Great news! The dictators will be back in control soon. El-Sisi (Mubarak 2) controls Egypt, and now General Hifter (Khaddafi 2) will control Libya, and if we really want to defeat ISIS, then we should start backing Assad in Syria. Maybe the US will learn that the Middle East is just not ready for multi-tribal democracy. Whenever we "spread democracy", it ends up in one election, one time, and then the winner seizes control and imprisons their opposition.
4
The overarching consideration in U.S. foreign policy is the relationship with Iran, present and future. I believe that the President sees it as a legacy issue, and that he wants to nurse that country into some kind of nuclear accommodation, for better or worse. Since Iran calls more shots in the middle east than many people know, this administration is willing to sacrifice relationships with allies of long standing, including Israel and Egypt. It's difficult to understand how the Times editorial board sees the world: ISIS will not eliminated, Libya will not be stabilized, and the Syrian war will not end until the United States firmly commits itself politically and idealogically to finding solutions which recognize the existential threats posed to countries in the region.
4
No doubt Mr. Sisi understands Milton Friedman even if he might not have read him. Friedman reminded policy makers to "never waste a crisis." ISIS in Libya, provoking Americans to more ill considered action may be a crisis for the poor souls who are in close proximity to the ISIS propaganda machine, but it is for Sisi an unparalleled opportunity for Egypt to capitalize upon the American led destruction of the Libyan government. Libya has 43 trillion cubic feet of gas in its reserves and what a chance this represents for Egypt to horn in on that treasure trove.
The Middle East has degenerated into a scramble by Americas Satraps to exploit America's destruction of legitimate Arab States only to be replaced by inviting power vacuums. The Sunni Rebellion in Syria, and the American destruction of Iraq would be a similar cases in point.
It does appear that the Takfir crazies of ISIS and al Qaeda have a purpose to serve in the minds of Arab dictators and Royal personages. That purpose has nothing to do with the vital interests of the United States in preserving the status quo, but then it was ourselves who destroyed the status quo in the Middle East, upon which we have depended for energy and petrodollar stability, to begin with. What has America been thinking while its Presidents have been on a neocon run amok in the oil patch? How can we have become so detached or dare I say it...so stupid?
The Middle East has degenerated into a scramble by Americas Satraps to exploit America's destruction of legitimate Arab States only to be replaced by inviting power vacuums. The Sunni Rebellion in Syria, and the American destruction of Iraq would be a similar cases in point.
It does appear that the Takfir crazies of ISIS and al Qaeda have a purpose to serve in the minds of Arab dictators and Royal personages. That purpose has nothing to do with the vital interests of the United States in preserving the status quo, but then it was ourselves who destroyed the status quo in the Middle East, upon which we have depended for energy and petrodollar stability, to begin with. What has America been thinking while its Presidents have been on a neocon run amok in the oil patch? How can we have become so detached or dare I say it...so stupid?
1
I am baffled when I read these editorials and this administrations responses to this whole middle eastern explosion. To treat this like a college debate with nuanced arguments is just disingenuous. The entire region has been badly ruled since the before the Ottoman Empire. We half heartedly supported the Arab Spring ( badly named) with the misplaced hope that some type of representative government would evolve -- what evolved was the worst of all worlds-- rivaling the worst that Germany had to offer in the 1930's--all be it without the military and economic power. These thugs and murderers need to be stopped. We shouldn't do it alone, and we may have to partner with some ugly partners to get it done. After all we did partner with that fine upstanding "democratic " ruler Joseph Stalin in WW2. We need less discussion of how to find jobs for young Muslims ( a wonderful goal) and more effort to control / eliminate the crazy's out there. If anyone thinks they are not coming in our direction-- as soon as they can -- you are badly misreading their goals. We need REAL leadership. It is not coming from this government.
7
Another faulty belief that Egypt's actions in Libya will undermine the UN's peace efforts there. Bet ISIS likes that concept.
3
I disagee with this op-ed. ISIS slaughtered Egyptian Christians in Libya, which appears to be a camp ground for terrorists. The Egyptian Army has been more effective against Hamas than Israel has; and has also managed not to be sued for crimes against humanity like Israel has been in international court. The same success should be predicted in Egypt's dispute with terrorists in Libya. El-Sisi came to power with massive public support as Egyptians were tired of the theocracy that the Muslim Brotherhood tried to force on them. He has proved to be firm, but extremely intelligent, Most Egyptians practice Islam sanely, unlike the terrorists in Libya.
Why on earth, as the op-ed states, would this lead the USA into a war in Libya? This is a fight between Egypt and Libya, and exactly what President Obama said he wanted: Arab troops on the ground fighting terrorism. The Egyptians have not, and will not, ask for our help; though they will need our continued already in place financial aid. There is simply no logic behind the assertiion that the US will be dragged into a dispute between two North African neighbors that has NOTHING to do with a threat to our borders.
Why on earth, as the op-ed states, would this lead the USA into a war in Libya? This is a fight between Egypt and Libya, and exactly what President Obama said he wanted: Arab troops on the ground fighting terrorism. The Egyptians have not, and will not, ask for our help; though they will need our continued already in place financial aid. There is simply no logic behind the assertiion that the US will be dragged into a dispute between two North African neighbors that has NOTHING to do with a threat to our borders.
12
I wholeheartedly disagree with this column. This is Egypt's back yard and they are the only power that can bring this conflict to heel and restore order. I support Egypt not only getting involved but sending in troops to reestablish order and create a stable democracy (even if they don't have one at home) in Libya.
16
Just imagine if Egypt had led a ground invasion of Libya to topple Qaddafi in support of the democrats in Benghazi and the west had provided political support and also a check on Egyptian incursion's excesses. More than 1 million Egyptians work in Libya. Egypt has a national interest in ensuring stable and economically viable Libya. But now things are very messy. Yet it would be better if Egypt takes the lead in stabilizing Libya. It will also give that nation a purpose and leadership in Arab world that it deserves. This will be better than the Arab world led by Saudis or Qataris or UAE.
3
Wrong!! We should keep our noses out of Egypt's actions in this matter. They have an explosive situation in a country on their border and just extricated themselves from their own very deep divisions. The issues in Libya could easily jump over the Egyptian border. And why would the Board even begin to suggest that the U.S. "could well be dragged into this fight if Egypt makes wrong choices..". Who are we to suggest we know what the right choices are? We sure haven't made many recently in that part of the world.
7
Egypt is about our only ally that is standing up and actively fighting the terrorists. We should support their efforts.
14
It is appearing more and more the case that nations like Libya will never have peace or security unless ruled by a military backed secular autocracy. There are too many weapons, too many militias and no history of peaceful dialogue and compromise for committees, negotiations or 'unity government' to work.
10
My guess is that the Egyptians, for internal political reasons, felt the need to do this, just like Jordanians did. Libya is another example of what happens when we stick our nose into something we do not understand in the Middle East. Qaddafi must go is easy for our political geniuses to utter. The NYT criticizes Egypt for not thinking things through. How about us?
10
I think Egypt was quite proper in attacking ISIS. What would America do if Mexican drug gangs beheaded a few dozen American tourists?
10
negotiate? with ISIS? who are you kidding?
13
The NYT editorial board really has to spend more time outside its secure urban tower. The UN isn't creating a government of national unity; rather it is culling together an alliance to expel religious terrorists and Egypt is simply the leading edge of this endeavour. There are legitimate reasons for being critical of Mr Sisi but this isn't one of them.
11
Egypt, the most populous Arab nation, after a very brief experiment with civil secular egalitarian democracy, is once again a military dictatorship. Thanks to a military coup led by it's current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. America looked the other way as opposition and dissent were suppressed by arrests, beatings, killings and media censorship culminating in outlawing the Muslim Brotherhood. Only Israel receives more American military aid than Egypt.
Egyptian dictatorship lies at the root of religious extremism and terror in Egypt, the region and the world. From Hassan al- Banna and Sayyid Qutb and the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood to the origins of al Qaeda with Ayman al- Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and lead 9/11/01 hijacker Muhammad Atta Egypt has been a looming threat of civil war and revolution.
