Jump to content
Paulding.com
Followers 0
  • entries
    51
  • comments
    54
  • views
    8,824

From: America Attacked Again

gpatt0n

Entry posted by gpatt0n ·

475 views

 Share Followers 0

My take on this is a bit more nuanced.

 

First, the film is nothing more than an excuse to whip up a mob and get their juices going.

 

In the case of the attack in Egypt and the silence of the current government; the manipulation you're seeing is one from the civilian "muslim brotherhood" faction that is and has been in an internal fight for power with the Egyptian military.

 

The US, since Camp David in 1979, has been funding and training the Egyptian military and the civilian group seeks to hurt, damage, limit the influence of the military in the Egyptian government.

 

If you were a sly, manipulative guy, what kind of strategy would you employ?

 

Well, you'd see that foreign aid is one of the bills up for reauthorization on the Hill and that the likelihood is that there is about $3-4 billion in funding for your local political enemy, the Egyptian military. What could you do to sabotage that?

 

How about starting a "war" with the Americans? But you have no military because they want the $3-4 billion heading their way. What to do? What to do?

 

Easy ... you whip up a mob and have them attack the American embassy. How do you whip up a mob? You have allies in that ... the extremists on the other side. Just pull something out of their ass and show it and point to the American Embassy and you've got your war.

 

So how about Libya. We know that the US Ambassador was well connected and respected in Libya and had been a key resource for the Rebels as they over threw Gaddafi. Again, internal politics and the undermining of the faction that is gaining strength from its association with us. Notably, as diplomats, we look for others besides religious fundamentalists as our working partners in these countries. As per principal, we are accepting and tolerant as per religious fundamentalists there just as we are here.

 

Unfortunately, that sentiment toward toleration and compromise is one not shared by fundamentalists anywhere.

 

So, if you're this fundamentalist intent on taking your country back to the seventh century what is the best course of action?

 

Again, start a war with the United States.

 

Don't have an army (They hardly ever do.) no matter, get you a mob and do what? Attack the American Embassy. In the case of Libya, you can further erode your political oppositions strength by killing the 'infidel' with which they deal locally.

 

Bottomline ... these fundamentalists are our enemy. They represent a small portion of the population in these countries and they are making a real play for power. It is to their advantage to have a war with the United States and the notion of being occupied (Like Iraq or Afghanistan) is not an issue. The dynamics of recruiting and making large portions of the population fundamentalist actually is helped dramatically by 'occupation' by a foreign power.

 

So, how would you handle this delicate bit of foreign intrigue?

 

Well, even Mitt Romney's not saying we should attack and occupy these countries.

 

Our commitment has to be to keeping moderate people in power and keeping the fundamentalists out of power.

 

Any approach is tricky.

 

pubby

 

Source: America Attacked Again

1 Comment

Recommended Comments

gpatt0n

I wrote this on the 12th of September in the topic: America Attacked Again

 

The point I would like to make is that other than the semantics of terror, I pegged, surmised, logically concluded that in the case of the murder of the American Ambassador, there were nefarious individuals behind the scenes who were doing this intentionally in an effort to destroy the relations between the United States and moderate individuals in these Muslim states.

 

Why?

 

Because you'd have to be a dolt as dumb as Mitt and his assembled neocons not to know this was an intentional act designed to complicate relations between the US and moderate segments of Libyan society that were getting chummy because of 'good, effective diplomacy.'

 

My point then and my point now is that out job is to not exacerbate the situation by blowing it out of proportion but rather nails the sonsofbitches who did the deed and not let their disruptive behaviors diminish the progress toward good relations we were effectively establishing.

 

Of course everything that the right has done since then has been about as effective at maintaining the positive momentum in Libya as setting a bull in a china shop in order to protect the precious inventory of priceless pottery.

 

pubby

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...