The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

At Large

Elections on the Nile

By on 5.18.12 @ 6:08AM

No matter who wins the presidency, the Egyptian military will remain in charge.

The Egyptian military and organized Islamic political groups came out of the 2011 Cairo Spring as the real power brokers of the country. Gone are the student and youth crowds that dominated Tahrir Square, along with the women of all ages who demonstrated by the thousands seeking political equality. Gone also are the masses of foreign TV and print journalists with their instant analyses of complicated issues. One could say that Egypt is slowly returning to its contentious normality.

The forthcoming elections of May 23-24 should produce two contestants for the second round in June that will determine who will assume the presidency of Egypt on July 1. What happens then is clearly a matter for speculation. Supposedly there was to be a new constitution created before the presidential election. The military commission now running the country demanded it — but no charter came forth. As the military commission is supposed to dissolve and pass on all its authority to the new president, the question exists regarding under what legal powers the new chief executive will govern the country.

This problem can not be said to be unexpected. The parliament had appointed a 100 person commission to work out the details of the new constitution — then disbanded this body when it became obvious that the Islamist-dominated parliament had not surprisingly appointed an Islamist-dominated constitutional commission. What was surprising was that a federal court has dissolved the commission and ordered a new body be created that satisfied the demands for equal representation of women and “other minorities” as well as non-religious lobbying groups. How this all was to be accomplished before July 1 is a mystery of the pyramids.

After first announcing that they would nominate the hard-line Sharia law advocate, Khairat El-Shater, as their presidential candidate, the Moslem Brotherhood went to their second choice, Mohammed Morsi. The election commission disqualified many of the top candidates who had announced their intentions to run and the Brotherhood had been given the tip that el-Shater would be considered a definite reject. In a surprise shift, the more ideologically strict Salafists countered with the comparatively moderate Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh to head off the new Brotherhood choice. El-Shater, no shrinking violet, openly attacked the military commission for being behind his black ball. He’ll be trouble for whomever gets the presidential post.

Enter Amr Moussa, former Mubarak foreign minister and Secretary General of the Arab League. The cigar-smoking Moussa is one of the best known Egyptians on the international scene. Smart, tough and smooth-as-silk, the multi-lingual Moussa has no shortage of financial backers eager to see an experienced professional assume Egypt’s leadership. The deal-making involved with his candidacy includes much behind-the-scenes negotiating with the Coptic Christians and secularist groups. The knock on Moussa is his greatest political strength: He is known as rabidly anti-Israeli — not a bad thing when you’re in Egyptian politics.

Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak’s last prime minister, is said to have strong backing from his old Air Force buddies, but is of course under attack as a Mubarak toady. There are a total of thirteen candidates, including four minor party aspirants. One well-known individual is not running. Mohammed ElBaradei, of longtime IAEA and Nobel Prize fame, has opted out of the process, preferring to create a new party of his own and seek the presidential post in four years. He didn’t have much choice because he earlier had lost his expected moderate Islamist backing.

In the end, however, it will be the heavily American-financed ($1.3 billion) Egyptian military that retains ultimate control of the country. Even the Moslem Brotherhood does not have the strength to override the massive firepower Egypt’s army and security forces can put on the streets any time they want. However, the military’s power also brings to whatever civilian group that wins the presidency a guarantee that they will ensure its existence as long as it does not run counter to the army’s interest in maintaining its predominance. As long as military cohesion exists, the new president and his backers will retain power.

A career in the Army or Air Force has been the stepping-stone for Egyptian political life since Gamel Abdel Nasser. It was often said that “the best and brightest” could be found in Egypt’s young officer corps. One of the reasons, besides anti-dynastic feelings, that Mubarak’s son, Gamal, was not acceptable as his successor was his lack of military credentials. It would appear that while the military is willing to defer to a civilian administration as “the choice of the people,” they have no intention of losing their grip on the security of the country — and ultimately its foreign policy.

All of which brings up the prospect of a newly elected Egyptian government continuing a peaceful relation with Israel. The truth is that neither Egypt’s nor Israel’s leaders really can count on the old 1979 agreements — though Cairo’s military $1.3 billion can be kissed goodbye the moment that status quo is upset!

