One can't be completely sure but it looks like this is an attempt to unite the Sunni front before attack on Iran by this front takes place. US military presence makes sure that it will be part of the attack willy or nilly. Israel may enter the fray directly if necessary.
I know I haven't added anything new to the discussion but I hope that Iran is ready to defend itself. I was always dismayed that Iranians could not build even one nuke to act as the deterrent when they had time. There is no guarantee that Iran will not buckle under the combined air and ground assault. It is a pity since Iran has such a subtle and beautiful civilization. I have Iranian friends; they are very sensitive and generous. Aljazeera just ran an article about Polish refugees from Soviet Union who settled in Iran during the 2nd World War. The story goes like this: When Poles were being driven from port of Anzali to Tehran people threw objects at them. Poles thought they are rocks but they were actually pieces of candy. Such was hospitality of a nation that itself was experiencing famine and was under the occupation of Allies.
I am getting tired of so much concern about Sunni sensitivities. We treat them like children. Who have to be cuddled. Both Sadam and ISIL rank and file and various barbarian fundamentalists participating in ravaging of Syria are Sunnis. When are we going to hold them responsible for their nihilistic world view which has destroyed much of ME? It is easy to blame Maliki's policies and others but do you really believe that is the reason for so much barbarism Sunnis have shown which would even put Genghis Khan to shame? Did Yazidi or Madaeni oppress Sunnis that deserve such punishment?
Your claim is not based in facts. There are many sunnis who support Assad. Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have supported Assad against predominantly Jihadi and genocidal forces. They have not carried out sectarian policies and got involved in force only when takfiris gained upper hand in the civil war. I don't condone what Assad does and he should be tried for war crimes, but the neoliberal policies that led to Libya and Syria interventions are not legal nor justified. It is America exceptionalism deluxe that justifies intervention in other peoples affairs any time, anywhere it wishes. It violates international law and makes it worthless. What I propose in my post is that crushing of the rebellion, in retrospect, was far preferable to the current suffering.
I am glad that it is acknowledged that the civil war has been prolonged is mainly because of the Gulf, Turkey and CIA . (We should replace CIA with Obama administration and underline HRC's role when she was sec. of state. CIA can't do things if not authorized by Obama.) Crushing of the rebels would have given us continuation of the same old Assad's dictatorship. But isn't it preferable to the slow genocide that is going on now, and an accelerated one when Gilani crushes Assad?
The title uses the phrase Hawkish foreign policy. The body of the article does not make clear what hawkishness is. If it is advocating military intervention as a policy tool for advancing feminism then two questions arises: 1 - Could this military intervention make world even more dangerous than it is. I don't have to cite examples of how US military intervention has caused havoc and blowback. Whether Kosovo is a successful experiment remains to be seen; NY Times reported that it has a basket economy and is a hotbed of extremism. It may have been better if it had stayed as part of Serbia in a federal setup. The author conveniently ignores Hillary's role in messy interventions such as Libya and Syria under her watch and concentrates on Kosovo which was done under Bill Clinton. If she wants credit for Bill's achievements shouldn't Hillary also take the blame for his failings?
2 - Could the women and children be casualty of Hillary wars? Isn't it true that these groups are the ones that suffer most in a war of aggression?
3 - This is an article proposing a feminist jingoism and militarism. Since it advocates military means by Global North to liberate women of Global South it is deeply racist.
4 - Is Dr. Cole really that desperate to support Hillary? He can't say it directly, and wants to use surrogates?
Wait until Hillary becomes president. Most of her foreign affairs advisors are neocons Robert Kagan among them. Iranians are simpletons; American policy can change when a new president takes office.
Your are too kind to Bill(ary) professor. From Truman to Obama, Israel has been a creation of USA and no amount of posturing can hide it. You should judge the countries by their actions not words just like you do with any person. State dept. always maintains that settlements are no good but they can't hide their pinoccio nose when the next time settlements are condemned in SCouncil, US vetoes it. It always finds the resolution one sided but never puts forward its own!!
