E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Zac Baillie / AFP - Getty Images
A Syrian rebel covers a fellow fighter carrying the body of his brother, killed during a battle in the Saif al-Dawla district of Syria's northern city of Aleppo, amid heavy street fighting between opposition and government forces on August 29, 2012.
ISTANBUL — I called an old friend the other day, dialing the number somewhat sheepishly. He’s a senior adviser to the Iraq government and I knew what to expect when he answered.
First, he reprimanded me for not calling enough and hardly visiting. I’ve been away too long. You can’t do that, not to your friends. What’s so difficult about calling? he asked.
I apologized, asked about his children, his health, if he’s having success in quitting smoking, and offered the only excuse I could think of: "I’ve been busy with the Arab Spring."
"The Arab Spring?" he said. "What’s that? There’s no Arab Spring anymore. That’s over. It is now a big struggle for power."
He may have been acting like an insistent grandmother, but he was right. The Arab Spring is over. The days of the protesters with laptops and BlackBerrys in Tahrir Square are long gone.
Instead, a much bigger struggle is underway, one that goes back centuries that is both a regional battle for dominance and an epic tug of war between Sunnis and Shiites for control of the Middle East and the Prophet Muhammad's legacy.
The front line is now in Syria, where the United Nations says more than 20,000 people have been killed since pro-democracy protests started in March 2011.
But it goes back, at least in very modern history, at least to Iraq — and America shares a large part of the responsibility for reopening this Pandora’s Box.
Roots in Iraq
A major factor in the rise of the present struggle came when American troops invaded Iraq in 2003, thus pitting Sunnis against their rival Shiites, who many Sunnis think are effectively infidels who turned against Islamic leaders about 1,400 years ago and have been on the wrong side of Allah’s path since then.
For decades, Saddam and his Sunni minority had imposed their will on Iraq, carrying on a 14-century tradition of Sunnis controlling Mesopotamia despite a Shiite majority. Not surprisingly, in most Sunni regions there has little appetite for free U.S.-sponsored elections. They knew they would end up being ruled by their enemies.
And that’s what happened. Essentially, the lasting legacy of America’s involvement in Iraq is an Iranian-allied Shiite government that also happens to be one of the most corrupt on the planet. (Iran is the biggest and most powerful Shiite-majority nation.)
Reuters
Iran's religious breakdown by Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Iran is 89 percent Shiite Muslim and approximately 10 percent Sunni. But the rest of the region is predominately Sunni Muslim. There are more than 1 billion Sunnis worldwide, making up 87-90 percent of the global Muslim population. Click on the map to see a larger version.
The Shiites were, of course, delighted. I remember the moment U.S. troops left their last base in southern Iraq in December 2011. The Iraqis changed its name as the Americans rolled out the gate. It had been called Camp Adder; the Iraqis renamed it 'the Imam Ali base,' after the patriarch of Shiite Islam.
The Shiites — in both Iraq and Iran — won, and won big.
President George W. Bush, in his now-rare public appearances and interviews, still refuses to acknowledge he did anything to help Iran. But it doesn’t really matter what he thinks. The 200 million people in the Middle East understand that there is a new reality — and that’s what they are battling about now.
Iraqi Sunnis are still seething — and sometimes fighting — in their stronghold cities of Ramadi and Fallujah. They can’t accept what they consider the tragedy that has befallen their community and don’t understand even now why Washington sent troops across the Atlantic and Indian oceans to help Iran expand a buffer zone beyond its borders.
Enter al-Qaida, a radical Sunni group
Back in the Iraq war days, al-Qaida, a radical Sunni group, saw an opportunity to expand. Al-Qaida militants flowed to Iraq to help fellow Sunnis fight Iran, Shiites and the Americans who were propping them up. But al-Qaida got more than it bargained for. The U.S. troops were tougher than al-Qaida expected. American forces learned guerilla tactics in Iraq. They built bigger, stronger vehicles to defeat car bombs and IEDs. U.S. troops, much to al-Qaida surprise and dismay, moved at night, dropped men from helicopters like spiders and blasted militant safe houses into kindling.
Al-Qaida made another mistake too. It misbehaved in Iraq and abused its hosts, fellow Sunni tribesmen. Al-Qaida forgot it was a guest and abandoned its manners. Al-Qaida killed Sunni tribesmen because they weren’t fundamentalist enough. The wild-eyed militants flogged Sunnis in Ramadi and Fallujah for minor infractions like taking off their pants to swim in the Euphrates. It was hardly the behavior of someone who’s claiming to help.
The Americans eventually used al-Qaida’s misbehavior against the group, forming a militia of Sunnis who were fed up with the fanatics, often referred to as the "Sons of Iraq." Al-Qaida lost in Iraq and the Shiite government won. Iran won, too.
After the Shiites came to power in Baghdad, Iran suddenly had access to Iraq’s holy Shiite cities of Najaf and Karbala. Iran increased tourism and business ties with its new Shiite-controlled neighbor. The majority of passengers now arriving and departing from Baghdad International Airport are from Iran.
Photo Blog: Portraits from the front line: Syrian rebels pose in Aleppo
Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah
Of course, it isn’t tourism that is on the minds of concerned observers of the Middle East. Rather, it is another Shiite government — just to the northwest of Iraq —the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad.
In fact, the Assad family isn’t actually Shiite, but Alawite, a secretive Shiite-linked offshoot that makes up just about 13 percent of the population. There’s also a sizable Christian community. Iran has effectively adopted the Alawites into the family by forging a long-standing alliance with Assad and — before him — his father, Hafez, who ruled Syria from 1971-1990.
Reuters
A breakdown of religious groups in Syria. Approximately 70 percent of Syria's population is Sunni Muslim. About 3 percent are Shiite, but another 12.8 percent are Alawite, a Shiite offshoot that President Bashar al-Assad follows. Click on the map to see a larger version.
And, moving further west from Syria, there’s Lebanon. Lebanon is a mixed basket if there ever was one. It’s Sunni in the north, Christian in the middle and Shiite in the south, with each making up about a third of the population. As any Lebanese person will tell you, it’s a volatile mix that has produced a lively culture, fantastic food, attractive people — and recurring cycles of civil war.
Topping the heap in Lebanon are the Shiites, emboldened by their powerful and skilled militia, Hezbollah. Hezbollah is heavily armed and has thousands of rockets pointed at Israel. The weapons mostly come from Iran through Syria or from Syria itself. In addition, Hezbollah runs a powerful social network. It can collapse the Lebanese government when it chooses.
France sends aid, cash to rebel-held Syrian cities, source says
So, there we have it. The previously isolated Shiite regime in Iran is emboldened by the emergence of a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq. In reaction, the Sunni world becomes concerned about the upstart Shiite powers, complete with their considerable oil resources and weaponry.
The region, already a tinderbox, becomes primed for a power struggle.
At the same time, there is the matter of religious pride and a sense of being in the right. In the Muslim world, the Sunnis are the big players. There are more than 1 billion Sunnis worldwide — making up 87-90 percent of the world’s total Muslim population, according to the Pew Research Center. By comparison, Shiites are a relatively small group, there are just about 150-200 million Shiites in the world, with about 75 percent living in just four countries: Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and India, according to Pew.