 

 

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

 

 

About the Author

George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) |

Herb| 5.18.12 @ 7:32AM

Secular one man/one vote/one time dictatorship, backed by the military - the only form of government that seems to work in the Muslim world.

TLP| 5.18.12 @ 8:15AM

a) The Hamas Guy
b) The Hezzbollah Guy
c) The Muslim Brotherhood Guy
d) The Khomenist Guy

Please mark your ballot by making an "X" next to your favourite Candidate, using the Blood of the Infidels, or any of your Daughters that you might have murdered, recently. And, remember that the Polls will close before the Nile Bird flies in to the Sunset, so, if your Wife should die "accidentally" make sure you finish having Sex with her Corpse, before the Polls Close.

Von Mises Jr| 5.18.12 @ 9:49AM

Why don't we just give them Barry along with the $1.3B? Make it a package deal.
He is going to need a new job in 8 months anyway, and he knows little other than tyranny and diktats.

Oldefarte| 5.20.12 @ 10:35AM

Why so cheap?.....hell empty the FOREIGN AID account [it'll be a bargain]!!!!!!!

Jack in Wi.| 5.18.12 @ 9:23AM

There are a couple hundred countries in the world today. It is none of the business of the USA how they are governed. We don't need to give foreign aid to any country. Let these countries pay their own way. Lets let us mind our own business. 100 years of America sticking it's nose overseas has left us broke and the world hating us.

c. j. acworth| 5.18.12 @ 10:01AM

I'm sorry Jack, but I must respectfully disagree. I used to think the same as you, but if 9/11 should've taught us anything it's that we do have to be concerned about who runs the show, in Egypt and even in places like Outer Trashcanistan. Doesn't mean we have warrant to invade or bring about regime change, but it is our business to at least keep tabs on things. Personally, I think we could make do with a lot less military hardware, and spend at least some of the savings on intel. Maybe we wouldn't get caught with our pants down next time.

c. j. acworth| 5.18.12 @ 10:09AM

Oh, and one other thing...DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!

Jack in Wi.| 5.18.12 @ 11:22AM

With all due respect c. j: They came over here because we were over there. Bin Laden is dead, and should have been the total focus. All our interference has brought us is endless war and bankruptcy. WW1 led to WW2 which led to a 50 year Cold War. Now we are in a fanciful war with Islam and the ghosts of Hitler and Stalin. Pat Buchanan was right over 20 years ago when he said Kuwait, run by the corrupt Emir, was not worth one drop of American blood or one one American Dollar. Bring home the troops. End all foreign aid. Let the world run itself. We can't even get this country run right.

One thing we agree on is Drill, Drill, Drill. If we had done that, this country would be a lot richer and more prosperous place.

Vern Crisler| 5.18.12 @ 12:42PM

Typical Paulista claptrap. They hate us because we're over here.

In the Paulista worldview, Lincoln should not have responded when the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter. Nor should have America responded when the Germans kept sinking our ships during WWI.

Remember, it was peace candidate Wilson who saw the writing on the wall finally. You just cannot stand by while your country is being attacked, though I'm sure Paulistas have no problem with that.

Clint| 5.18.12 @ 5:15PM

" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"

William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 3:02PM

'.....When it came to Israel, Buckley’s support may have been a little spotty during the state’s early years — in 1958, responding to what he took to be Israel’s slow response to an American request that U.S. military aircraft be permitted to fly over Israeli territory, he snappishly wrote, “If Internal Revenue started to disallow tax exemption of gifts to the United Jewish Appeal, Israel wouldn’t be able to pay the cable-cost of sassing our State Department” — but certainly by the mid-1960’s he was a consistent champion of the Jewish state, a position he maintained for the remaining four and a half decades of his life, despite occasional differences with Israeli policy.In 1972 Buckley famously proposed that Israel become the 51st American state, pointing out that Jerusalem is no more geographically remote from Washington than Anchorage or Honolulu.The arrangement, Buckley argued, would forever put to rest Israeli security fears: “If Israel becomes a part of the United States, there is no further question of attacking the state of Israel–as well attack the city of Chicago.”
To expedite statehood, Buckley wrote, a “resolution should be introduced in Congress and a national debate should begin. Put me down in favor.”.........'