Bill Clinton was paid 300K for one speech by Perez foundation for repeating the lies against Arafat. Bill and Hillary have made millions from Zionist money and even more. Trouble is we will have another young president competing with them soon for more of the same. BTW: Come to think of it, there will be 5 living ex presidents on our tax payroll January 17!! Lucrative business pandering to rich and powerful Zionists ( all except Carter) ? You betcha.
The Iraq liberation act was passed under his watch. And to those who bring up Nader 2000 again and again, I will say how do you know Al Gore would have reacted if 9/11 happened under his watch? HRC is a hawk and neoconservative. I would worry if I were an Iranian - you could be annihilated.
I think it is a bit simplistic to attribute rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and later IS to the policies of Bush administration towards Sunnis. There was bad blood between Shiite , Kurds and Sunnis due to Saddam's genocidal policies. Remember that initially Shiite and Sunnis were united. They were united against occupation and invasion of Iraq. But this changed when the opposition to occupation acquired a sectarian nature. The opposition to occupation was corrupted and took a sectarian and religious nature. Here Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi religion had a great influence. In brief, modern history of Iraq will be written sometime in future, and there are many causes for the mess that is there, but don't just simplify everything to US policies and mistakes made. Many other factors - Saddam's policies, presence of SA, so on were present and responsible.
Professor is pointing out the "positive"' s of Scalia. That should be said. But since the news of his passing broke out yesterday, all of the news media have been praising him as if an angel has died. No mention of what this right wing court has done in the last couple of decades. Just think of Citizens United and the danger they have posed to restricting abortion rights. The right wing court's main agenda has been gradually overturning the SCOTUS's achievements of 60's and 70's and the fruits of people's struggles of 60's. And the chief ideologue of this trend has been Scalia. Incidentally, we have had too many strict Catholics in Supreme Court. Time to nominate a Hindu, or Moslem to represent diversity of our society.
Bill,
Don't you think it is more accurate to say that Obama was summoned to Israeli Embassy? Let's face it Zionists own our government. I wish well to the gullible crowd that Obie will not veto Security Council Resolutions.
What is also true is that whatever legitimacy Israel claims is from UN partition plan. There was no Israel in 1946. Of course legitimacy extends only to the land given in partition. Israel occupied big part of land given to Arabs by UN. So that part is not legitimate either. So when Israel complains of delegitimizing Israel, we should remind her and her supporters in America that Israel even in 1967 border has an occupied portion and hence illegal.
I wish I could learn more about the role of Gulf countries esp. KSA in the conflict. Although Assad's repression was brutal - what else you expect from a dictator? - the Gulf countries turned the "Arab Spring" quickly into a brutal civil war by arming the extremists groups. It seems like they bear a great responsibility in the current spiral of death and destruction. Some day they will be held accountable.
Vow. Support for Palestine was supposed to be bedrock of Arab politics. According to Bardawi SA is willing to support the Palestinian cause? Israeli-SA-UAE-Egypt axis he refers to is real. Palestine has been thrown under the bus for a quite a while now. It was always a catch phrase to turn away Arab masses from challenging autocracy. It is not Iran that these guys are afraid of: their foes are modernity and good governance
With all due respect in Egypt does not bode well for ME. With the massacres of demonstrators and the "liberal" and radical segments condoning them I would call what is happening in Egypt a mob "democracy".
There is nothing sacred about millions of people taking part in rallies. It is often a mob frenzy. We saw that in Iran during 1978-79. Democracy means good governance, respect for the law, respect for the minority opinion, protection of minorities, civilian sovereignity over military, so on. This applies to a an advanced Western society as well as a third world country such as Egypt. We should hold Egyptians democrats to the same standards as we observe in the West. No white washing.
In a sense, Mubarek was swept away by an uprising. Revolution by its definition implies dismantling of the structure of the ancien regime including its coercive wing, that is military and security forces. That did not happen in Egypt. It is an upheavel in which some classes lose power at the expense of others. That did not happen either.
And not all revolutions bring progressives to power; witness Iran again. But Egypt's change of regime after downfall of Mubarek seems to be only a facelift.
One can't be completely sure but it looks like this is an attempt to unite the Sunni front before attack on Iran by this front takes place. US military presence makes sure that it will be part of the attack willy or nilly. Israel may enter the fray directly if necessary.