Denying the divinely naturally created equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the Arab people is the base cause of violence and turmoil in this region.This threat is magnified by the Sunni Muslim Arab royal theocratic oil autocrat nation state tyrants who are allied with America. Coupled with the Zionist Jewish Israeli occupation, blockade/siege, exile colonial apartheid Jim Crow state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons by another American ally. Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11/01 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
The American invasion and occupation of Iraq has sown a roiling growing blowback whirlwind.
Egyptian dictatorship lies at the root of religious extremism and terror in Egypt, the region and the world. From Hassan al- Banna and Sayyid Qutb and the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood to the origins of al Qaeda with Ayman al- Zawahiri, current head of al Qaeda and lead 9/11/01 hijacker Muhammad Atta Egypt has been a looming threat of civil war and revolution.
Denying the divinely naturally created equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to the Arab people is the base cause of violence and turmoil in this region.This threat is magnified by the Sunni Muslim Arab royal theocratic oil autocrat nation state tyrants who are allied with America. Coupled with the Zionist Jewish Israeli occupation, blockade/siege, exile colonial apartheid Jim Crow state sponsor of terrorism with nuclear weapons by another American ally. Osama bin Laden and 15 of the 9/11/01 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.
The American invasion and occupation of Iraq has sown a roiling growing blowback whirlwind.
4
Even if you subscribe 100% to the theory that the American intervention / invasion of Iraq was 100% wrong-- and I do-- Post war the Iraqi people had a chance to re- start up and run their country with some type of representative government. They failed. Libya failed. Yemen failed, Somalia failed. Syria failed --with almost no "interference" from the US.
We have made plenty of errors here, but we are not to blame for every real or perceived wrong in this part of the world.
We have made plenty of errors here, but we are not to blame for every real or perceived wrong in this part of the world.
4
The Editorial Board of The New York Times is woefully wrong.
Egypt had to act with the full force of its military to avenge the heinous murder of 21 of its citizens by these terrorists. Egyptians -as everyone else- have the absolute right to be protected and avenged if they experience harm.
When Israelis are harmed, much of Gaza is flattened in retaliation. And the US Administration quickly supports its actions saying "Israel had the right to defend itself"...and The New York Times systematically endorses such statements.
What's the difference?
Egypt had to act with the full force of its military to avenge the heinous murder of 21 of its citizens by these terrorists. Egyptians -as everyone else- have the absolute right to be protected and avenged if they experience harm.
When Israelis are harmed, much of Gaza is flattened in retaliation. And the US Administration quickly supports its actions saying "Israel had the right to defend itself"...and The New York Times systematically endorses such statements.
What's the difference?
15
Vengeance? Not a good enough reason for war.
I am disappointewd with the flawed reasoning in this editorial. The NYT supported intervention in Libya to overthrow Qaddafi (I supported that as well). In hindsight, not having "boots on the ground" was a mistake because it resulted in chaos and development of significant terrorist bases. I am surprised that your editorial now expresses concen about disturbing the existing fragile situation!
Allowing a violent terrorist group to kill civilian Copts and other Christians with no response from governments in the Middle East would be very unwise.
What is needed now is to rectify the chaos in Libya through an alliance of the U.S., interested European countries (particularly, France and Italy), and Key Arab allies (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) . These countriaes should support the elected Libyan Government, which incidentally, supported the Egyptian action. I did not mention Turkey or Qatar because it is not clear that they are not tolerant of radical Islamists. The approach I advocate here is what the United States. now, belatedly, trying to do in Syria and Iraq.
I write as an educator who was borne in Egypt and has closely followed , for many years, developments in Egypt and the Middle East.
Allowing a violent terrorist group to kill civilian Copts and other Christians with no response from governments in the Middle East would be very unwise.
What is needed now is to rectify the chaos in Libya through an alliance of the U.S., interested European countries (particularly, France and Italy), and Key Arab allies (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) . These countriaes should support the elected Libyan Government, which incidentally, supported the Egyptian action. I did not mention Turkey or Qatar because it is not clear that they are not tolerant of radical Islamists. The approach I advocate here is what the United States. now, belatedly, trying to do in Syria and Iraq.
I write as an educator who was borne in Egypt and has closely followed , for many years, developments in Egypt and the Middle East.
10
Let's not forget that the US released Gitmo detainees to Qatar. Turkey and Qatar should be excluded from any such alliance.
5
Any consideration of not just "preventing the Islamic State from expanding its presence" in Libya but eliminating that presence? Just asking.
7
I could not agree with you more. The vicious circle of endless violence and mayhem in the Middle East and Maghreb needs to stop. And the only way forward for peace is a negotiated political settlement in Libya as well as in Syria and Yemen. More violence is never a good solution!
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”― Mahatma Gandhi,
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”― Mahatma Gandhi,
4
It seems inconceivable that enough powerful players in the Arab world will get over their petty regional ambitions and unite to deal with a threat that can doom them all. An Arab Union of sorts, modeled after Europe's triumph of peace after millennia of near-constant warfare, is necessary to build lasting peace in the Middle East and North Africa. Without it, we Americans must accept that whatever we do, the Turks will stymie the Egyptians, the Saudis will disrupt the Iranians, and we will again and again be called upon as the unappreciated police of the world to solve their problems.
ISIS is a monster that must be eliminated, but even the full force of the most powerful military in human history will not be enough to solve their many problems of politics and injustice. Aside from our few stable allies like Israel and Jordan which we must protect, we should see little reason to trust these distrustful dictators. We have a Department of Homeland Security for a reason. We can't solve every problem, but we can do our best to stay safe.
ISIS is a monster that must be eliminated, but even the full force of the most powerful military in human history will not be enough to solve their many problems of politics and injustice. Aside from our few stable allies like Israel and Jordan which we must protect, we should see little reason to trust these distrustful dictators. We have a Department of Homeland Security for a reason. We can't solve every problem, but we can do our best to stay safe.
4
FYI, Turkey is not an Arab state. Just so you know.
And imagine a Middle Eastern state doing something without asking US permission!
And imagine a Middle Eastern state doing something without asking US permission!
8
Someone actually doing something about their citizens being murdered? How gauche!
Let's have an Obama, EU, UN and NYT supported political compromise -- like the Israelis and Hamas, with the latter agreeing to only kill half of the Israelis, instead of all of them. Perhaps here, the ISIS wannabees could agree to behead only ten Egyptians per month?
Let's have an Obama, EU, UN and NYT supported political compromise -- like the Israelis and Hamas, with the latter agreeing to only kill half of the Israelis, instead of all of them. Perhaps here, the ISIS wannabees could agree to behead only ten Egyptians per month?
15
Libya is a failed state. Political negotiations will ultimately collapse or what they establish will ultimately fail. ISIS has already planted roots (see beheaded Coptic Christians) in Libya, which is a strategic territory for ISIS - lawless, full of weapons, very close to Europe (export of terror by boat), and next to Egypt. As ISIS draws Egypt into Libya, Egypt will be stretched thin in the Sinai, allowing rampant jihadism to continue to grow (compliments of ISIS, Hamas and others). Egypt is correct in their calls for naval blockades and they should be protected at all costs. See this ISIS document titled Libya - The Strategic Gateway for the Islamic State (recently translated) - http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/publications/fre...
8
Destroy the Salafist and Wahhabi grip on Saudi Arabia and ISIS will shrivel and die.
1
the timing of release of video of ISIS in Libya (if true) will serve & benefit Gen. Hafter , who supported Qaddafi loyalist who used to deal with terrorist like Provisional IRA , Polisario Front, Italian Mafia , Qaeda,... Gaddafi fueled a number of Islamist and communist terrorist groups in the Philippines,as well as paramilitaries in Oceania. He attempted to radicalize New Zealand's Māori people in a failed effort to destabilization the U.S. ally. In Australia, he financed trade unions and some politicians who opposed the ANZUS alliance with the United States, Hafter strong ally in Egypt Ahmed Qaddafi said in famous video 2 weeks ago that ISIS men are young & pure , the ISIS butchers cant stay in Tripoli ,they are in Sirt area which as its original name indicated Deserted place, and it was the place of birth of devil Qaddafi......