Vern Crisler | 5.19.12 @ 10:15PM

Bravo!

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 10:55AM

William F.Buckley,
" I will not cede more power to the state. I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors, not to the CIO. I will hoard my power like a miser, resisting every effort to drain it away from me. I will then use my power, as I see fit. I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth. That is a program of sorts, is it not? It is certainly program enough to keep conservatives busy, and liberals at bay. And the nation free. "

DRA2010| 5.20.12 @ 11:03PM

I am hardly a "Paulista", but you need to come up w/better examples for reasons to go to war. The CSA wouldn't have fired on Ft Sumter in the first place except that after Lincoln agreed to remove US troops from Southern soil, he instead reinforced & resupplied them. As for Wilson, despite America's supposed neutrality, he was allowing US ships to illegally ship munitions to Britain (due to contraband explosives aboard, the Lusitania sank after a single torpedo hit, where it later took 13 to sink her sister ship the Mauritania), but wouldn't allow (or protest the British prevention of) the legal shipping of non-contraband food stuffs to the Germans.

While you are correct in saying "You just cannot stand by while your country is being attacked" I can't but wonder about how the various presidents have set up the US to BE attacked. I've already mentioned Lincoln & Wilson - there's also: F. Roosevelt (due to the breaking of both the Japanese naval & diplomatic codes, he knew before their Ambassador to the US when the attack on Pearl Harbour would happen) who was destroying the Japanese economy w/a blockade of Japan; McKinley used the sinking (whether by accident or by action of Cuban rebels) of the USS Maine to declare war on the uninvolved Spain; Polk as part of his belief in "Manifest Destiny", sent US troops into an area claimed (and directly governed) by Mexico. This triggered the 1848 Mexican-American War, in which Mexico was forced the sell California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah to the US for $15M. The list goes on (but this reply is already pretty long). Who has been attacking who?

Oldefarte| 5.18.12 @ 3:30PM

I've told you Paulistas this before but it doesn't stick. It't ain't because WE WERE OVER THERE. It's because THEY RELIGIOUS NUTJOBS AND THEY '''''STUPIDLY''''''FOLLOW THEIR LEADERS PROPAGANDA OFF OF THE CLIFF. Sound familiar? Newsletters anyone? I'll give you this partially, in that we should pack up and get out of there, but I'll disagree in that we should replace our departing soldiers with departing B-52's loaded to the maximum with the largest megaton atomic weapontry available to deliver same to the deserts of these Arab countries as a THANK YOU for the USS Cole, 9/11/01 etc and a WARNING to them to never, ever attempt such things against us again if they wish to exist on this earth[PS for more, see attached Wikipedia insert below]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 5.18.12 @ 5:19PM

" Michael Scheuer, who was the head analyst at the CIA’s bin Laden unit, Alec Station, and authored the books Through Our Enemies Eyes and Imperial Hubris, said “I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World because ‘we’re over there,’ basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate.”

Scheuer also agreed with Dr. Paul’s statement in the debate that the war in Iraq was a diversion from capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and that bin Laden was “delighted” that the U.S. is occupying Iraq as it has become a training ground and recruiting tool for new jihadists joining the movement."

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 2:19PM

[Wikipedia]:
'......In the wake of the Independence of the State of Israel, Senator Taft was a supporter of the new state, and called to lift the arms embargo to the Middle East, and for the shipment of military aid for the new country.[14]...........'

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:12AM

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul."