I know I haven't added anything new to the discussion but I hope that Iran is ready to defend itself. I was always dismayed that Iranians could not build even one nuke to act as the deterrent when they had time. There is no guarantee that Iran will not buckle under the combined air and ground assault. It is a pity since Iran has such a subtle and beautiful civilization. I have Iranian friends; they are very sensitive and generous. Aljazeera just ran an article about Polish refugees from Soviet Union who settled in Iran during the 2nd World War. The story goes like this: When Poles were being driven from port of Anzali to Tehran people threw objects at them. Poles thought they are rocks but they were actually pieces of candy. Such was hospitality of a nation that itself was experiencing famine and was under the occupation of Allies.
I am getting tired of so much concern about Sunni sensitivities. We treat them like children. Who have to be cuddled. Both Sadam and ISIL rank and file and various barbarian fundamentalists participating in ravaging of Syria are Sunnis. When are we going to hold them responsible for their nihilistic world view which has destroyed much of ME? It is easy to blame Maliki's policies and others but do you really believe that is the reason for so much barbarism Sunnis have shown which would even put Genghis Khan to shame? Did Yazidi or Madaeni oppress Sunnis that deserve such punishment?
Your claim is not based in facts. There are many sunnis who support Assad. Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia have supported Assad against predominantly Jihadi and genocidal forces. They have not carried out sectarian policies and got involved in force only when takfiris gained upper hand in the civil war. I don't condone what Assad does and he should be tried for war crimes, but the neoliberal policies that led to Libya and Syria interventions are not legal nor justified. It is America exceptionalism deluxe that justifies intervention in other peoples affairs any time, anywhere it wishes. It violates international law and makes it worthless. What I propose in my post is that crushing of the rebellion, in retrospect, was far preferable to the current suffering.
I am glad that it is acknowledged that the civil war has been prolonged is mainly because of the Gulf, Turkey and CIA . (We should replace CIA with Obama administration and underline HRC's role when she was sec. of state. CIA can't do things if not authorized by Obama.) Crushing of the rebels would have given us continuation of the same old Assad's dictatorship. But isn't it preferable to the slow genocide that is going on now, and an accelerated one when Gilani crushes Assad?
The title uses the phrase Hawkish foreign policy. The body of the article does not make clear what hawkishness is. If it is advocating military intervention as a policy tool for advancing feminism then two questions arises: 1 - Could this military intervention make world even more dangerous than it is. I don't have to cite examples of how US military intervention has caused havoc and blowback. Whether Kosovo is a successful experiment remains to be seen; NY Times reported that it has a basket economy and is a hotbed of extremism. It may have been better if it had stayed as part of Serbia in a federal setup. The author conveniently ignores Hillary's role in messy interventions such as Libya and Syria under her watch and concentrates on Kosovo which was done under Bill Clinton. If she wants credit for Bill's achievements shouldn't Hillary also take the blame for his failings?
2 - Could the women and children be casualty of Hillary wars? Isn't it true that these groups are the ones that suffer most in a war of aggression?
3 - This is an article proposing a feminist jingoism and militarism. Since it advocates military means by Global North to liberate women of Global South it is deeply racist.
4 - Is Dr. Cole really that desperate to support Hillary? He can't say it directly, and wants to use surrogates?
Wait until Hillary becomes president. Most of her foreign affairs advisors are neocons Robert Kagan among them. Iranians are simpletons; American policy can change when a new president takes office.
Your are too kind to Bill(ary) professor. From Truman to Obama, Israel has been a creation of USA and no amount of posturing can hide it. You should judge the countries by their actions not words just like you do with any person. State dept. always maintains that settlements are no good but they can't hide their pinoccio nose when the next time settlements are condemned in SCouncil, US vetoes it. It always finds the resolution one sided but never puts forward its own!!
Bill Clinton was paid 300K for one speech by Perez foundation for repeating the lies against Arafat. Bill and Hillary have made millions from Zionist money and even more. Trouble is we will have another young president competing with them soon for more of the same. BTW: Come to think of it, there will be 5 living ex presidents on our tax payroll January 17!! Lucrative business pandering to rich and powerful Zionists ( all except Carter) ? You betcha.