For the world’s Sunni Muslims, there is a certain confidence, perhaps even arrogance, that comes with having a billion friends.
NBC's Richard Engel, who has just returned from his third trip inside Syria, since the uprising began, joins Andrea Mitchell Reports to discuss the situation on the ground.
Arab Spring shake-up
At first, the current unrest was unrelated to the Sunni-Shiite divide. The first eruption came in Tunisia, which exploded in protests in December 2010. Then came Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and Yemen.
The region’s dictators were caught off guard by student demonstrators who had mobile communications that government security forces couldn’t track or monitor. The students could organize flash mobs. They could communicate directly with hundreds of millions of supporters though social media.
The Arab regimes in 2011 in many ways were legacies of Israel’s victories in 1948 and 1967. Faced with the catastrophic defeats, military strongmen grew in power. Over time they become corrupt. By 2011, most Arab governments were brutal, uncreative and thoroughly uninspiring.
In Tunisia, lawyers, students and women’s groups protested in because of the country’s secret prisons and because the former president’s wife was taking a cut of nearly everyone’s business.
The Egyptian regime was similarly ossified and out of touch. Hosni Mubarak had been an effective president in his early years and relatively popular. But by the time protests began in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, he was 82 years old, his military cohorts and family had become increasingly corrupt, he had been president for nearly three decades, and he was insistent that his bland son take over from him.
The Arab Spring put the Middle East back in flux — and, encapsulated by the current situation in Syria — put religious divides back in the spotlight.
The rise of religious tensions started in Egypt, where the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood — a Sunni organization — mobilized and easily hijacked the 2011 revolution started by liberals, anarchists, socialists, students, artists and techno-nerds who were joined by millions of the unemployed and disenfranchised. Sunni Islamists, albeit moderate, took over in Tunisia, too.
Goran Tomasevic / Reuters
After months of protests and violent crackdowns, a look back at the violence that has overtaken the country.
But it is Syria that has become the epicenter of the historic battle between Sunnis and Shiites. And Lebanon will probably follow.
I spoke with a rebel in Syria about a month ago who explained the religious calculation.
"We lost Iraq to the Shiites and Iran. We’re going to take Syria for us," he said.
Nearly all of the rebels in Syria are Sunnis and the fighting in Syria remains almost exclusively in Sunni areas. Alawite areas remain generally supportive of the Assad regime and therefore haven’t been attacked by the central government. The worst massacres have taken place in Sunni villages that are surrounded by Alawite towns.
The rebels claim the Alawites want to drive out Sunnis from their areas to make pure Alawite blocks for self-defense in case they lose the war and are hunted. Although the rebels say they want to create a Sunni-led government, which they promise will be open and democratic, this isn’t Tahrir Square anymore. It’s not even close.
Iran-Syria alliance
The Syrian government has long found Iran and Hezbollah to be useful allies. Iran is technologically advanced and offers a big market for Syrian goods. Hezbollah is a sword Damascus can wave over Israel's head, and a way to maintain influence in Lebanon, which Syria claims (with some reason) was historically part of Syria before the horribly planned British and French division of the Middle East during and after World War I.
U.S. officials: Iran supplying Syrian military via Iraqi airspace
But war changes the dynamics between allies. As Assad’s grip on power weakens, Iran and Hezbollah’s position in Syria grows stronger. The tail is starting to wag the dog. Iranian and Hezbollah advisers are becoming increasingly dominant in Syria.
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke out publicly about Iran’s increasing presence in Syria last month.
"There’s now an indication that they’re trying to develop or trying to train a militia within Syria to be able to fight on behalf of the regime," Panetta said at a Pentagon news briefing. "So we are seeing a growing presence by Iran and that is of deep concern to us."
In Syria, I saw evidence of Hezbollah’s influence at an army outpost that the rebels had just taken over. Rebels claimed there were 20 Hezbollah fighters in the outpost. They said that they occupied their own room and fought to the death. I saw boxes of unpacked Hezbollah flags.
It’s no longer a situation where Hezbollah is just providing arms and intelligence, but appears to have mobilized and is fighting alongside Syrian forces.
Youssef Boudlal / Reuters
Free Syrian Army fighters from Qadissiya Brigade detain two Syrian army soldiers in the El Amriyeh neighbourhood of Syria's northwestern city of Aleppo in Sept. 4, 2012.
And al-Qaida is also trying to make up for lost time. Its leader is dead and Afghanistan and Pakistan aren’t as safe as they used to be. Even Yemen is unsafe with increasing American drone strikes. Al-Qaida trying to do in Syria what it failed to accomplish in Iraq. Al-Qaida has learned from its Iraq’s experience. Sensing an opening, al-Qaida fighters are going into Syria offering money and arms to the rebels, their Sunni brothers.
They are going in politely, or at least as politely as al-Qaida can be. They are offering rebels cash with no strings attached, at first. Initial payments tend to be small, around $5,000. It is tiny sum in a war zone, but enough to give strapped rebel units a taste of what’s to come. They also have RPGs, the weapon rebel commanders seem to value above all others.
After taking a few payments, according to rebels who’ve seen this process, al-Qaida fighters — from Algeria, Iraq, Libya, Chechnya and other countries — ask that the rebels receive some of their men. An increasingly number of rebels commanders are taking the deal, even though they worry what al-Qaida could ask for in the future.
They reason that it’s better to take the support than die with nothing. Without American troops to worry about — not even drones —Syria could prove to be a far better base for al-Qaida than Iraq ever was.
What’s next?
What happens if Washington continues to watch from afar?
Well, Syria is likely to become an even bigger battleground for a proxy war between Hezbollah, Sunni rebels, government troops, Iran and al-Qaida. And once Syria collapses — or even before — Lebanon could ignite as well.
My Iraqi friend was right. The Arab Spring no longer exists.
More world stories from NBC News:
- Smoking ban leaves Lebanese fuming
- London 2012's legacy under spotlight as end nears
- Car crash politics: Laws don't touch rich in Thailand
- I planted what?! Farmer mistakenly grows dope
- Afghan soldiers detained over 'links with insurgents'
- Couple held hostage by pirates to set sail again
Follow World News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
"And that’s what happened. Essentially, the lasting legacy of America’s involvement in Iraq is an Iranian-allied Shiite government that also happens to be one of the most corrupt on the planet. (Iran is the biggest and most powerful Shiite-majority nation.)"
Anyone with a brain in their head knew this would happen from the outset.
I have a question: Libya wasn't mentioned in this article, other than Al-Qaida troops moving from there to Syria. Was it not part of the conflict? Or was it not included in the "Arab Spring"?
If nothing else, this article details how very complicated Middle Eastern affairs are. It's easy to blame America for igniting the current round of hostilities, but they would have happened anyway. You can only keep minority rule via corruption and coercion alive so long before the oppressed majorities erupt. I'm only surprised it's taken this long.