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 2:49PM

'.....In 2009, Scheuer reported that he had lost his position as a Senior Fellow with the Jamestown Foundation, after "several major financial donors to Jamestown threatened to withdraw funding" if he continued in that role.[17] The funding threats were pursuant to his criticism of Barack Obama's "dancing the Tel Aviv two-step" in allegedly kowtowing to the Israeli lobby, as well as Scheuer's disdaining of Obama's selection as Chief of Staff of Rahm Emanuel, "a U.S. citizen who during the 1991 Gulf War left America to serve in Israel's military."[17]......[T]he crux of my argument is simply that America is in a war with militant Islamists that it cannot avoid; one that it cannot talk or appease its way out of; one in which our irreconcilable Islamist foes will have to be killed, an act which unavoidably will lead to innocent deaths; and one that is motivated in large measure by the impact of U.S. foreign policies in the Islamic world, one of which is unqualified U.S. support for Israel.[20].....'

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 4:13PM

'.....Breitbart.com ....Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee Agree: Civilian Courts for Terrorist by AWR Hawkins 1 day ago Treating terrorism like a crime instead of an act of war is not a good idea, and the public knows it. Thus, when Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to treat it like crime and try KSM in New York, the American people expressed outrage. Everyone except the died-in-the-wool Clinton sycophants knew that Bill Clinton spent his presidency treating terrorism like crime, and what did we get? We got 9/11.
Nevertheless, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, being pushed by Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.), promises to give foreign terrorists held by the U.S. access to civilian courts within the U.S., instead of military tribunals. Moreover, the amendment would not only “implement an unprecedented reversal in longstanding U.S. policy by requiring that terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts… [but] would also allow them to be housed among general inmates in American prisons.”Perhaps the most important thing to note in this legislative discussion is is that Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) support it. If you write a piece of legislation dealing with foreign policy and either of these two titans sign on, you know you’ve made a mistake.
The bottom line: Legal rights for terrorists is never a good idea, for it goes against the grain of common sense and it runs counter to legal precedent and military tradition in this nation. It is also an affront to our brave troops who risk life and limb to capture these combatants and bring them to justice......'

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:17AM

Now, The Rest Of The Story.

" Rep. Ron Paul has joined the next battle over terrorism-detainee rules.

The Texan made a surprise appearance at a House press conference in support of a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization bill, which hits the House floor today, that would ban indefinite and military detention of anyone captured on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship.

“I do not believe a republic can exist if you permit the military to arrest American citizens and put them in secret prisons and be denied a trial,” Paul argued.

The amendment, cosponsored by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., with the support of Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., promises to reopen the decade-long debate over whether to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal civil courts or within the military…

Paul, with just a bit less fire than he showed in this year’s presidential debates, asserted that if 9/11 planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed had been tried the same way the World Trade Center bombing terrorists were tried in 1994, he could have received a death-penalty conviction “10 years ago.”

“The system works; we should not be so intimidated,” Paul said. “This cannot stand.”

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:15AM

Interesting, How The Israel Firster Smear Bund Repeatedly Has Attempted To Smear Up American Military & C.I.A. Patriots,Who Don't Ass Kiss The Israel Firster Agenda.

" Michael F. Scheuer is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies and an Expert at Wikistrat. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004."

Oldefarte| 5.21.12 @ 12:36PM

Interesting how Paulistas and Obamaistas always seem to have the exact same political opinions, huh?????????????

Alan Brooks| 5.19.12 @ 3:54PM

Better to live in Egypt than Afghanistan.

Oldefarte| 5.20.12 @ 10:30AM

Only if you're a member of the Muslim Brotherhood!!!!!!!

POST American| 5.18.12 @ 8:50AM

"The INTER-national banking and Globalism
cabal realized their boy Marx was WRONG
---you CAN'T get rid of religion. They have
NOW decided what the religious component
to the NWO order rollout will be
-----------------------------------------------ISLAM!"
-Informed Radio online

ISLAM! ---which thrives in prisons
and the very word which means ---SIR---RENDER!

ISLAM also provides the model and
spiritual practice framework for
---yu guesed it! ---'MAY--SIN--re'.

'Hidden Masters' --assasins ---intrigue
--black ops ---moving by stealth --enforced
hierarchy --obsession with inbreeding
--selective breeding and bloodlines?
NOWHERE to be found in the christian
legacy! ---ALLLL through ISLAM.

FURTHER

"Over the next decade, as our long, long
debauched Rockefeller churches collapse
in on themselves -----and the normal status
quo looks elsewhere -----expect MASSSSS
conversions to ISLAM. That's from the
Americas to Europe ---and even, perhaps with
time ---RED China."