1
Al-Sisi called for a "reformation" of Islam on January 1, 2015. He broke bread with Coptic Christians during their Christmas celebration. He kicked the evil and corrupt Muslim Brotherhood out of Egypt. Clearly, their is a bullseye on his back, like Anwar Sadat.
Obama embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. Gave them a front row seat at his 2009 Cairo speech, which was an anti-American screed.
This is why Obama does not embrace al-Sisi, just as he does not embrace Netanyahu. Obama sides with the MB and the Mullahs of Iran. He embraces Iran hegemony.
Obama embraces the Muslim Brotherhood. Gave them a front row seat at his 2009 Cairo speech, which was an anti-American screed.
This is why Obama does not embrace al-Sisi, just as he does not embrace Netanyahu. Obama sides with the MB and the Mullahs of Iran. He embraces Iran hegemony.
17
False information leads to false decisions,no foreign media covering what is happening in Libya , Tripoli government and what is known as Libyan dawn army are not Islamic extremist , they are fighting Qaddafi loyalist who are backed by ISIS media supported by foreign countries,"
We need more information about Libya. The West tends to forget about countries once its own needs are satisfied.
Egypt is the right means to order Libya.
2
"Qatar criticized the Egyptian airstrikes ..."
what?!!!!!! There is something unholy about the governments of Turkey and Qatar.
what?!!!!!! There is something unholy about the governments of Turkey and Qatar.
5
1.6 million Egyptians work in Libya. Egypt depends on the remittances and needs to provide for their security.
I agree with your editorial that Egypt needs to coordinate better with allies or risk isolating itself....but I would encourage your editorial board to dig deeper into the practicalities of the Egypt-Libyan relationship, rather than surf the moral high ground.
I agree with your editorial that Egypt needs to coordinate better with allies or risk isolating itself....but I would encourage your editorial board to dig deeper into the practicalities of the Egypt-Libyan relationship, rather than surf the moral high ground.
7
Let's not make any mistakes here: The US got what it wanted in Libya, basically toppling a dictator (Qaddafi) that were against our interests, divide the country into three as it laid in Greater Middle Eastern and North Africa plan drawn by none others than Neocons (revised by Condi Rice extending original plan of Middle East by including North African Arab states), and leave in chaos, where the new rule of the century is govern through chaos!
There will be more chaos rampant in this region (Greater Middle East and North Africa) for foreseeable future all under the watchful eyes of its architects...
There will be more chaos rampant in this region (Greater Middle East and North Africa) for foreseeable future all under the watchful eyes of its architects...
4
Egypt had no option but to strike a vengeance blow for the gruesome cruel beheading of 21 Egyptian (Coptic Christians). The region still holds feudal concepts of revenge. An eye for an eye etc..
Had El Sisi hesitated he would have risked the ire of the millions of Copts. in Egypt and viewed as a weakling by Egyptians as a whole. To this day funerals are often postponed until the deceased is avenged when grieving mat commence.
Criticism; implying he should not have acted so soon shows how little the West understands the culture of the region. King Abdullah of Jordan did the same. Not a peep from western press then. One man in one plane. A modern Clint Eastwood.
As to delicate peace initiative in Libya; that's a real canard. Tripoli's government is Islamist; more likely to join ISIL then subdue the rest of the country.
Or perhaps the west lead by Obama are still pursuing the divide and conquer policy designed to split the region into easily dominated series of failed states
from which emerge minute patches of easily digestible statelets?!
Had El Sisi hesitated he would have risked the ire of the millions of Copts. in Egypt and viewed as a weakling by Egyptians as a whole. To this day funerals are often postponed until the deceased is avenged when grieving mat commence.
Criticism; implying he should not have acted so soon shows how little the West understands the culture of the region. King Abdullah of Jordan did the same. Not a peep from western press then. One man in one plane. A modern Clint Eastwood.
As to delicate peace initiative in Libya; that's a real canard. Tripoli's government is Islamist; more likely to join ISIL then subdue the rest of the country.
Or perhaps the west lead by Obama are still pursuing the divide and conquer policy designed to split the region into easily dominated series of failed states
from which emerge minute patches of easily digestible statelets?!
5
To mask their helplessness to hold Libya together, the US and the Europeans "reaffirmed" support for the UN's efforts there.
But nobody, outside the NYTimes, thinks the UN's feckless envoys are succeeding at anything in Libya. or that they are capable of being undermined. Quite to the contrary. Egypt's bombs are giving some of those fanatics a reason to desire a solution.
It is pure reflexive hostility to the el-Sisi govt, that makes the gray lady resent Egypt avenging its murdered nationals.
Moreover, that Washington received no "advance[d] warning of the Libya airstrikes" does not mean that those F-16s did not bomb the "camps, training facilities and weapons depots" in Derna shown on US satellite images. How else did they have such apposite targeting information?
Those bombings were necessary and justified, first of all to reassure Egypt's public. Americans needed to quickly see al Qaeda and the Taliban punished, regardless of efficacy, right after 9/11. So too the Jordanians when they saw their pilot burned alive. Furthermore ISIS needs to understand that its savagery exacts a cost.
The US for decades, with the approval of the NY Times, did not respond as terrorist hijacked airliners, kidnapped Americans, exploded Pan Am 193, flattened the Khobar towers, the Marine barracks, the African embassies, and holed the USS Cole. Our restraint got us nothing but ever worse attrocities and finally 9/11.
How well has the NY Times thought through this editorial?
But nobody, outside the NYTimes, thinks the UN's feckless envoys are succeeding at anything in Libya. or that they are capable of being undermined. Quite to the contrary. Egypt's bombs are giving some of those fanatics a reason to desire a solution.
It is pure reflexive hostility to the el-Sisi govt, that makes the gray lady resent Egypt avenging its murdered nationals.
Moreover, that Washington received no "advance[d] warning of the Libya airstrikes" does not mean that those F-16s did not bomb the "camps, training facilities and weapons depots" in Derna shown on US satellite images. How else did they have such apposite targeting information?
Those bombings were necessary and justified, first of all to reassure Egypt's public. Americans needed to quickly see al Qaeda and the Taliban punished, regardless of efficacy, right after 9/11. So too the Jordanians when they saw their pilot burned alive. Furthermore ISIS needs to understand that its savagery exacts a cost.
The US for decades, with the approval of the NY Times, did not respond as terrorist hijacked airliners, kidnapped Americans, exploded Pan Am 193, flattened the Khobar towers, the Marine barracks, the African embassies, and holed the USS Cole. Our restraint got us nothing but ever worse attrocities and finally 9/11.
How well has the NY Times thought through this editorial?
11
1 - The most dangerous action by Egypt, is inaction - let your nationals be killed, with impunity, is very dangerous, ask Mr Obama if our inaction in Libya, post Benghazi, other than locking up a film maker and endorsing blasphemy laws - 'the future does not belong to those who blaspheme'- has made the world, or Libya, safer
2 - Failure to coordinate with the US is the best bet for these people, we are as usual on the wrong side
3 - Mr Obama feels that HE must be coordination with, in Cairo or in Congress, wrong twice
4 - NYT offers that these Egyptian actions jeopardize a fragile anti ISIS coalition - how is that working out in Syria -
4a- Have we armed the Kurds? good anti ISIS there
4b - Syria - we should arm all sides - ISIS on one side, Iran-Syria on the other - we have no better recipe for carnage among our enemies- we squander it
" divide and conquer "
5 - Our enemies know that they have until Jan 21 2017 to make their raids (rassiya?) - before our side stands up to oppose - even God does not know how much mischief our 'war that dare not speak its name' will do, we will learn the hard way
6 - We chatter about local allies - but when we get them we undercut them!!