Middle Easterners are responsible for their own affairs. Blaming it on us is mere scapegoating.
We gave them the opportunity for democracy, and they are too stupid to make it work- now we have a weak leader who announces when we are leaving so they just wait it out.
Should never have been there in the first place...............thanx Bush :-)
Crystal-569996 only stupid people think that you can force democracy in countries with a Middle Age's mentality, you need to let them be, they need to experiment, fail and hopefully learn something on their own. Also, people don't like to be told what to do in their own homes.
Stay away from other countries and focus in our own problems.
I agree that this IS a well written, thought provoking article. But where we disagree is where the blame lies for the Arab Spring storm. Like it or not, two inescapable facts of the matter are (1) without our bombing, occupying and "liberating and nation building" mentality NONE of this would have happened. We stirred up a hornet's nest there. FACT. And, (2) - what we do about Syria and Iran is likely to have little, IN ANY positive impact at this point, or ANY impact at all. This will NOT end well or either US or the Middle East if we get further involved in their pizzing matches.
but....but.....but......Saddam (Sunni) had WMDs, we just know he did......and he gave them to his friend Assad (Shiite) for safekeeping..........
it's that Muslim Brotherhood thing-ma-bob......they all hate the Great Satan first and foremost.......
As for the Arab Sping being dead.that´s problably right.But the geopolitical aspect of Iraq,i.e they invaded and then swallowed Kuwait could not be ignored and the first Gulf War returned Kuwait to an independent country.As part of the armisitce Iraq was required to open up all its WMD sites to inspection.There is no doubt that Iran had both chemical and bilogical weapons.After playing cat and mouse games for years with the U.N inspectors andagainst all lU.N resolutions ..a coalition of countries The U.S,England,and several others decided that this defiance of Iraq could not go on indefinitely.Iraq had also fired missiles at Israel during the first war....Saddam Hussein sons promised an equally barbaric and criminal regime.In retrospect the Iraq intervention turned out badly.but many countries perceived that doing nothing was not an option.The world is better off without Saddam Hussien and so is Iraq.The @!$%#e -Sunni problems is one negative offshoot.but on the positive side the Kurds who weer gassed and murdered by Huusein are much better off.As for the WMD´s while they weren´t found,but it doesn´t mean they weren´t transferred to another country. Saddam´s defiance was in violation of the agreement to end the Kuwait ooccupation .He could have cooperated and avoided the attack.He chose not to.To blame the failure of the Arab Spring on the U.S is much too simple.The NBC correspondent has his point of view but it´s just one of many in a very complex and very volutile region!
It's no surprise that they went from one corrupt government to another but that's their fault. All we can do is give people an opportunity to rise up against their oppessors (like WE did). If they choose to approach it as an ethnic/religious/group against group/etc. struggle instead of a struggle to give all the people a say in their government so be it. We can help give them an opportunity, we can't dictate their choice.
Based on history, the struggles in this region will continue until some dictator grabs the power. They aren't ready to use democracy to fight with ideas rather than weapons/force.
Very well put Bart. People dont remember that Saddam kicked out the inspectors, and the Clinton admin did basically nothing. We should have gone back in then. My only beef with Bush, and its a big one, is we should have gone in, changed the regime, and turned it over to the new regime and left. We stayed on wayyyy too long. We should never have dismantled their army and police force. If the new regime did not stay on task, and comply with the first Gulf War surrender agreement, then we could have gone back in. We wasted too many lives, and money trying to take ownership of Iraqs problems.
@Steve,
Need I add that when the First Gulf War was winding up, virtually all National Security and Foreign Policy advisers, led by Colin Powell, told GHW Bush that this is exactly what would happen. They laid out the power vacuum that would be created if Sadaam was deposed and speculated (correctly) on the likely outcomes, including the weakening or other military dictators throughout the Middle East. GHW Bush took their advice and ended the war short of destroying Iraq and the Sadaam Baathist government.
I could care less about the Middle East or Africa. Bring our Troops home from there (all of them) and let them wipe each other out , hopefully. They are 3rd World cesspools full of corruption from the top all the way down and always will be. They are too stupid to understand Freedom and Democracy.
Anyone with a brain in their head knew the Arab Spring was dead three days before it was given the name Arab Spring.
Thank you Rich Engel, I finally better understand what has been and is going on over there. The sad fact of the matter is, we aren't going to change these people toward (true) democracy - Shiite or Sunni.
Keep up the good work and stay safe!
Nailed it. A more appropriate term would have been "Arab Nightmare," for US and the SUNNIS. It's been that way from the get go.
By invading Iraq, we have given the Iranians what they've always wanted. And we have gotten a BIG, BIG perpetual migraine in return. My, those are nice dividends we're reaping for it, eh?????
Well, IF Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz were paying attention they would have known about the complications of the middle east. The Israeli experience, 67 war, 73 war, The Egyptian experiences, Nassar and his successor, Jordan's problems, Iran revolution , the hatred for America, Palestine, Beirut - Reagan's disaster ! Afghan - the Russian disaster, hate for America and Israel all over the place. All this well before 9-11. The lies about WMD in Iraq were nothing but the cover story for a conflict Bush administration started holding meetings on 2 weeks after his inaugural. Burning out the troops and exhausting the treasury on Iraq does what for positioning us with the real menace in the area, a nuclear IRAN ? The Iranian threat was well understood and debates were held about bogging down in Iraq with Iran looming. But the idiots did that "you're against America" "I'm a patriot, you're not" crap. Many Dems voted for the war who later realised how they were played (no backbone) and regretted it. Too late ! Iraq was under no fly zone for years with UN inspectors all over the place , they were no threat to the US or anybody else having gotten their offensive capability wiped out by Swartzkopf. But the draft dodging Cheney and Bush team, like block bullies pushing small kids in the dirt, wanted their "creds" as warriors so they started the Iraq 2 war. And we still have about 30,000 people over there. Non-military gubmint employees and contractors. We never left. We're still losing money there big time. Hussein was a bad man for sure. But did we make things better ? No. And if we had scholars and educated hard working people in the DC instead the overly privileged narcissists we've had for the last 20 years we wouldn't have gone to Iraq under the lies of WMD.
Don't forget, The closer Shiites come to Saudi Arabia, the more the Sunnis are going to step up their game. Also, don't forget where al Qaida originated.
Bush's war on Iraq went against 80% of the warnings he received from both the recently retired former experts on the Middle East as well as Bush's own advisors. Colin Powell was forced to step down after he went behind closed doors with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and, I have little doubt, Karl Rove. Powell may not have been openly vocal about the administration's short comings, but it was obvious that he had little interest in continuing to participate in the sham. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for some of their closed door discussions.
