I am not familiar with Bahrain law but as a monarchy I think the royal family is the appropriate government body. In regards to international law a state of war doesn't matter consider in Japan US and other troops are there to help deal with the disaster and even during a time of peace, or nothing else going on, a legitimate government can invite foreign troops in.
Legal injunctions become trivial when they arent enforced. Fact is that there are countries around the world that violate international law without impunity. The move by the GCC is in its best interest, for sure, but its also bigger than the specific greivances of the local populace. There are a number of reports purporting that the unrest is being inflamed by Iran in order to expand its influence. Iran's vocal protesting of the GCC's actions give more credence to that claim. As much as I hate the despots that rule the middle east, I cant help but feel apprehension at the prospect of a totally destabilized middle east. Bahrain boasts a less than 4% unemployment rate, and according to the 2011 index of Economic Freedom, has the freest economy in the middle east. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that yes, reform is absolutely necessary, and the Shi'ite minority are well within their rights to demand equitable treatment. But the objective of the riots throughout the region have been to depose countries of their leadership, and with so many global interests at stake, its only natural for them to take the necessary precautions to protect against the potential for violence and quell Iran's influence. Again, I'm not defending it...just explaining that its happening for a number of reasons.
Looks like the Revolution is over. It was fun while it lasted. And, at least Egypt and Tunisia get a chance to take a crack at democracy. But, it seems to me that sitting on our hands while Gaddafi pounds the rebellion to dust has emboldened Bahrain to crack down too and sent a chill to any other country that might be considering political liberalization, knowing that the developed world will sit idly by while the tanks roll in. I'm ashamed of the US and of France for talking a big game and doing jack-****.
blame it on Rio! Lessons from Libya for Dictators in Distress Rick Richman 03.16.2011 - 8:19 AM 1. If you want to remain in power, you need to do more than send a man on a camel into crowds. Declare war on your people; hire other people to help out. 2. Do not worry if the U.S. president says you must “step down” and “leave.” It is only his personal opinion. 3. To ensure that the president does not focus unduly on your war, schedule it while he is preoccupied with other matters: a Motown concert, a conference on bullying, his golf game, and finalizing his Final Four picks. 4. Declare that the opposition is not “organic.” The president will not assist a non-organic revolution. If the revolution is organic, do not worry: an organic revolution is by definition one he does not need to assist. Either way, you’re fine. 5. Recognize that your membership on the UN Human Rights Council will be suspended — the president will send his secretary of state there to ensure that. Do not start a war against your people if you are not prepared for this. 6. Do not worry about a “no-fly zone” or some other U.S. military response. The president will consider it only if the world speaks with one voice. The world includes Russia, China, and Turkey. 7. Remember when the president adopted his Afghanistan policy after an extensive “review;” selected his own general to implement it; got the general’s recommendations; and then held endless meetings before finally reluctantly approving them? That was about a war he was already in. He will need many more meetings than that before he considers any new action against you. 8. You may eventually be subject to sanctions, so check to see if they’ve worked yet with Cuba, North Korea, or Iran. 9. Consider restarting your nuclear program, since the conditions that caused you to suspend it are gone. At most, the president will form a committee of several nations to talk to you; he will consider more sanctions if the world speaks as one. You need not worry about his “deadlines.” 10. There is basically only one thing you do need to worry about: do not, under any circumstances, approve any future Jewish housing in Jerusalem. The president will go ballistic if you do.
I wish your cohort hadn't tried to play partisan football with this, basso, because there's a lot a lot of truth in that top 10 list. . He should substitute UN, Euro's and everyone else in the criticism. It was a committee effort. US was on the exec committee, indeed, but this appears to be an all out team failure. And the top lesson -- learned 40 years ago -- and what scared me at the onset of this mess......keep the TV cameras out! Ugh.