And, of course, lots and lots of
conflict, turmoil and distraction
along the way. All very lucrative of
course.

What comes when you drop the Law of Moses
for some quick capstone pottage and enmeshment ops.

---tick ---tick ---tick ---tick

SO!--------STILL afraid to have that decades
overdo reckoning with your infiltrated, bought
off, 'on board' church 'leadership'?

-----tick ---tick ---tick ----tick ---tick!

-----------------HUAC beyond Nuremberg 2o12

Oldefarte| 5.18.12 @ 3:17PM

It's being reported today that US military forces are in Yemen assisting the Yemeni government fight Al Quida terrorists in that country. I am asking the simple question of everyone here as to WHY?????? When the USS Cole was attacked by terrorists from this country and 19 of our sailors were killed and 37 were wounded, Clinton sent FBI agents to Yemen to investigate the matter and the following occurred, so again why are we now ASSISTING THE YEMEN GOVERNMENT???????? :

[Wikipedia] '.......U.S. FBI agents sent to Yemen to investigate the bombing in the days following the blast worked in an extremely hostile environment. They were met at the airport by Yemen special forces, "each soldier pointing an AK-47 at the plane." Speakers in the Yemeni parliament "calling for jihad against America," were broadcast on local television each night. After some delay, Yemenis produced a CCTV video from a harborside security camera, but with the crucial moment of the explosion deleted.[16] "There were so many perceived threats that the agents often slept in their clothes and with their weapons at their sides." At one point, the hotel where the agents stayed "was surrounded with men in traditional dress, some in jeeps, all carrying guns." Finally the agents abandoned their hotel to stay at a Navy vessel in the Bay of Aden, but even that was not safe. After being granted "permission from the Yemeni government to fly back to shore," their helicopter "was painted by an SA-7 missile" and "had to take evasive maneuvers".[17]........'

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:27AM

Like The Israeli IDF Attack On Our U.S.S. Liberty, Killing 34 Of Our American Seamen And Wounding Another 174.

Oldefarte| 5.21.12 @ 12:37PM

What are you now.....a PLO agent?????

Clint| 5.18.12 @ 5:26PM

The following passage is an excerpt from Senator Robert Taft’s book, A Foreign Policy for Americans. The book was written in 1951, during the height of the Korean war. Taft, who earned the nickname, “Mr. Republican” was the chief ideologue and acknowledged leader of the conservatism of the Republican party from 1939 to 1953. He led the Conservative Coalition against Roosevelt’s New Deal, believed in a strong national defense, opposed the draft and alcohol prohibition.

“War should never be undertaken or seriously risked except to protect American liberty. Our traditional policy of neutrality and non-interference with other nations was based on the principle that this policy was the best way to avoid disputes with other nations and to maintain the liberty of this country without war. From the days of George Washington that has been the policy of the United States. It has never been isolationism; but it has always avoided alliances and interference in foreign quarrels as a preventive against possible war, and it has always opposed any commitment by the United States, in advance, to take any military action outside of our territory. It would leave us free to interfere or not interfere according to whether we consider the case of sufficiently vital interest to the liberty of this country.”

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 2:16PM

[Wikipedia] :
'.....In the wake of the Independence of the State of Israel, Senator Taft was a supporter of the new state, and called to lift the arms embargo to the Middle East, and for the shipment of military aid for the new country.[14]............'