The article, although well written and thought provoking, has a couple of shortcomings. It focuses on the Shiite - Sunni conflict, but pays less heed to the democracy - dictatorship conflict. Also, when discussing America's role, it does not go back far enough. A significant causative factor in the current situation was America's support for the Shah of Iran, largely for geopolitical (he was "our" guy as opposed to a Soviet client) and financial (e.g. the American-Arab Oil company (ARAMCO)) reasons. This was an abandonment of American principles of supporting democracy world-wide and we paid the price for it when the Iranians traded one oppressive government which was favorable to our interests to another repressive government, the current theocracy, which is antithetical to them. Our best course of action is to return to American core values and our roots and support people's innate desire for democracy and let them work out the Shiite - Sunni business on their own. I hope and expect that eventually the people of Iran will demand true democracy rather than their current system which pretends to be democratic but where the true power resides in the hands of unelected mullahs. When that occurs we will likely see some variation of the current situation in Syria where the government and the people are in conflict. However I am eternally optimistic that peoples' desire for freedom can not be suppressed indefinitely and will eventually win out. It is in best interests to be on the right side of history when that happens, regardless of the short term cost or consequences.
Engle, as usual, did a great analysis.
The Religion of Peace now gets a chance to fight it out among itself, hopefully with NO US involvement (although I'd be OK with $ and arms to Syrian rebels)
Otherwise, LIBYA is an AFRICAN country, can't really be considered Arab. Crystal, your logic FAILS.
Crystal-569996, we want democracy so that our money can buy the elections. The whole world knows this, except the ignorant American public who think they have a choice.
matrixisreal.wordpress.com/2012/06/10/american-dream/
And this is exactly why even George Bush's own father tried to persuade him to not interfere. He almost made the same mistake but eventually listened to our military leaders whom all also tried to persuade Bush Jr. it may be best to not interfere.
It's amazing to watch the neocons justify the Bush fiasco! No amount of navel gazing will excuse the incompetence of the last administration. A total failure. They sure wish is would vanish!
HOTTICKET: I disagree. We have had little to do the Arab Spring. We weren't in Tunisia or Egypt, nor did we start the hostilities in Libya although we did help finish them, and we haven't been involved in Syria either. I don't even remember much noise about the Bahrain protests, and we have a big naval base there. The Arabs did all this themselves because they have felt oppressed for decades and finally snapped.
While it's true the West may have contributed to that oppression by supporting dictatorial leaders, the real issues lie within typical third world corrupt governments, their strong-arm military and police forces, and to a lesser extent the differing factions within Islam. The Arab Spring, or whatever you want to call it, would have happened anyway. Just ask that Tunisian vegetable seller.
The Arab Spring is dead -- and Syria is writing its obituary
Good Better Dead Than Al-Qaeda!
Face Facts Folks All This Arab Spring Hype and NONSENSE Has Done is Created Al-Qaeda Bases All Over The Middle East Using Secret US Funds Provided By None Other Than POMUS Obama & Hillary Clinton!
Name One Country That Has Had Its Arab Spring That Is MORE PEACEFUL & DEMOCRATIC?
You Now Have The Islamic Brotherhood Attacking 2000 Year Old Christian Communities and Crucifying Opponents On Telephone Poles!
The Only UN Finished Business In The Arab Spring Is Bush-Wacker Barrys Impeachment over Libya!
Of Right I Forgot Instead Of Impeachment Bumbling Barry got bin NOBODY....Hahahaha...Right!
Well America If This BUMBLING FOOL Gets US into ONE MORE NOT WAR For His Masters On Wall Streets Profits Forget The Election Impeach The Pompous A$$!
Otherwise Forget This Arab Spring Nonsense....Refuse To Reward Failure....Refuse To Re-Elect ANY Incumbent and If You REALLY Want To Know Want This Is All About Watch This PBS Documentary!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l-8PFk8j5I
well written article. very insightful.
I too would like to thank Richard Engel for the excellent summation of the problem in the Middle East. We should never have gone in there the second time. We upset the apple cart in the region just so President Bush could get even with Saddam for trying to assassinate the first President Bush. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed and for what? So Iran could scoop up the pieces. Nice work George II, nice work.
We do not belong in the Middle East. We do not understand them and do not know what to do. The 9/11 retribution should have been handled covertly by the CIA and the Seals. Find bin Laden and the other major players and take them out. How many trillions of dollars would that have saved.
We need to get out of the middle east and stay out. Let the Brits and the French handle them, they understand them better and have a better track record.
The 'Arab Spring' was nothing but a power grab by radical Islamists from the get-go. They are winning and groups like Code Pink are their useful idiots.
there will be a United Arab coalition, headed by Iran, it would have happened after ww1, Churchill carved up the middle east into many kingdoms, so they would not unite, we however blindly went in and caused them to unify against the west; there is a very big war coming, and when Iran gets Nuclear weapons(which they may already posses); it is going to be one hell of a mess.
Arab Spring is dead and it looks like obama's chances to repeat is too! How ironic!
Richard Engels ............ A great synopsis ........ Stay Safe ... Keep up your good reporting .. it's a rarity to see these days!
The "Arab Spring" never did exist. It was a fiction created by the Islamists to fool the west into helping them take over. Now they are laughing at the west and enjoying their new found control over countries where they had been effectively kept under control by dictators who were basically secular and only repressed the fanatics to keep them in check. Now, with the aid of the west, the opposition to the Islamist takeover has been crippled and we are watching the entire region slowly fall under their control. I do not know if going into Iraq to take out Saddam was a mistake or not, but interfering in Libya and Egypt. as well as Syria is a huge mistake that we will not soon recover from. Mubarak was a strong ally of the US and a proponent of maintaining peace with Israel. Now Egypt has an Islamist led government whose leader has openly said that he thinks the peace treaty with Israel hould be abbrogated and is either sponsoring, or just tacitly allowing Islamists the persecute and openly attack any minorities in the country. Libya, where in recent years Qaddafi had been relatively benign and had allowed for an relatively open society, the west helped get rid of him and now Libya is also in the hands of the Islamists and has become a new base of operations for al Qaeda. The country still has no effective central government as the infighting between the different religious and tribal groups has continues on. After they got rid of Qaddafi they turned on each other. Only a complete moron did not see that coming and now we have a totally unstable country where terrorist groups are free to operate. This is definitely not an improvement. Now the west is looking at getting involved in Syria and taking down yet another government that had been basically secular and allowed people to worship as they chose without interference. This government will be replaced with an Islamist one that has one goal, to purge the country of those who do not follow their particular brand of Islam.
The Arab Spring never really existed and was never about the desire for democratic rule. This was a bill of goods that Islamist radicals sold to the west to gain their support and now their true colors have shone through. Unfortunately, we will be living with the consequences of this stupidity for many years, if not decades to come.
My, my! You think that the us of a had nothing to do with arab spring? Do you think that any american president can take a world tour, making speeches, without any effect?
I don't know whether he should get praise or blame but to say neither is total denial. You need to get your head out of it.
Thats is ridiculous....we gave them the oppurtinity to live like us??? They are not like us! We should not interfere in their way of life! Imagine Russia, or China "giving us the oppurtunity" to live like us?!?!?! We arent giving them any oppurtunity...we are there for other reasons...we want Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan....you ever look at it on the map...how convenient, they just happen to be next to eachother! Wow....imagine that happening here! We are killing little children, we are sniping the rebels (blaming the Assad). And this "Arab Spring" is growing...its called "Occupy" everywhere else...its in Europe, the US, Canada, South America...our media just doesnt report it! We need to leave other countries alone...and stop supporting that other terrorist country...Israel. They are one of the reasons we are in this mess....let them fight their own false flag wars!