6 - There is enough endangered oil money and monarchy, that one would expect those endangered to simply hire vast mercenary armies- private security - to settle this
7 - If Libya is about oil money - blow up the oil wells - same plan for Iraq - but we don't - who is being protected
2 - Failure to coordinate with the US is the best bet for these people, we are as usual on the wrong side
3 - Mr Obama feels that HE must be coordination with, in Cairo or in Congress, wrong twice
4 - NYT offers that these Egyptian actions jeopardize a fragile anti ISIS coalition - how is that working out in Syria -
4a- Have we armed the Kurds? good anti ISIS there
4b - Syria - we should arm all sides - ISIS on one side, Iran-Syria on the other - we have no better recipe for carnage among our enemies- we squander it
" divide and conquer "
5 - Our enemies know that they have until Jan 21 2017 to make their raids (rassiya?) - before our side stands up to oppose - even God does not know how much mischief our 'war that dare not speak its name' will do, we will learn the hard way
6 - We chatter about local allies - but when we get them we undercut them!!
6 - There is enough endangered oil money and monarchy, that one would expect those endangered to simply hire vast mercenary armies- private security - to settle this
7 - If Libya is about oil money - blow up the oil wells - same plan for Iraq - but we don't - who is being protected
4
Wow, this is bordering on the absurd, the lengths the NY Times will go to carry water for the Obama Administration.
Libya was a war of CHOICE. Obama's first reaction (to stay out) was the right one, but he was unfortunately convinced by Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power to join in. Now Libya is a massive catastrophe that is quickly transforming into yet another success story for ISIS.
The US decided to become more militarily involved in Iraq/Syria after one American journalist was murdered in cold blood. The Egyptians just had the same thing happen, only this time 21 people had their heads cut off.
It's very hard to fault the Egyptian government for responding to such a depraved act in the country next door when the United States responded with harsher measures for less.
America made a mess in Egypt's backyard...it's no wonder the Egyptians now feel they have to do some cleaning up, because we all know the US isn't going to do it.
Libya was a war of CHOICE. Obama's first reaction (to stay out) was the right one, but he was unfortunately convinced by Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power to join in. Now Libya is a massive catastrophe that is quickly transforming into yet another success story for ISIS.
The US decided to become more militarily involved in Iraq/Syria after one American journalist was murdered in cold blood. The Egyptians just had the same thing happen, only this time 21 people had their heads cut off.
It's very hard to fault the Egyptian government for responding to such a depraved act in the country next door when the United States responded with harsher measures for less.
America made a mess in Egypt's backyard...it's no wonder the Egyptians now feel they have to do some cleaning up, because we all know the US isn't going to do it.
14
1. Obama's regime change in Libya was a terrible idea. I opposed it from the start, as did unfortunately, only 45% of Democrats. It was a Bush league decision much like his decisions in Yemen.
2. Obama's decision to pull the rug on Morsi was a critically bad decision for other reasons, long term reasons. With no moderate Muslim democracies, ISIS will flourish and use the Egyptian democracy coup as evidence that the West and regional oligarchs cannot be trusted.
3. Sisi's bombing of Libya is an absurdity. Sisi has more problems at home. He can't control his own country. Over 50% of his citizens want him dead. This 50% is controls large swaths of Egypt. Sisi's bombings are divisive distractions from his domestic civil war.
I wish we could re-set:
A. Give me a living, breathing Gadaffi governing Libya and fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS (as he was).
B. Support for Assad while he fights al Qaeda and ISIS. (no civil war in Syria)
C. No mass droning of Yemen cost billions and we lost because of it.
D. Give me a Morsi legitimate Democracy in Egypt. Why? So that ISIS, extremists, al-Qaeda and other terrorists can see HOW a moderately conservative Muslim man (one who wears blue jeans yet calls himself the Brotherhood) can become president through an election --- teaching terrorists that there is ANOTHER WAY TO ASSERT YOURSELF.
But, we deposed Morsi, so that is dead.
The mistakes we've made. I stood for all I wrote in equal time, not hindsight. We could have done it right.
2. Obama's decision to pull the rug on Morsi was a critically bad decision for other reasons, long term reasons. With no moderate Muslim democracies, ISIS will flourish and use the Egyptian democracy coup as evidence that the West and regional oligarchs cannot be trusted.
3. Sisi's bombing of Libya is an absurdity. Sisi has more problems at home. He can't control his own country. Over 50% of his citizens want him dead. This 50% is controls large swaths of Egypt. Sisi's bombings are divisive distractions from his domestic civil war.
I wish we could re-set:
A. Give me a living, breathing Gadaffi governing Libya and fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS (as he was).
B. Support for Assad while he fights al Qaeda and ISIS. (no civil war in Syria)
C. No mass droning of Yemen cost billions and we lost because of it.
D. Give me a Morsi legitimate Democracy in Egypt. Why? So that ISIS, extremists, al-Qaeda and other terrorists can see HOW a moderately conservative Muslim man (one who wears blue jeans yet calls himself the Brotherhood) can become president through an election --- teaching terrorists that there is ANOTHER WAY TO ASSERT YOURSELF.
But, we deposed Morsi, so that is dead.
The mistakes we've made. I stood for all I wrote in equal time, not hindsight. We could have done it right.
4
The United States and President Obama have lost all moral credibility with respect to Libya. It urges a compromise between those who seek an authoritarian government that at least recognizes the equality of citizens before the law if not their freedom and those who don't even recognize the equality of citizens before the law but instead seeks to reinstitute dhimmi status for religious minorities. Better no doubt for religious minorities to be treated as third class citizens by the Muslim Brotherhood and other "moderate" Islamists than to have their heads chopped off by ISIS and "radical" Islamists, just as no doubt it was better for Jews to be demoted to third class citizenship by the Nuremburg Laws than to be shot or gassed in the "Final Solution", but third class citizenship is no position the US or other Western countries should be offering support for as a reasonable "compromise". Nor should Turkey as a member of Nato be supporting those who advocate third class citizenship for religious minorities. I suppose the Copts should at least be thankful the US government isn't blaming a Coptic video for their latest troubles
7
In much the same way Putin uses Ukraine as a nationalistic rallying point in Russia, el-Sisi could be using Libya as one in Egypt. It's a period in which secondary powers, that not that long ago wouldn't have dreamt of waxing belligerent without at least a "by your leave" to the U.S., now think nothing of unleashing the F-16s with no such support and for their own parochial reasons unconnected to any broader good.
Some might regard U.S. influence as arrogant. Such people are naive: influence on that scale represents relative global stability, or did once when we exerted it.
Then, there's the other argument. In what Bizzaro, pacifistic world that can't countenance military efforts if they carry the slightest risk of seeing the drawdown of the U.S. military under Barack Obama halted or even temporarily stalled, is Egypt's assault on a murderous force that attacked its people a BAD thing? Because it doesn't conform to some inept, Byzantine U.N. concoction that seeks to isolate ISIS without actually FIGHTING it?
To ALL those who are capable of bloodying the many noses of ISIS, willing to do it and who DO it, I say wayda go. Perhaps a few beheadings or immolations have been averted, and such an outcome would be a blessed one.
Barack Obama beware: the world is rapidly distancing itself from potential but unexpressed U.S. power; and an unchained, selfish world uncontained by SOME force is a very dangerous place for all of us.
Some might regard U.S. influence as arrogant. Such people are naive: influence on that scale represents relative global stability, or did once when we exerted it.
Then, there's the other argument. In what Bizzaro, pacifistic world that can't countenance military efforts if they carry the slightest risk of seeing the drawdown of the U.S. military under Barack Obama halted or even temporarily stalled, is Egypt's assault on a murderous force that attacked its people a BAD thing? Because it doesn't conform to some inept, Byzantine U.N. concoction that seeks to isolate ISIS without actually FIGHTING it?
To ALL those who are capable of bloodying the many noses of ISIS, willing to do it and who DO it, I say wayda go. Perhaps a few beheadings or immolations have been averted, and such an outcome would be a blessed one.