Oldefarte| 5.19.12 @ 4:13PM

'.....Breitbart.com ....Ron Paul, Sheila Jackson Lee Agree: Civilian Courts for Terrorist by AWR Hawkins 1 day ago Treating terrorism like a crime instead of an act of war is not a good idea, and the public knows it. Thus, when Attorney General Eric Holder wanted to treat it like crime and try KSM in New York, the American people expressed outrage. Everyone except the died-in-the-wool Clinton sycophants knew that Bill Clinton spent his presidency treating terrorism like crime, and what did we get? We got 9/11.
Nevertheless, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, being pushed by Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.), promises to give foreign terrorists held by the U.S. access to civilian courts within the U.S., instead of military tribunals. Moreover, the amendment would not only “implement an unprecedented reversal in longstanding U.S. policy by requiring that terrorists be prosecuted in civilian courts… [but] would also allow them to be housed among general inmates in American prisons.”Perhaps the most important thing to note in this legislative discussion is is that Reps. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) and Ron Paul (R-Texas) support it. If you write a piece of legislation dealing with foreign policy and either of these two titans sign on, you know you’ve made a mistake.
The bottom line: Legal rights for terrorists is never a good idea, for it goes against the grain of common sense and it runs counter to legal precedent and military tradition in this nation. It is also an affront to our brave troops who risk life and limb to capture these combatants and bring them to justice......'

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:21AM

Now, The Rest Of The Story.

" Rep. Ron Paul has joined the next battle over terrorism-detainee rules.

The Texan made a surprise appearance at a House press conference in support of a bipartisan amendment to the defense authorization bill, which hits the House floor today, that would ban indefinite and military detention of anyone captured on U.S. soil, regardless of citizenship.

“I do not believe a republic can exist if you permit the military to arrest American citizens and put them in secret prisons and be denied a trial,” Paul argued.

The amendment, cosponsored by House Armed Services Committee ranking member Adam Smith, D-Wash., and Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., with the support of Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., promises to reopen the decade-long debate over whether to prosecute terrorism suspects in federal civil courts or within the military…

Paul, with just a bit less fire than he showed in this year’s presidential debates, asserted that if 9/11 planner Khalid Sheik Mohammed had been tried the same way the World Trade Center bombing terrorists were tried in 1994, he could have received a death-penalty conviction “10 years ago.”

“The system works; we should not be so intimidated,” Paul said. “This cannot stand.”

Oldefarte| 5.21.12 @ 12:39PM

The 'rest of the story' is simply that you and Father Ron are apparently so far up Old Sheila's arshole, you both could wiggle your ears from her navel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Clint| 5.20.12 @ 11:19AM

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul."

Oldefarte| 5.21.12 @ 12:42PM

Possibly a 'non-intervention' stategy should be to simply load up some B-52's with atomic weaponry and deposit same over the deserts of Iran, Afganistan etc; or to simply loan them to Israel and let them do it instead!!!!!!!

cicero| 5.18.12 @ 9:21PM

Trying to rationalize the Arab Muslim world by western standards is folly. The easy answer would be to allow them to settle their own political differences all by themselves, and keeping them the hell away from us. The only reason we even consider them and their problems is because they sit on a sea of oil. Now that we know that we, plus just about everybody else sits on a sea of oil, our present fixation on the Arab world makes even less sense.
A study, and not even a very intensive study thereof, clearly indicates that their mode of transition of political power involves death, assasination, and violent overthrow of predecesors. Liberal, Jeffersonian democracy is not indicated, nor desired by their culture.
Without Western interest, they will sink back into Islamism, sharia, and 12th century progress. Without Western weaponry, which they have no facility to threaten the west which they don't care to understand. They will present no threat to anybody but their immediate neighbors. What are we doing there?

More Articles by George H. Wittman

More Articles From At Large

Intervention Temptation

June 13, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Korean Déjà Vu

June 11, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Turkey Is Different

June 10, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Religion Living Dangerously

June 6, 2013 | Doug Bandow

Memorial Day in Richmond

May 28, 2013 | G. Tracy Mehan, III

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/05/18/elections-on-the-nile

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|54 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|46 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|31 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|75 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|10 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|18 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|21 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

The Spectacle Blog

James Gandolfini, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 6.19.13

An Alternate History of the Syrian Civil War

John Tabin | 6.19.13

Peter Wehner Responds

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

CBO Gives Ammunition to Immigration Reform Supporters

Jordan Gonzalez | 6.19.13

Obama Addresses Nuclear Reduction, Climate Change

Claire Healey | 6.19.13

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 6.19.13

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 6.19.13

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6.19.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Obama's Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara | 6.19.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

Barack's Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr | 6.19.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

There's Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn | 6.19.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.