Why not go back a little further and look at what happened when the Zionists started a war for nothing more then material/temple. Used the sympathy from one war to start another, nice... How many radical Muslim organizations started because of this ONE event? The Gulf war is NOTHING in comparison.
"The Arab Spring, or whatever you want to call it, would have happened anyway.", I could not agree more. To think that it would NEVER happen is asinine.
How can people talk chit about other countries for having religion and government "issues", when the Dems CANNOT EVEN REMOVE GOD OR ISRAEL out of their program without a WHOLE bunch of people getting their panties in a wad. Do I even need to talk about the Reps? There is a word that starts with H that is coming into my mind right now...
Qaddafi and Mubarak where oil puppets that sold oil cheap so they would be left alone and do whatever they want to their people. To not support Democracy publicly would be stupid of the U.S. are far as International policy goes, what was that H word again. How much was Egypt selling oil to Israel for, a 1/3 of the market price? I wonder why Israelis LOVED Mubarak so much besides the peace treaty. How about Vietnam when we choose to not support Democracy? Ho Chi Minh TRIED to get the U.S. to support him, but we did not want to piss off the French (they were making $) so he got Communist support instead, nice...
How can Morsi can be "bad" if he is Sunni? I guess because he is still "Muslim" huh? I thought Shi'ites were the "bad" ones or is it just all Muslims? Can anyone here tell me the difference between the two factions?
I guess most people missed the latest conference held in Iran where Morsi pissed off the Shi'ites with his speech. It was a powerplay since Egypt wants to be the most "prominent", and so does Iran. Which is why they are trying to make nukes so bad, it is nothing more then a power play, and to stop Israel from being such a bully. They have no intention of starting a nuclear war since there is no way they could win. Why not look at WHAT we have done as a country to Iran over the years and maybe just maybe that has something to do with why Iran is how it is today.
Good article, just does not cover the whole picture. If this was educating to you, then you should research some more on your own since there is so much to know. Blindly following one source of information is the same as following a dictator. You never know when that source goes "bad" and it can no longer be trusted to lead, make decisions, provide accurate information, etc. You really need at least 3 sources at a minimum, with 5 and 7 being "better", more redundant, and better able to deal with individual failure. Blindly following the Zionists is asinine.
Crystal-569996
We gave them the opportunity for democracy, and they are too stupid to make it work- now we have a weak leader who announces when we are leaving so they just wait it out.
wowcrystal, you mean like george bush (now there was an extremely weak leader) announcing to the world our exit date from Iraq or possibly Richard Nixon announcing to the world when we were leaving Vietnam. You cons have such a selective memory. It only works when you feel it is to your advantage. All it does is make you look rediculious.
So let's see... what are our choices:
#1. Sunnis wipe out all the Shiites and claim control over the entire region leading to massive corruption and no chance of the people gaining basic human rights.
#2. Shiites wipe out all the Sunnis and claim control over the entire region leading to massive corruption and no chance of the people gaining basic human rights.
#3. We continue to add our influence in order to achieve a balance of power between the two factions so they can wage war and violence on each other in perpetuity.
Frankly, I think these people are less than human and it's beneficial to the human race when they wipe each other out. Any of the decent people of character, willpower and resourcefulness over there will flee the country as refugees as many have and leave the lesser developed species behind to die off. I say give them as many bombs and RPGs as possible to get them to finish the job on themselves before there are any left around when advanced bio weapons and nukes can be purchased from vending machines.
Yes, for this I WILL blame "W"..... We NEVER should have removed Saddam.... The Muslim world REQUIRES a strong Dictator to keep the Mullahs under control. There is NO SUCH THING as an Islamic Democracy, nor will there ever be one. If left to their own devices, they WILL set up a Theocracy, because Islam is NOT a "real" religion, but rather a "Political" Religion, affecting every area of the adherants lives, including "Politics". This is the reason that Iran was so liberal, Westernized, and MODERN under the Shah. NOW look where they are after the "Revolution".... Back in the 9th Century.
Do Russia and China have an influence? Why isn't this emphasized in the article. Isn't Russia supplying the high end armaments to Syria? Why don't the Syrian Sunnis blame Russia?
America and Isreal are always the target of blame.
In Iraq America may have gone in under false pretense, but the Americans let the formation of government in Iraq be the responsibility of the Iraqis themselves. The emergence of sectarian divisions are not due to the influence of America, but to the mental state of the Iraqis themselves.
The separation of church and state could have seved as a model, but the Iraqis instead chose sectarian dominion.
"Why don't the Syrian Sunnis blame Russia?"
Are you kidding? They certainly do! And China...
Richard Engel ..... I am usually critical of reporting for the truth is usually pasted over...... However you have hit the nail directly on the top....................... Congratulations to fine reporting!
It was interesting but a lot of it was just his "interpretation" of cause and effect. He takes a small action (ie the Rebels at the outpost) and expands it to an all encompassing conclusion. I tried to seperate his actual facts as he reported from his beliefs. The article did it's job it got me to think and look at others information and thoughts on this. Now I'm not saying he isn't right or wrong on all or most of his conclusions just that there are lots of writings some similar to his and others somewhat counter. I'm not ready to crown him the "authority" on this quite yet. But I will add he has been there and I haven't so he knows more than me.
I was going to say the same thing. This report was very well done and gives a good breakdown of the recent history in the region. After reading this article, even those who have not followed these events very closely (or at all) could grasp a basic understanding of what is going on over there and how it got to this point.
This article has once again raised my expectations of how journalism should be done. Seeing an article that has actual research and critical thinking done, instead of just basic "sky is falling" reporting, has me calling BS on many of news websites' articles now. Thank you for raising the standards again and hopefully it will catch on just like the Arab Spring :-)
That was a very interesting point you made Gtouch. It made me read the article again. Although I don't consider him an expert or an authority on these matters, he did put together a very well done and informative article. How sad that these are exceptions and not the rule.
Of course it's well written, he's been reporting on the Middle East for about 10 years, no surprise that he knows what he's talking about.
Yes, it was a surprise for me too. No more nice looking freedom fighters(activists) mostly doctors and studenys in their nature, cruel babykiller tyrants, kind innovative home made bomb engineers, in short -- almost no propaganda at all. And before it was all that i could find in his articles about Syria.
I wonder what happened in Israel? Are they sceared of Sunni's more than hate Assad now? I would be
The piece was very wide-ranging and informative in many ways (I found the distribution of religions/sects map especially helpful) but unfortunately Mr. Engel seems to have gone to all that work just to make yet another pitch for deeper U.S. involvement and intervention in Syria which comes at the end:
Unwritten is that all of the above is "likely" to happen (or is already happening) whether we intervene or not. Intervening just gains us a bigger mess to step in and "own," as we did in Iraq. This is NOT our fight. Getting involved in yet another civil war in the Middle
East, as we did in Libya, is NOT in our national interest. Overthrowing secular dictatorships which are then replaced (in practice if not in name) by religious dictatorships, is not an improvement. When will our "learned analysts" and feckless leaders learn this grim lesson?