Barack Obama beware: the world is rapidly distancing itself from potential but unexpressed U.S. power; and an unchained, selfish world uncontained by SOME force is a very dangerous place for all of us.
7
Dear NYT Editorial Board,
Do you really believe that the U.N. Will do anything positive in Lybia? Would this be the same U.N. That has Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. as members of its Human Rights Commission?
Egypt has a legitimate interest in Lybia both as a next door neighbour and because of the large number of its citizens working in Lybia. Egypt has a legitimate interest in degrading ISIS as well. It is likely there is a connection between attacks on Egypt in the Sinai and terrorists in Lybia.
As the largest Arab state in the area Egypt would be the most likely source of "Boots on the ground" against ISIS and its growing empire. The current Administration in the U.S. has a non-policy for dealing with ISIS going back several years, that policy is also backed by the NYT. It's well past time for the President to "grow a pair" and develop a policy for defeating ISIS sooner rather than later. Perhaps this raid will help drag the U.S. towards that goal.
Do you really believe that the U.N. Will do anything positive in Lybia? Would this be the same U.N. That has Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E. as members of its Human Rights Commission?
Egypt has a legitimate interest in Lybia both as a next door neighbour and because of the large number of its citizens working in Lybia. Egypt has a legitimate interest in degrading ISIS as well. It is likely there is a connection between attacks on Egypt in the Sinai and terrorists in Lybia.
As the largest Arab state in the area Egypt would be the most likely source of "Boots on the ground" against ISIS and its growing empire. The current Administration in the U.S. has a non-policy for dealing with ISIS going back several years, that policy is also backed by the NYT. It's well past time for the President to "grow a pair" and develop a policy for defeating ISIS sooner rather than later. Perhaps this raid will help drag the U.S. towards that goal.
9
This is a remarkable editorial. Egypt is bordered by a failed state that has been taken over by bands of criminals that have roamed freely in Libya since the US-led bombing of (and swift exit from) that country in 2011. Those criminal elements have now pledged allegiance to the fiendish ISIS/ISIL, as has the terrorist Ansar Bait al Maqdis that has murdered Egyptian soldiers and civilians in Sinai.
The gravity and proximity of the danger to Egypt could not be more clear and immediate. And yet, the Editorial Board finds fault, and urges patience, while the heretofore feckless United Nations brokers a political solution with criminals. The Editorial Board wrongly puts on equal footing with Egypt the nation of Qatar, a known agitator and supporter of terrorism (from a geographically safe distance) (see various Treasury Dept. statements/resources on Qatar's financing of terrorism).
Just this week, David Kirkpatrick reported that an "Islamist" faction in Libya had "carried out its first airstrike." ("Islamist Faction in Libya Now Strikes From the Sky"). Should Egypt wait until terrorists in Libya can execute airstrikes beyond Libya's borders? Perhaps in Egypt?
It is notable that the Editorial Board thinks that Egypt's proposals for UN involvement (internationalization of the Libya crisis) will "further inflame." Since when is bringing a cross-border crisis within the framework of the international system the more dangerous approach?
The gravity and proximity of the danger to Egypt could not be more clear and immediate. And yet, the Editorial Board finds fault, and urges patience, while the heretofore feckless United Nations brokers a political solution with criminals. The Editorial Board wrongly puts on equal footing with Egypt the nation of Qatar, a known agitator and supporter of terrorism (from a geographically safe distance) (see various Treasury Dept. statements/resources on Qatar's financing of terrorism).
Just this week, David Kirkpatrick reported that an "Islamist" faction in Libya had "carried out its first airstrike." ("Islamist Faction in Libya Now Strikes From the Sky"). Should Egypt wait until terrorists in Libya can execute airstrikes beyond Libya's borders? Perhaps in Egypt?
It is notable that the Editorial Board thinks that Egypt's proposals for UN involvement (internationalization of the Libya crisis) will "further inflame." Since when is bringing a cross-border crisis within the framework of the international system the more dangerous approach?
21
A negotiated settlement is inconceivable.
13
First, let's arm Egypt to its eye-teeth.
Then let's invite el-Sisi to address Congress, right alongside Netanyahu.
Then let's invite el-Sisi to address Congress, right alongside Netanyahu.
28
Right on.
1
Since all the player countries and factions are Sunni maybe there is more hope for a negotiated solution than there would be between Sunnis and Shias. This could be our president's chance to fully use his famous reputation for juggling advocates of competing interests.
1
So what is Egypt supposed to do? Wait until ISIS (b)reaches its border? If Libya were Mexico, the U.S. would have bombed or put boots on the ground in 2011, rather than risk its neighbor becoming a playground for expansionist lunatics. In fact, the U.S. would not have bombed, or allowed others to bomb, its neighbor without ensuring that a post-bombing action plan was in place, and then executed.
As to Egypt and other Arab states supporting competing factions, there is a HUGE difference between supporting Libya Dawn (terrorists, backed by Qatar) and General Hiftar (not a terrorist with delusions of empire building, backed by Egypt).
The UN political solution for Libya is a fantasy. With whom is the UN negotiating? Terrorists? I thought the "civilized world" did not negotiate with terrorists. As we know, ISIS and its ilk do not negotiate (Jordanian pilot, Japanese hostages, 21 Egyptians, James Foley, etc.). And where was the UN from 2011-2014 while Libya was metastasizing?
The bottom line is this. If President Sisi was a darling of the West's self-appointed arbiters of political civility, Egypt's airstrikes would have been lauded. But because Sisi responded to the call of 25 million Egyptians to remove the sectarian, cynical, and incompetent Mohammad Morsi from office before he turned Egypt into Afghanistan, El-Sisi's actions will never be judged on merit.
We can be wrong (as the NYT Editorial Board is here), but let's be honest (with ourselves, at least).
As to Egypt and other Arab states supporting competing factions, there is a HUGE difference between supporting Libya Dawn (terrorists, backed by Qatar) and General Hiftar (not a terrorist with delusions of empire building, backed by Egypt).
The UN political solution for Libya is a fantasy. With whom is the UN negotiating? Terrorists? I thought the "civilized world" did not negotiate with terrorists. As we know, ISIS and its ilk do not negotiate (Jordanian pilot, Japanese hostages, 21 Egyptians, James Foley, etc.). And where was the UN from 2011-2014 while Libya was metastasizing?
The bottom line is this. If President Sisi was a darling of the West's self-appointed arbiters of political civility, Egypt's airstrikes would have been lauded. But because Sisi responded to the call of 25 million Egyptians to remove the sectarian, cynical, and incompetent Mohammad Morsi from office before he turned Egypt into Afghanistan, El-Sisi's actions will never be judged on merit.
We can be wrong (as the NYT Editorial Board is here), but let's be honest (with ourselves, at least).
46
You are the New York Times. You might want to get in the game instead of being a bystander in international news.
You know the original intel was false. Follow the trail.
You know the original intel was false. Follow the trail.
3
It would perhaps better behoove the US and the West to rein in its allies Turkey and Qatar who "reportedly" back the coalition of Islamic extremists known as Libya Dawn.
For some reason the US is not capable of understanding the difference between a long-distance threat and one right next door at one's neighbors or within one's own territory.
Let the US imagine that ISIS was not in Syria or Iraq or Libya but in Canada and/or Mexico. How would it act then? Like Egypt perhaps?
Cuba was for decades a minor threat to the US if at all, yet the US magnified the dangers a hundred-fold and reacted accordingly in a Monroe doctrine fashion.
Libya is Egypt's backyard and those 25 Coptic Christian were Egyptian citizens.
For some reason the US is not capable of understanding the difference between a long-distance threat and one right next door at one's neighbors or within one's own territory.
Let the US imagine that ISIS was not in Syria or Iraq or Libya but in Canada and/or Mexico. How would it act then? Like Egypt perhaps?
