Reply to this discussion