The author's short history of the so-called "Arab Spring" is also naively romanticized:
"Hundreds of Millions of supporters?!!" More like a few tens of thousands. Look at how these students and their "liberal" allies got slaughtered in the Egyptian elections, absolutely crushed. The author (and many others who should know better) like to say that this is just because the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists were "better organized." That's niblbling around the edges of a much greater truth which is that their fundamentalist beliefs and Islamic agenda was much more appealing to most Egyptians than the alternative(s). The same is true of all the other "Arab Spring" countries in the Middle East with the possible exception of Jordan (not yet in that category but could get there soon enough the way things are going and with the "help" of our western elites and their relentless "interventions").
Wishful thinking is the guiding principle in all these interventions and it goes something like this: These countries are ruled by dictatorships so the people are angry. If only we "help" overthrow the dictators and replace them with democracy then people will own their own countries and will become happier, more content, and more harmonious. More like us in other words (even though we're not very happy, content, or harmonious these days). But it never turns out the way we "hope" it will because situations are different and once pandora's box is opened up then any number of dormant ghosts and demons leap out and get to work once again. That happened in the Balkans too after Marshall Tito and the now defunct "Yugoslavia" was dissolved. Democracy is weak medicine (or no medicine at all) for many such situations, the Arab Middle East a foremost example.
@Gtouch,
There is a commenter on another article named "WHOS THERE" using the exact same avatar picture as you. He must be stopped and taken down. I know you don't advocate violence, but maybe you could make an exception on this one.
@ Tyler and Sally,
I am just kidding on the violence. no need to suspend me for a day
Engel, I have normally respected you articles. But tell me something we didn't already know!
The fact is, if you are true Iranian, you are Perssian, not @!$%#e!
I do like the maps!
Engel, while no doubt very intelligent and informed, is dancing around the core issue, mainly that the Arab Spring was nothing more than a springboard for radical Islamists to gain power and control of regions. Sharia Law and global dominance were and are the ultimate goals. Any attempts to disguise that fact is window dressing used to hide reality.
Mygirl
He is simply reporting on what's happening. As a good journalist, that's his job. His has some interpretations are based on verifiable facts.
In contrast, your post is nothing more that pure speculation with a hefty bit of tin-foil paranoia thrown in.
Hey Adam, you’re right this piece is surprisingly well detailed and informative (a rarity for an MSNBC story lol) but I’d have to disagree with you about its focus, to me this seems to be more of a subtle piece designed to drum up support for an American led operation against Iran.
After all in this piece the author mentions that it was Iran who has gained the most from Iraq, it is Iran that arms Hezbollah (with a mention of the threat they pose to Israel a good way to drum up support from the pro-Israel crowed) and it mentions that it is Iran that is the main backer of the Syrian regime. So in shrt it does do a very good job of promoting the idea that if an armed conflict broke out with Iran then it would be akin to cutting the head off the snake.
I do have some other more logical reasons for why an attack against Iran would make more sense but since they are not related to the article I’ll withhold them for now.
an epic tug of war between Sunnis and Shiites for control of the Middle East and the Prophet Muhammad's legacy.// Shiites know what Islam is. What does the Sunni base their authority on , the west ?
now ajgorm, you wouldn't be a shiite, would you?
Now that Obamas boys in the muslim brotherhood have taken control its now the muslim extremist spring.
Wow
I see there is a Glenn Beck university graduate here! Why don't you just say that you hate black people instead of unnaturally dragging the president's name into unrelated discussion? I can see a few posts like this one on every subject on every site, doesn't matter entertainment or sports -- all ends up with Obama.
He is a great president indeed!
paranoid much alexp? No opinions about Obama because he's black. Then it's you who is the racist.
Since you too got your education from Beck and likely skipped school, rachel I'll help you out a bit.
"Paranoia" is a state of mind when instead of giving rational simple explanation to what is happening in (let's say) Middle East, a person sees a conspiracy involving sinister president Obama. The result is that this person is constantly afraid of many things and especially of his own president. Now, me. I am not afraid of anything, hence I am not paranoid.
Going to "racist". Racist is a person who hates a human race, usually blacks, sometimes other. I don't hate blacks, I don't hate anyone at all. I love people. So I am not a racist either.
I could go on to "opinions", but the first 2 should do for today. Try to master the art of reading meanwhile, its amazing what you can discover inside books.
Ah, but Beck did state that Islamic extremists would gain control and that is what is happening.
alecp: sometimes there is a good reason for paranoia. It isn't like terrorist attacks are a figment of the imagination.
.
Really great summary of how the laws of unintended consequences apply in the Middle East. There's a trillion dollars ill-spent. Thanks, Bush.
Now George Bush cannot be blamed, if his brother Neil was born with all the brains.
In reality Jeb Bush is probably the most educated to have been President.
GWB absolutely can be blamed, and along with him the entire Republican party. Why did they nominate him if they knew he had no brains? Why did his 'expert' advisors push him into this ill-advised war? Why didn't they know anything about the crazy Muslim dogfight between Sunnis and Shias that is centuries old?
A single college course in world sociology would have revealed the basic information needed to stay out of this conflict.
As for Engel's analysis, it is good as far as it goes. But Pandora's Box has in reality been open in the ME for a long time. The existence of Israel serves as a beacon for hatred and the blame-game, keeping Muslim countries from taking ownership of their failed states. This is going to go on for many more decades, at least until oil runs empty.
George Bush represents what is wrong with this country and will go down as the dumbest President ever to hold office. George is a good shoe dodger and could be a senior dodgeball champ with his reflexes. If we had spent the Trillions wasted in wars here at home there would be no Depression and the Arab Muslims would have killed themselves like they have for thousands of years.
Jeb Bush did get all the brains and the GOP is saving him for 2016 when Romney loses this fall.
@IXLR8,
It is doubtful that Jeb Bush will ever seek national office. He has two major skeletons in his closet: 1) He was the "bag man" for the Iran-Contra Affair. He was the guy who actually transferred money the Reagan administration got from illegally selling arms to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War and was the actual person who gave it to the Contras to buy cocaine and heroin to export into the USA in order to fund its guerillas. He lived in Venezuela at the time and married a prominent Venezuelan. 2) That Venezuelan wife has been convicted three times of felony smuggling, including the last time while Bush was governor of Florida. She is currently on probation for another 2-3 years.
If Jeb Bush were to run in 2016, it is likely that his father would still be alive. GHW Bush was the Reagan "point man" for Iran-Contra and ran the operation according to North and Poindexter's testimony. The idea that Jeb could bring down his father by re-opening this old issue is probably pretty daunting. And from all accounts, Jeb is also extremely protective of his wife and does not want to discuss her links to the Chavez regime in Venezuela.