We're more concerned about the oil supplies than Arab democratic movements. If the protesters had survived armed crackdowns, there's no telling what domino would fall on our Hashimite thug buddies. They and Israel were already non-plussed about the events in Egypt. Bahrain was next?....superbase for our forces there? Psshh There's no political benefit for any of these movements. Reduced terrorism and more democracy? Since when has an excuse to reduce defense and domestic intelligence spending ever taken seriously? With the economy as it is, it's helluva lot easier saying, "not now, we can't risk it. $200 oil is real if Saudi starts crumble" Makes the idealists for the neo-con domino theory ridiculously naive...they never thought what our allies there would think.
I am still wondering why the world did not step in more decisively on the side of the rebels. Especially the US, Germany and Italy seemed to be extremely hesitant.
A lot of hard truth in that. But again, too simplistic and naive to drop it all on one guy's shoulders.
Lets face it. After Iraq, the US has no desire to step into the Arab world. The US does not want the perception of unilaterally doing anything. Aside from being fodder for terrorist groups and radicals, its also fodder for the Libyan government to put out propaganda about the Americans being behind the rebellion. The only way to deflect that is a TRUE multinational effort. And unless NATO allies step up and contribute real resources to supplement American planes for a no fly zone, there's no real international effort. Not to mention getting a security council vote is next to impossible because Russia and China have both been hesitant about supporting anything. One of the consequences to the Iraq war that no one talks about was the fact that we basically killed off international cooperation on things like a no fly zone, even if the world basically agrees. The US politicized the entire thing and now states feel no qualms about doing the same (Russia and China in the security council) and many European governments lost elections for supporting American intervention efforts in Iraq and now dont even bother to supply anything. Afghanistan went from a real NATO effort to a purely American campaign because after Iraq, European countries basically stopped contributing anything. And today that continues. French intervention in Africa is still terribly unpopular so they had to scale back as well. Unless the political climate around intervention changes, countries wont help anyone.
Yes, I think your assessment is correct. Plus, Italy has a bad history in Libya and Germany is already heavily involved in Afghanistan and certainly was not going to do anything unilaterally. But I also think that something else might have played a role, I think the West was unsure who is really behind those rebel forces. A bit of a case of "the devil you know...", perhaps?
Repped. The Iraq disaster punctured America's global reputation to the point of tying one hand behind our backs. The loss of credibility will never be made up. The extended Afghanistan occupation is now doing the same thing.
except, if The Wanting had wanted, he could have asserted a droit du seigneur, and ****ed The Big Q w/o regard to the rest of the committee. in so doing, he would have a) reaffirmed american values, b) saved a buttload of libyan lives, and c) staved off the holy ****storm of retribution that's coming the libyan people's way. only the US "had" (the moment is passed) the means to do that- all that was lacking was the will. and for those of you who think i'm being unfairly partisan in pinning all this on D'Oh!bama, search my posts on Darfur.
The ironic part of all this, of course, is that Obama could personally shoot 100 Libyan civilians a day in the face every day for the next two yearsand he still wouldn't reach dubya's Civilian body count in Iraq. Sorry BO - try harder next time and maybe you'll get there!
I agree. Both with your post and the West's averse disposition towards Libyan contingencies. Intervention would have escalated an uprising into a civil war. That's a mighty big risk on the tiny chance that it proves decisive. Bush's foreign policy was a massive failure because he and his advisors consistently underestimated risks and overestimated the military's--and private contractors'--capabilities. The lesson of Iraq is that favorable logistics does note equate to favorable strategics. Shock and Awe wears off after a while, and the US ultimately couldn't wield the power it had been projecting. The sad truth is that a true multilateral effort, specifically Security Council endorsement, would have had a good shot at generating a successful outcome in Libya, or at least in Benghazi. There is too much mistrust between the big and medium sized powers. China, the US, Europe--one of them is going to need that oil at the end of the day. Unilateral action, even NATO action without UN backing, leaves Qaddafi with enough room to exploit that demand to maintain power. So it's not like you can just drop a few bombs and say, "Hey, at least we tried," if it doesn't work. Obama has been right on this one.