Cuba was for decades a minor threat to the US if at all, yet the US magnified the dangers a hundred-fold and reacted accordingly in a Monroe doctrine fashion.
Libya is Egypt's backyard and those 25 Coptic Christian were Egyptian citizens.
45
The proposals set forth in this editorial are idealistic at best and from a practical perspective, downright foolish.
There is no nation of Libya. It fell apart. All that is left is lines on a map and a bunch of people fighting overs what lies between them.
The territory of what once was Libya is undergoing a proxy war with ISIS in the middle of it. None of these factions is interested in negotiating with anyone or anything. The United Nations is a toothless tiger that has been unable to broker peace anywhere in the region. Egypt cannot place any faith in any kind of UN brokered deal. They understand that and we should too.
There is no diplomatic choice for Egypt. There are no rational actors in the conflict that will respond to diplomacy. This is the Middle East, not British Parliament. The only thing that gets results is the point of a gun.
Egypt has a responsibility to protect its citizens. It has a large, US funded military. Their tanks rolled against unarmed protesters. They need to roll against ISIS.
Egypt has no choice but to get involved. They must get involved. We should help them get involved. When the barbarians are at the gate, you do what you have to do.
There is no nation of Libya. It fell apart. All that is left is lines on a map and a bunch of people fighting overs what lies between them.
The territory of what once was Libya is undergoing a proxy war with ISIS in the middle of it. None of these factions is interested in negotiating with anyone or anything. The United Nations is a toothless tiger that has been unable to broker peace anywhere in the region. Egypt cannot place any faith in any kind of UN brokered deal. They understand that and we should too.
There is no diplomatic choice for Egypt. There are no rational actors in the conflict that will respond to diplomacy. This is the Middle East, not British Parliament. The only thing that gets results is the point of a gun.
Egypt has a responsibility to protect its citizens. It has a large, US funded military. Their tanks rolled against unarmed protesters. They need to roll against ISIS.
Egypt has no choice but to get involved. They must get involved. We should help them get involved. When the barbarians are at the gate, you do what you have to do.
30
"Egypt’s Crisis Across the Border With Libya"
The crisis doesn't belong to Egypt. Obama and NATO own it. I wonder if Google Earth has any chance of showing all of those lines in the sand.
The crisis doesn't belong to Egypt. Obama and NATO own it. I wonder if Google Earth has any chance of showing all of those lines in the sand.
6
Libya is another Afghanistan and Iraq in the making. It's easy to get rid of bad leadership, but governing, is another job.
3
"Rather than fueling divisions, Mr. Sisi and other regional leaders should be working together to reinforce the United Nations negotiation initiative, which aims to create a government of national unity that can tackle the Islamic State and other problems".
Except for relief operation in Africa, the United States has miserably failed in bringing about any negotiated settlement in any country facing uprising from their people. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain and Ukraine comes to one's mind. Instead of banking on UN, the United States should take support from UK, France, Germany, India, Turkey and Egypt to form a coalition force to deal with worsening situations in Syria & Iraq before the situation in these countries gets out of hand.
Except for relief operation in Africa, the United States has miserably failed in bringing about any negotiated settlement in any country facing uprising from their people. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Bahrain and Ukraine comes to one's mind. Instead of banking on UN, the United States should take support from UK, France, Germany, India, Turkey and Egypt to form a coalition force to deal with worsening situations in Syria & Iraq before the situation in these countries gets out of hand.
4
Egypt is dealing with a situation in Libya that was created by the United States and it European allies. Libya is the poster child for everything that is wrong with the Obama Administration's overly nuanced, leading-from-behind strategy. Twenty-one Egyptian Copts are slaughtered and the Times and the Administration are worried about a "fragile United Nations peace effort." While the Administration dithers over politically correct abstract concepts, real people are dying, and bad actors--Russia, Iran, and the Islamic State--are steadfastly advancing their agendas. The suffering in the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, is of Biblical proportions. It is morally obscene that an American Administration is more concerned with having an academic discussions over "root causes" than it is about confronting evil. I am tempted to compare Obama to Neville Chamberlain, but I am convinced that such a comparison would be unfair to Chamberlain. This is what the peace of appeasement and passivity looks like, unimaginable human suffering.
The Administration insists that while the Islamic State is a serious threat to the security of the Middle East and the West, it must be the Arab and Muslim nations of the region that take the lead in this fight, but when Egypt does just that, the Obama Administration finds an excuse not to support this much needed attack on the greatest evil of our day.
The Administration insists that while the Islamic State is a serious threat to the security of the Middle East and the West, it must be the Arab and Muslim nations of the region that take the lead in this fight, but when Egypt does just that, the Obama Administration finds an excuse not to support this much needed attack on the greatest evil of our day.
10
The NYT thinking is as muddled as the "great thinkers" of the neocon foundations. This seems simple. Egypt attacks the Islamists.
The US is whining because it lacked knowledge (and presumably "approval") of military action in the ME, ignoring Egypt's own perceived national interests?
Another "ally" Qatar supports "terrorists"--I thought the "plan" was to kill the funders of terrorism. Another simple equation. Yet, nothing. Where was the US when this went down?
The US has no policy in the ME except perpetual war. Sort 'em out later.
The US is whining because it lacked knowledge (and presumably "approval") of military action in the ME, ignoring Egypt's own perceived national interests?
Another "ally" Qatar supports "terrorists"--I thought the "plan" was to kill the funders of terrorism. Another simple equation. Yet, nothing. Where was the US when this went down?
The US has no policy in the ME except perpetual war. Sort 'em out later.
7
Regarding thinking through the response;
Did the Bush administration think through the response of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam?
Did the Obama administration think through the response of air strikes in Libya against the Gaddafi's regime?
Both administration's created a mess and left a mess, with absolutely no plan,in either country, for a post regime transition. And tragically, both populations are worse off because of our actions then they were under dictatorships.
We should stay out of the imposing democracy business.
Did the Bush administration think through the response of invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam?
Did the Obama administration think through the response of air strikes in Libya against the Gaddafi's regime?
Both administration's created a mess and left a mess, with absolutely no plan,in either country, for a post regime transition. And tragically, both populations are worse off because of our actions then they were under dictatorships.
We should stay out of the imposing democracy business.
9
The UN peace initiative is fragile, which I suspect is a nice way of saying in the long it will come to nothing.
We created this mess in Libya and I suspect bombing the terrorist will be the only way to end it. We certainly don't want boots on the ground and that in effect leaves only drone and bombers. So BOMBS AWAY.
I am not sure Libya can be stabilized until we find another dictator to run the country. I doubt if this country lends itself to any form of democratic government so stop pretending it can be a democracy. We need to find and support a dictator while we bomb.
We created this mess in Libya and I suspect bombing the terrorist will be the only way to end it. We certainly don't want boots on the ground and that in effect leaves only drone and bombers. So BOMBS AWAY.
I am not sure Libya can be stabilized until we find another dictator to run the country. I doubt if this country lends itself to any form of democratic government so stop pretending it can be a democracy. We need to find and support a dictator while we bomb.
7
United Nations? That flaccid, impotent den of criminals? Marginalized? Really?
13
Let Egypt do what they need to do. These jihadists are on their very border.
19
I applaud and thank el-Sisi for attacking the evil butchers in Libya. It's only been a few years since Obama and Hillary bombed out Qaddafi which directly led to the anarchy in Libya. Qaddafi was a tyrant, but he was an angel compared to the ISIS thugs who brutally beheaded the 21 Christians. If Obama was motivated to take out Qaddafi, why isn't he motivated to take out a much greater evil that's in Libya now?
Egypt is fighting an evil and malignant force in Libya. We should back, encourage and support Egypt in their fight.
Egypt is fighting an evil and malignant force in Libya. We should back, encourage and support Egypt in their fight.
30
Increasingly, we see two U.S. allies, Qatar & Turkey, supporting Islamist groups throughout the Middle East. It is well known that they favored Egypt’s previous Muslim Brotherhood government led by President Morsi, who was deposed by current President el-Sisi.