If Iran loses Syrian Lebanon it will lose its leverage against Israel and United States. This is the main reason Iran cannot afford to lose.
More importantly if Iran loses in Syria and Lebanon, it wii have no leverage against Israel and United States. KSA is acting as a surrogate for both.
The Iraq liberation act was passed under his watch. And to those who bring up Nader 2000 again and again, I will say how do you know Al Gore would have reacted if 9/11 happened under his watch? HRC is a hawk and neoconservative. I would worry if I were an Iranian - you could be annihilated.
I think it is a bit simplistic to attribute rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and later IS to the policies of Bush administration towards Sunnis. There was bad blood between Shiite , Kurds and Sunnis due to Saddam's genocidal policies. Remember that initially Shiite and Sunnis were united. They were united against occupation and invasion of Iraq. But this changed when the opposition to occupation acquired a sectarian nature. The opposition to occupation was corrupted and took a sectarian and religious nature. Here Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabi religion had a great influence. In brief, modern history of Iraq will be written sometime in future, and there are many causes for the mess that is there, but don't just simplify everything to US policies and mistakes made. Many other factors - Saddam's policies, presence of SA, so on were present and responsible.
Professor is pointing out the "positive"' s of Scalia. That should be said. But since the news of his passing broke out yesterday, all of the news media have been praising him as if an angel has died. No mention of what this right wing court has done in the last couple of decades. Just think of Citizens United and the danger they have posed to restricting abortion rights. The right wing court's main agenda has been gradually overturning the SCOTUS's achievements of 60's and 70's and the fruits of people's struggles of 60's. And the chief ideologue of this trend has been Scalia. Incidentally, we have had too many strict Catholics in Supreme Court. Time to nominate a Hindu, or Moslem to represent diversity of our society.
Bill,
Don't you think it is more accurate to say that Obama was summoned to Israeli Embassy? Let's face it Zionists own our government. I wish well to the gullible crowd that Obie will not veto Security Council Resolutions.
What is also true is that whatever legitimacy Israel claims is from UN partition plan. There was no Israel in 1946. Of course legitimacy extends only to the land given in partition. Israel occupied big part of land given to Arabs by UN. So that part is not legitimate either. So when Israel complains of delegitimizing Israel, we should remind her and her supporters in America that Israel even in 1967 border has an occupied portion and hence illegal.
I wish I could learn more about the role of Gulf countries esp. KSA in the conflict. Although Assad's repression was brutal - what else you expect from a dictator? - the Gulf countries turned the "Arab Spring" quickly into a brutal civil war by arming the extremists groups. It seems like they bear a great responsibility in the current spiral of death and destruction. Some day they will be held accountable.
Vow. Support for Palestine was supposed to be bedrock of Arab politics. According to Bardawi SA is willing to support the Palestinian cause? Israeli-SA-UAE-Egypt axis he refers to is real. Palestine has been thrown under the bus for a quite a while now. It was always a catch phrase to turn away Arab masses from challenging autocracy. It is not Iran that these guys are afraid of: their foes are modernity and good governance
With all due respect in Egypt does not bode well for ME. With the massacres of demonstrators and the "liberal" and radical segments condoning them I would call what is happening in Egypt a mob "democracy".
There is nothing sacred about millions of people taking part in rallies. It is often a mob frenzy. We saw that in Iran during 1978-79. Democracy means good governance, respect for the law, respect for the minority opinion, protection of minorities, civilian sovereignity over military, so on. This applies to a an advanced Western society as well as a third world country such as Egypt. We should hold Egyptians democrats to the same standards as we observe in the West. No white washing.
In a sense, Mubarek was swept away by an uprising. Revolution by its definition implies dismantling of the structure of the ancien regime including its coercive wing, that is military and security forces. That did not happen in Egypt. It is an upheavel in which some classes lose power at the expense of others. That did not happen either.
And not all revolutions bring progressives to power; witness Iran again. But Egypt's change of regime after downfall of Mubarek seems to be only a facelift.