I think Jeb might re-consider after both his father and Chavez die, but I doubt that he would want to face the media firestorm before that.
When was Jeb Bush president?
Chris, good points I forgot BUT he is very popular in Florida and did a great job. I think it will be Jeb and Rubio in 2016 not in any particular order. Anything can happen in this years coin flip election.
Blamo, take a nap, the Simpson reruns will be on later.
Oops, I think I just stepped in some shiite!
I'm not sure I want to equate the "Arab Spring" to the American Revolution except to warn Mr. Engel about how NBC would have been reporting if they had a reporter embedded with General Washington's army as it retreated across New Jersey with the British hot on their trail. I'm sure an NBC reporter embedded with the Algerian Resistance movement in 1963 would be reporting that the capture of the major figures spelled the downfall of the rebellion. My point is that every resistance movement has it's lowest point and this may be that time. I am not a great supporter of the Arab movements, but I'm starting to get excited at the prospect that the Arabs are moving towards more Democratic governments and are willing to fight for a political belief as much as they are willing to fight for a religious belief, and that my friends is a positive sign.
RT; hate to burst your bubble however to Arabs there is no such thing as a political belief except as an extension of their religious belief. point two; thank god we here in the USA do not live in a democracy and if you take the time to reflect I am sure you would agree. point three; I'm sorry but the US did not have a revolution ; it was war for separation or secession if you prefer. there is a huge difference and I am sad that most today have lost that simple distinction. as far as a positive sign looming on the horizon ; I am positive it is going to be a really negative future for the next 50 years at least.
Wow, platoschild, you have rewritten history and added to the doomsday sayers. That's impressive. (wink wink) You did not specify, however, who is going to have the really negative future for the next 50 years. I mean, I'd like to know, so I can move away from that place.
befuddled; rather apprapo. question? rewritten history how? unless your capable of leaving earth for the next 50 years, don't think your gonna miss it.
Okay platochild, let's run with your assumption that the American Revolution was a session or separation and not a revolution. The question isn't merely semantics, the American Revolution was revolutionary in it's ideology, it's conduct and it's eventual outcome. The American concept of government was revolutionary in that it did not have an absolute executive office or monarch. It was a collection of thirteen individual states that brought themselves together as a nation, not thirteen individuals forces into a union. There was no provision for an elite class of aristocracy in the American Revolution.Those were revolutionary ideas (from many sources) transformed from theories into actuality. The conduct of the war was also revolutionary, not in its end result, but in the methods constructed through a Congress and the subordination of the military to a civil government. A session or separation are just that, separating from one government, but when the separation forms a totally new entity that is different from that which it left, and that formation of the new government incorporates revolutionary ideas, that my friend is the very essence of what revolutionary means.
The arabs are not willing to fight for a political belief. They put religion before anything. And let's face it, they LOVE to fight. They are easily provoked, they love revenge, and are cruel, sparing neither women nor children. None of them are man enough to stand up and start a peace movement or party, they cannot grasp the concept that violence begets violence.
Our involvement and waste of our money and resources stems from our support of Israel, and oil in the region. When both these things run out, we will be better off.
Their religion is their political belief. They are intertwined.
The "Arab Spring" is over...along with a sh!t load of Shiites.
The 'Arab Spring' was always what is called 'The Plan for a New American Century.' No reality beyond that. The real terrorists are the U.S., Britain, France and Israel, and the Sunni Muslims, and their backers the Saudis. Beyond that there is no reality to it.
I'm guessing you are a Shiite?
Well, at least I know the real differences.
Have you seen the weather forecast for Syria ?.....Sunni today, but tomorrow, shiite ...............
...
Yeah innocent people are dying in Syria but it is ridiculous to expect the president to do anything about the loss of life before the election.
...
So what would you have him do? Get in the middle of the Syria mess and turn it into yet another alQaida ground zero where Americans would lose their lives? For what end? How would this benefit the USA? And what would Romney do? He hasn't a clue, but his advisors are all in agreement with Obama's policies, although they keep the mouths mostly shut so as not to embarrass him.
The Sunnis are fighting Shiites in Syria, with a heavy sprinkling of AlQuaeda and Hezbollah thrown in for good measure.
So you, nothingnewhere, you military genius you, want Obama to do the one thing that would make all these people set aside their differences and unite - give them uniformed American troops to shoot at.
What an imbecile. How closely were your parents related? This is why brothers should not impregnate their sisters, right here.
Let al-Qaida and Hezbollah duke it out and kill each other. We need to STAY OUT OF IT!!
rightwingscrewball
do you believe in freedom of religon or are you a christian terrorist?
1 of them nutballs that goes and shoots up abortion clincs
Richard Engel, you are the greatest. One read of this article explains the entire Middle East in a nutshell.
By extension you can see the Iranian drive for the "bomb". Just as Pakistan & India had their own arms race- totally out of scale with size of their economies at the time. Iran will stop at nothing to develop the Shi'a "bomb" to counter the Sunni "bomb" that Pakistan has and for the same reason- religious intolerance.
We would do well to avoid being caught up in what is construed in some circles as another round of the Crusades. Let the Sunni & Shi'a continue the argument over the role of "Ali" in the ninth century AD. There is nothing to win here and the U.S. should limit our commitment to Israel and let it go at that.
Sorry, seventh century!
Iran will say it wants the bomb and the destruction of Israel and stupid antisemites will believe that. In reality, Iran wants to have a nuclear arms race with all the Sunnis surrounding it, especially Pakistan. Look at the map. Shiite Iran surrounded by a sea of Sunnis.
But keep on believing the US or Israel is at fault for a fight going on since the late 600s.
rightwingscrewball, you are reading me wrong. What I am saying is limit our commitment to "ONLY" Israel, and exclude the Muslim chaos that surrounds them. Didn't the context of the rest of my comment get through to you?
I'm looking forward to a terrific weekend, and thanks so much for your good wishes. (idiot).
Rachel, I agree by the way. Truth be told, Israel is the excuse and not the main goal. I believe that Iran is looking for a Shi'a "Crescent" stretching from Lebanon, through part of Syria, Iraq and including Iran (of course) effectively splitting the Sunni middle-east from the central Asian Sunnis.
Israel, will certainly be in an uncomfortable position, of which they are accustomed. Their defense by the US and other European allies would stay in play here.
I would add only one thought -- there never was an "Arab Spring" anywhere. It was a media invention. Take a look at what's going on in Egypt and Libya (2 supposed "Arab Spring" revolutions) and you'll see what I mean.
You are so correct...... Google the company was directly involved.
CME mgmt, right on!
I always doubted the term, Arab Spring. It should be called the Arab Fall.
There were many dreamers, including our one and only, D. McCann, who perpetually praised the revolution. It's a blood thirsty power struggle where religious and political corruption is replaced with more religious and political corruption.
Has America learned to keep out of this cesspool?...I think not.
