AI
Tuesday, July 09, 2013 8:50:16 AM
Taking sides: Inside the Egypt debate .. 3 pages ..
President Obama will find it impossible to avoid making a clear choice. | AP Photo
By JOHN F. HARRIS and ELIZABETH TITUS | 7/8/13 5:02 AM EDT
.. offer an outline of different groups on Egypt .. "The ‘good riddance’ caucus" .. that's clear .. the "Pro-democracy purists" .. "a coup is a coup" .. suggestion is Leahy in hinting review of US aid to Egypt leans to here, and, of course, McCain, who is always, in opposition at least, a black-'n-white 'it's all about democracy' guy .. then there are ..
The Mideast realists
These people aren’t exactly in the “good riddance” caucus, even as their views coincide in important ways. The realists are approaching the Egypt situation less from an ideological perspective than a practical one — how does the United States preserve as much influence as possible in Cairo even while acknowledging that events are largely outside Washington’s control?
Obama has not yet fully shown his hand on Egypt but his statements to date — especially in context of his general approach to the Middle East — strongly suggest that he belongs in this camp. All things being equal, he wants to be on the side of the good guys (while acknowledging that they are hard to identify), but he wants even more to be on the side of whoever can bring calm and regional stability most expeditiously.
The best example of the realist view came from former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on the Foreign Policy website. “It’s Time to Work With Egypt’s Generals,” read the headline on Indyk’s article. He offered broad criticism of the Obama record on Egypt, including what he suggested was the administration’s clumsy moves at the time former dictator and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was evicted from power during the Arab Spring. “We spoke out when we should’ve been working quietly to remove Mubarak; we stayed silent when we should’ve been calling out Morsy on his anti-democratic behavior.”
For all this, the realists are basically trying to back Obama and provide constructive options to him. “President Obama is right to emphasize the need for a non-violent, consensual effort to promote a prompt return to civilian rule, constitutional reform, and a new electoral contest,” Indyk wrote. “But this is not the time for a lengthy White House proclamation about liberal democratic principles. Nobody in Egypt is listening to the nuances of our statements; but all will be quick to judge whose side Obama is taking.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/taking-sides-inside-the-egypt-debate-93806.html
"The jeering section" .. mostly conservatives, yet some from the above camps, too .. "The furrowed-brow crowd" in which they place Nancy Pelosi and lastly the "Catnip for cable" .. Bachmann, Cruz types .. heaps more inside, from more knowledgeable people .. :) ..early night zzz time .. yippee!
President Obama will find it impossible to avoid making a clear choice. | AP Photo
By JOHN F. HARRIS and ELIZABETH TITUS | 7/8/13 5:02 AM EDT
.. offer an outline of different groups on Egypt .. "The ‘good riddance’ caucus" .. that's clear .. the "Pro-democracy purists" .. "a coup is a coup" .. suggestion is Leahy in hinting review of US aid to Egypt leans to here, and, of course, McCain, who is always, in opposition at least, a black-'n-white 'it's all about democracy' guy .. then there are ..
The Mideast realists
These people aren’t exactly in the “good riddance” caucus, even as their views coincide in important ways. The realists are approaching the Egypt situation less from an ideological perspective than a practical one — how does the United States preserve as much influence as possible in Cairo even while acknowledging that events are largely outside Washington’s control?
Obama has not yet fully shown his hand on Egypt but his statements to date — especially in context of his general approach to the Middle East — strongly suggest that he belongs in this camp. All things being equal, he wants to be on the side of the good guys (while acknowledging that they are hard to identify), but he wants even more to be on the side of whoever can bring calm and regional stability most expeditiously.
The best example of the realist view came from former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk on the Foreign Policy website. “It’s Time to Work With Egypt’s Generals,” read the headline on Indyk’s article. He offered broad criticism of the Obama record on Egypt, including what he suggested was the administration’s clumsy moves at the time former dictator and U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak was evicted from power during the Arab Spring. “We spoke out when we should’ve been working quietly to remove Mubarak; we stayed silent when we should’ve been calling out Morsy on his anti-democratic behavior.”
For all this, the realists are basically trying to back Obama and provide constructive options to him. “President Obama is right to emphasize the need for a non-violent, consensual effort to promote a prompt return to civilian rule, constitutional reform, and a new electoral contest,” Indyk wrote. “But this is not the time for a lengthy White House proclamation about liberal democratic principles. Nobody in Egypt is listening to the nuances of our statements; but all will be quick to judge whose side Obama is taking.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/taking-sides-inside-the-egypt-debate-93806.html
"The jeering section" .. mostly conservatives, yet some from the above camps, too .. "The furrowed-brow crowd" in which they place Nancy Pelosi and lastly the "Catnip for cable" .. Bachmann, Cruz types .. heaps more inside, from more knowledgeable people .. :) ..early night zzz time .. yippee!
It was Plato who said, “He, O men, is the wisest, who like Socrates, knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing”
Discover What Traders Are Watching
Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.