With Egypt taking on ISIS in Libya and Jordan taking on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it appears like the battle lines are being drawn in the Middle East – these nations are clearly with us in the fight to decimate and defeat ISIS. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to vacillate about ISIS, as it is more concerned about Iran’s increasing influence in the region.
We might be looking at a paradigm shift in the geopolitics and power structures in the Middle East, which hinge on the outcome of the P5+1 talks with Iran on its nuclear program. A successful deal that strips Iran of its nuclear weapons potential might keep Qatar, Saudi Arabia & Turkey (Q, S & T) in the U.S. fold and they could eventually abandon support for ISIS. However, if the P5+1 talks fail, Q, S & T will view and use ISIS (albeit, through continued backdoor support) as a proxy to deter and destabilize a likely nuclear-armed Iran.
ISIS is but a pawn in the great Sunni-Shia chess match going on in the Middle East. If Iran can be checked and its influence kept out of Arab lands, then Q, S & T support for ISIS will not be necessary and it will degrade rapidly. So Egypt might want to hold its powder dry for a few more weeks until the outcome of P5+1 is known.
With Egypt taking on ISIS in Libya and Jordan taking on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, it appears like the battle lines are being drawn in the Middle East – these nations are clearly with us in the fight to decimate and defeat ISIS. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia continues to vacillate about ISIS, as it is more concerned about Iran’s increasing influence in the region.
We might be looking at a paradigm shift in the geopolitics and power structures in the Middle East, which hinge on the outcome of the P5+1 talks with Iran on its nuclear program. A successful deal that strips Iran of its nuclear weapons potential might keep Qatar, Saudi Arabia & Turkey (Q, S & T) in the U.S. fold and they could eventually abandon support for ISIS. However, if the P5+1 talks fail, Q, S & T will view and use ISIS (albeit, through continued backdoor support) as a proxy to deter and destabilize a likely nuclear-armed Iran.
ISIS is but a pawn in the great Sunni-Shia chess match going on in the Middle East. If Iran can be checked and its influence kept out of Arab lands, then Q, S & T support for ISIS will not be necessary and it will degrade rapidly. So Egypt might want to hold its powder dry for a few more weeks until the outcome of P5+1 is known.
8
Anyone who thinks there is the remotest possibility of a negotiated settlement between the forces of Libyan Gen. Khalifa Hifter & the Islamist "Libyan Dawn" coalition is quite looney. And why we would want one anyway? Why not let Gen. Hifter and Mr. Sisi of Egypt deal with the Islamists? There won't be peace in Libya until a "strongman" restores order, by whatever means necessary. Absolutely no one wants the death & destruction this will entail but, practically speaking, it's the only way some semblance of civil society will be restored.
It seems pretty clear that our Western conception of democracy is not a viable option in the Middle East in the foreseeable future. Whether it be the Bush-led Iraq fiasco or the Obama-supported Libyan "Arab Spring", the results have been disastrous. The more we try to meddle, no matter how well-meaning our motives, the worse we make things. The West inadvertently made a mess in Libya and, if we were being realistic, we'd admit we have no way of fixing it. Let Hifter & Sisi have at it, not because it's a good option, but because it's the only option.
It seems pretty clear that our Western conception of democracy is not a viable option in the Middle East in the foreseeable future. Whether it be the Bush-led Iraq fiasco or the Obama-supported Libyan "Arab Spring", the results have been disastrous. The more we try to meddle, no matter how well-meaning our motives, the worse we make things. The West inadvertently made a mess in Libya and, if we were being realistic, we'd admit we have no way of fixing it. Let Hifter & Sisi have at it, not because it's a good option, but because it's the only option.
43
What Egypt did was right for Egypt, and it was right for the internationally recognized government of Al-Thinny, which coordinated with the Egyptian government and practically begged for help because the U.S. and the international community left it like a sitting duck between Islamists in the east, and Islamists in the west.
It is Libya (the legitimate prime minister) that requested lifting the arms embargo so that they can protect themselves against this paid mercenaries shipped in for foreign lands. Why would you refuse to arm the legitimate government forces when Turkey and Qatar are arming all the murderous extremists there?
The U.S. while expressing a somewhat shy public support is undermining the president of Egypt for reasons that have been known to us since the Muslim Brotherhood was tossed out for incompetence, exclusion, and conspiring with Turkey, Qatar, and Hamas for the benefit of certain colonial powers that shall remain anonymous for now.
When we lost 2-3 Americans in Syria to Daaesh we formed a coalition of 80 plus countries for air bombing. But when Egypt loses 21 Christians in one day, and responds and invites coalitions then Egypt is met with a cold shoulder and told that only a political solution will work in Libya. Solution by who and with whom? Do we now want to practice diplomacy with ISIS, or Boko Haram, or Ansar-bayt-almaqdis or Al-Qaeda? Come one guys, enough with the hypocrisy. It's time for the truth to be known
It is Libya (the legitimate prime minister) that requested lifting the arms embargo so that they can protect themselves against this paid mercenaries shipped in for foreign lands. Why would you refuse to arm the legitimate government forces when Turkey and Qatar are arming all the murderous extremists there?
The U.S. while expressing a somewhat shy public support is undermining the president of Egypt for reasons that have been known to us since the Muslim Brotherhood was tossed out for incompetence, exclusion, and conspiring with Turkey, Qatar, and Hamas for the benefit of certain colonial powers that shall remain anonymous for now.
When we lost 2-3 Americans in Syria to Daaesh we formed a coalition of 80 plus countries for air bombing. But when Egypt loses 21 Christians in one day, and responds and invites coalitions then Egypt is met with a cold shoulder and told that only a political solution will work in Libya. Solution by who and with whom? Do we now want to practice diplomacy with ISIS, or Boko Haram, or Ansar-bayt-almaqdis or Al-Qaeda? Come one guys, enough with the hypocrisy. It's time for the truth to be known
47
I question the assumption that the US should or would necessarily be dragged into a worsening situation in Libya. For one thing it is difficult to see how the situation could get much worse than it is. For another thing it is really hard to see how American involvement could help a situation as complicated and out of control as Libya or Syria or Egypt for that matter. That being said, I wouldn't assume that our nation's top military and political leadership has the sense to know what is or isn't beyond their ability to control. The real problem in all these situations is one that is not solved through any amount of military superiority. It is the problem of what and how people think. And unless some headway can be made in that area, there will be no way of avoiding the misery that is produced by passion driven people who lack the ability to think strait.
3
Turkiye under Erdogan should be expelled from NATO and no longer receive foreign or military aid from the US.
It's bad enough they allowed every jihadi wanna be to transit their territory on the way to joining ISIS. Turkiye follows that by buying stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil from ISIS. Now they are backing Libya Dawn.
EU membership?
Only in Sultan Erdogan's delusions.
It's bad enough they allowed every jihadi wanna be to transit their territory on the way to joining ISIS. Turkiye follows that by buying stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil from ISIS. Now they are backing Libya Dawn.
EU membership?
Only in Sultan Erdogan's delusions.
8
The appeasement of this administration and this newspaper know no bounds.
21
Egypt's response was right. It is time to hold ISIS accountable.
22
1. The GCC backpedaled on their comments, releasing a statement throwing their full support to Egyptian military action in Libya: http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/655049
2. If the NYT is going to write about Libya, you could spare 2 sentences to explain the situation on the ground and the players involved: the Islamist parliament suffered heavy losses to secular parties in internationally monitored elections in 2014. Rather than concede defeat, they clung to power, seizing Tripoli by force and forcing the internationally-recognized government to the eastern city of Tobruk. (2nd and 3rd paragraphs here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/-sp-briefing-war-in-libya)
3. In the resulting chaos and security vacuum, ISIS have sprung up in the Islamist parliament's controlled and formerly controlled territory (the 21 Egyptian Christians were killed in Tripoli)
4. General Haftar has been fighting Ansar Sharia. You know. The people who killed US Ambassador Christopher Stephens: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/11/un_designates_ansar.php
5. Egypt and the UAE have been supporting the internationally recognized, secular government in the east, along with Haftar.