... but who really has time to follow up either way? Surprise, Russia and China... two big hipocrits that want to silence Syrians. Good morning students, today we learn how lying and taking away the privilidges of human beings on planet Earth is for the good of everyone, and it makes us more money. Hogwash! Look closely to the pictures.. you see more bullets and guns, more and more grenades, RPGs... hey, the biggest tribe is on the Syrians side, the human-kind race of planet Earth and we're cheering for the good guys! Out of our way excuses of humanity, on four now and back to eating grass... failure of humankind! I just felt a salty mist against my lips and even if but a child's tear wishing for a future, that is the Arab Spring!
As it has now been reported, much like Libya, and Gasdaffi had to be silenced to protect the United States (CIA) and Britain (Tony Blair, etc.) for doing things for them....... The public only gets the media reports most of the time that are sanitized.
As I recall it was Libyans themselves who killed Gadaffi and his gang, not Americans or Britain. In fact we get all the media reports from everywhere in the world, including the ME.
An excellent summary of the situation as it exists in the Middle East. It certainly exposes the foreseen, and more importantly, unforeseen consequences of actions taken by the West. Unfortunately, actions have been taken that have ignored, or at least minimized, religious implications that have been a part of the region's political history for centuries.
Christ! That Place is a MESS OVER THERE! Their ALL Screwed UP!
and the two countries to blame on not helping are russia and china, like always...
they always block anything normal or helpful because they do the same thing to their own people, so why would they want to help anyone else?
they shouldn't be allowed to vote on things that are concerning security or humanity because they are two of the most inhumane governments that vote on UN policies.
another thing that doesn't make sense, why does the US still give china aid to developing countries?
it has nukes, and owns the US debt, and the US gives them millions for nothing. any country that has nukes should not be getting aid for developing countries...
fusseltier Yeah, you want Islamic fundamentalist and Al-Qaeda Sunnis to take over a secular dictatorship that even allows Christians to live safe in their own country, well the Russians and Chinese (and all sane people) seem to disagree.
Exactly why both Russia and China are ON the security council with veto power, intentionally, with (probable) malice and forethought, with full intentions of thwarting the ability of the UN to be useful in any real capacity. Both countries insisted during the formation of the UN Security Council with just this scenario in mind. Yes, they are always going to be intentionally obstructionist, at least until the governmental philosophy of those countries shift towards something more nurturing and less oppressive.
Arab CESSPOOLs ALIVE!
Westernization and Sunni beliefs vs Shiite and Shria laws. Gets a little confusing ehh ! The mad religion or the madness fanaticas. A smile is just a frown turned upside down when listening to an infadel speak ehh.I knew we were all screwed up from the beginning. To The End --->
ajgorm Westernization? Are you nuts? Super-rich Sunni Saudi Arabia is the leader on women oppression and proliferation of radical Islamic views.
Wonderful investment America made 'seeking peace'........I want my tax money spent on those wars back!!!
Vote for Romney and more tax money would go eventually to some new war, perhaps against Iran as Israel's proxy.
Romney thinks Russia is our number one foe. And don't forget, his foreign policy advisors were Bush's old advisors. There is one thing I don't think this article really touched on, is that Saudi Arabia has been quietly getting involved in Syria. The Saudis are afraid that the Iranian Shiites will eventually attack them, they are Sunni's. If this escalates and the Shiites and Sunnis fight spreads out from Syria, I'm concerned that Iran will attack Israel but make it look like it is the Sunni's. There is nothing worse than a religious war. Christians in the Middle East will get purged and then they will go after Israel. Don't like much of any of the outcomes in this.
Russia is not our friend, not even close.
@TReed o then obama must think russia is our best friend cuz u know all friends point huge missiles right next to eachothers boarders. Right? honestly any person that thinks obama, romney, bush, clinton foreign policies are different is @!$%#ing retarded.
It does seem like Romney is still stuck in the last century vis-a-vis China and Russia. Possibly due to advisors who are still stuck in the last century. I hope that he has a smarter alternative to what ObamaHillary are doing but that's no sure bet, especially if he (Romney) is under the spell of John McCain who has never seen a military intervention he doesn't support.
Russia is different now. They are no longer the Communist ideologs trying to spread their view of the world. They are more like us, capitalism has a strong foothold but democracy their is much more questionable. Putin actually acts more like a fascist than a communist. I don't trust his power grab there. He is cracking down on opponents, he is increasing the military budgets and he is reopening bases for their small Navy in Vietnam, Sachelles and Cuba. They had a nuclear attack sub cruising in the Gulf of Mexico for a month with no detection from the US. They have base in Syria at Tartus and they are working on a oil deal with Syria.
We need dialogue with Russia. Its better to know what they are doing than not. We are not at war with Russia, but we shouldn't take our eye off of them. We actually should be paying more attention to China. Tensions in the South China Sea could escalate much quicker than Syria. Vietnam wants to join Russia's economic union and with Russia reopening a base in Vietnam, gives Russia direct access to the oil and gas in the South China Sea.
drjakle - Obama has not backed down from the missile defense shield in Europe and has ticked off Putin. Putin is trying to back in the US conversation and hopes to put pressure on Obama to pull back the missile shield. Romney would be harder to work with and Russia will get more brazen to try and rattle Romney. This would put us closer to the old Cold War tactics than anything else.
"democracy there, not their" !!
Thanks for pointing out. I had changed the sentence and forgot to change it.
Another nice article by Richard Engel. He hit the nail on the head as to how this whole middle east fiasco has and continues to unfold. Unfortunately our fearless leaders in D.C. didn't and can't to this day think down the road on this part of the world. The middle east has and always will be volatile for one reason and one reason only. RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE MUSLIM RELIGION. Unfortunately, too, peace will not come to this area of the world as they continue to lead their lives from the past instead of from the future. Until they value life more then death they will stay in a state of flux as one despot/dictator after another leads these countries.
Keep reporting as we wish many others in the news media could only be as good and truthful as Richard has. Stay safe out there Richard and keep reporting with your wonderful breath of fresh air.
Insightful article. Hindsigt is 20/20.
What is Islam without the Prophet Muhammad's legacy ?
That is one of the best statements I've seen you post. Explain further if you please.
The answer in one word: nonexistent.
Centuries ago, someone told a lie - a very big lie - about some god who is angry and who demands blood. Over time, billions of people swallowed that lie - hook, line and sinker. They perpetuated that lie over many centuries while murdering anyone who failed to form the prescribed sets of opinions (or beliefs) and slaughtered anyone who failed to maintain those opinions or changed their opinions or formed their own opinions freely based on Reason - as new knowledge and evidence became available. Even today, we still have the ignoramus who imagines himself to be enlightened - Billions of them actually - those who see as Evil anyone who fails to form and maintain the exact same sets of opinions that the Priest or Prophet claims to hold - anyone who dares to think for himself and abandon religion. And so the killing continues. Man should never be bribed into the forming of his opinions with promises of rewards or threats of punishments - it is a bad cause which requires such arts.
Well put, Civility !!
That's a lot or rancor to settle, if it ever can be settled.
Arab Spring ?? I could care less..Give em all guns , last one standing wins..