6. Egypt requested an arms embargo on the Islamists in Tripoli, and to give arms to the legitimate and secular government, who is fighting Islamists on three fronts: Ansar Sharia in Benghazi, the Islamist rebels in Tripoli, and ISIS in Derna
7. I'd be surprised if this gets published.
2. If the NYT is going to write about Libya, you could spare 2 sentences to explain the situation on the ground and the players involved: the Islamist parliament suffered heavy losses to secular parties in internationally monitored elections in 2014. Rather than concede defeat, they clung to power, seizing Tripoli by force and forcing the internationally-recognized government to the eastern city of Tobruk. (2nd and 3rd paragraphs here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/-sp-briefing-war-in-libya)
3. In the resulting chaos and security vacuum, ISIS have sprung up in the Islamist parliament's controlled and formerly controlled territory (the 21 Egyptian Christians were killed in Tripoli)
4. General Haftar has been fighting Ansar Sharia. You know. The people who killed US Ambassador Christopher Stephens: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/11/un_designates_ansar.php
5. Egypt and the UAE have been supporting the internationally recognized, secular government in the east, along with Haftar.
6. Egypt requested an arms embargo on the Islamists in Tripoli, and to give arms to the legitimate and secular government, who is fighting Islamists on three fronts: Ansar Sharia in Benghazi, the Islamist rebels in Tripoli, and ISIS in Derna
7. I'd be surprised if this gets published.
18
What ever happened to the Arab League? ISIS is going to fester for a long time as the Arab nations are not adept at what is required to take ISIS out. But is not going to happen. You think these psychopaths would hesitate for one second to use a dirty bomb? This is a big problem for the west.
1
I just listened to Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry address this topic on the Charlie Rose show. He struck me as an extremely articulate politician with, needless to ssay, a thorough knowledge of global politics. Being an outside spectator to Middle East events, it seems that relatively secure countries such as Egypt, which has withstood two internal revolutions, will be a key ally to the U.S. in the war on terror. Egypt is supporting Libyan general Khalifa Haftar, to wipe out Islamist militias in Tripoli and Benghazi.
On PBS there was a story about the plight of the Yazidi women who were kidnapped by ISIS and raped and beaten. ISIS threatened them that if they tried to escape, they would be sold into sexual slavery. The so-called, "religious fanatics," gave the girls guns to commit suicide and then laughed when they tried and there were no bullets. It was truly heartbreaking in scope. I believe these people are gang members pretending to be religious and just using the religion of Islam to spread their unique brand of greed, cruelty and domination in the region.
Since Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have actively supported these terrorists, it appears, from a layperson's perspective that Egypt has the military might to seek to assist Libyan leaders in destroying these terrorists in Libya. If there is nothing done in Libya, they will easily be able to move on to Italy in their fanatical mission to destroy the Pope and everything sacred to the West.
On PBS there was a story about the plight of the Yazidi women who were kidnapped by ISIS and raped and beaten. ISIS threatened them that if they tried to escape, they would be sold into sexual slavery. The so-called, "religious fanatics," gave the girls guns to commit suicide and then laughed when they tried and there were no bullets. It was truly heartbreaking in scope. I believe these people are gang members pretending to be religious and just using the religion of Islam to spread their unique brand of greed, cruelty and domination in the region.
Since Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have actively supported these terrorists, it appears, from a layperson's perspective that Egypt has the military might to seek to assist Libyan leaders in destroying these terrorists in Libya. If there is nothing done in Libya, they will easily be able to move on to Italy in their fanatical mission to destroy the Pope and everything sacred to the West.
6
What in the world do you people know about what Egypt should do? Have any of you done anything in your lives outside of twiddling your thumbs?
6
Exactly! I thought the people opposed to more U.S. involvement against ISIS wanted "the Arabs" to "take care of their own neighborhood." Well, isn't that what Egypt has done?
5
Egypt and Jordan recognize the threat from Islamic extremists and are responding to the muder of its citizens with force, rather than with words.
Libya is a mess because of our encouragement and outright removal of strong leaders during the Arab Spring, including Khadafi and Mubarak. It's a good thing Sisi came back or Egypt would look like Libya and Yemen. People in the region understand and are combatting the threat of ISIS, rather than giving laughable lectures about root causes.
Libya is a mess because of our encouragement and outright removal of strong leaders during the Arab Spring, including Khadafi and Mubarak. It's a good thing Sisi came back or Egypt would look like Libya and Yemen. People in the region understand and are combatting the threat of ISIS, rather than giving laughable lectures about root causes.
8
And just who helped to create "the country's unraveling and widening violence"? And so now Egypt is expected to seek approval for retaliating against these fanatics from the very people who thrust this once relatively stable region into sheer chaos? They should seek permission to defend themselves from those people who helped to overthrow their own President and then force the Muslim Brotherhood down their throats? Talk about chutzpah.......
I am glad to see that someone is finally taking bold steps to stand up to these sub human thugs who revel in beheadings and burning people alive. We need more leaders like Sisi and the King of Jordan who recognize the threat and are willing to put their own lives on the line to defend against this onslaught.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here at home before it is too late.
I am glad to see that someone is finally taking bold steps to stand up to these sub human thugs who revel in beheadings and burning people alive. We need more leaders like Sisi and the King of Jordan who recognize the threat and are willing to put their own lives on the line to defend against this onslaught.
Maybe there is a lesson to be learned here at home before it is too late.
14
The United Nations? What have they done lately that has had any impact in stopping the terror? Libya is beyond a 'negotiated solution' now, just like Syria is and was. The other idea floated in the past few days is a UN presence in Ukraine. Another silly idea. Best Egypt just occupy the country, and do it alone. Think of it as a 'jobs' program for Egyptians, something that O would love. Who will pay? The Gulf States, of course. We here in the US are top out for now.
4
I applaud the Egyptian government for acting quickly to counter ISIS' brutality. Egypt's government and people are by no means perfect - it's an extremely homophobic society and, as in many Muslim-majority countries, a majority of people there say that anyone leaving the Muslim faith should be put to death (source: Washington Post and The Pew Research Center; happy to provide the links if asked) - but their willingness to act decisively, without undue dithering, to combat violent Islamists, is an example of how the entire world should respond to this growing menace. Shame on the this editorial board for suggesting that Egypt doesn't have a right to defend itself and to take sides against violent Islamic extremism in a neighboring country. PS I'm a liberal Democrat...
9
So, might this be a good reason to stop sending them money?
Who cares if ISIS is destroyed? The fact that Egypt, Jordan and a few other Muslim dominated countries finally recognize that ISIS is a significant threat to them as well as every western nation is proof enough that eliminating ISIS is in all our best interests.
5
It's time to listen and support the peace initiative by Algeria in order to win this war of Muslims against terrorism.
why don't we let Egypt decide want it wants to do?
7
I could never imagine I would be saying this, but let's resurrect Saddam Hussain and Muhammad Qaddafi. They were the lesser of the two evils. At least they did not use butcher's knives or even if they did it was not on camera and were relatively few and far between ( relative being the operative word ). There I said it and am ready for the lampoon.
7
The irony is that Egypt faces the exact same dilemma that the U.S. does in Syria. There, too, there is a proxy war going on, in this case, it's between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Until these Middle East countries end their support for rebel factions, all attempts to end the ISIS-fueled conflicts in the region will elude both military and political solutions. The U.S has shown no willingness to confront Saudi Arabia, the home of "radical Islam" in the form of its medieval state religion Wahhabism and the birth place of al Qaeda and its successor, ISIS. In fact, the Saudis have been demanding the U.S. side with them in overthrowing the Assad regime in Syria while they dump cheap oil to undermine our fracking industry that may allow us to be free of dependence on their oil.
5
"said they would hold accountable “those who seek to impede this process.”"
Yeh yeah, sure they will.
Yeh yeah, sure they will.
18