response to the crisis. "After days and days of dithering and an
avalanche of criticism from a wide array of experts, the president came
forth last night with a new statement on Egypt. But was it all that new?
And, if not, why bother?" wondered Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post. As violence erupts
between Mubarak opponents and supporters today, foreign policy columnists are
trying to clarify what the United State's role in the situation should
actually be. Here are the arguments on both sides--from those who think the U.S. should stay out of it, and those who think Obama has a moral responsibility to take a greater role.Hold Your Rhetorical Fire: This Isn't About the United StatesEgyptians Don't Need American Leadership observes David Ignatius
at The Washington Post. "Washington debate about the new Arab revolt
tends to focus on the U.S. role: Has President Obama blundered by not
forcing Mubarak out sooner? Should America abandon other oligarchs
before it's too late? But this isn't about us. If Washington's
well-chosen emissary, former ambassador to Cairo Frank Wisner, has
helped broker Mubarak's departure and a stable transition to new
elections, so much the better. But Egyptians don't need America to chart
their course." A U.S. Intervention On Either Side Would Be 'Mad' At the Guardian, Simon Jenkins finds Western intervention--in favor or against the Mubarak government--to be equally undesirable scenarios:Had
the west not intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan, I bet the Iraqi people
would by now have found a way to be rid of Saddam. They or the army
would have done what the Tunisians and the Egyptians are doing, and at
far less cost in lives, upheaval and chaos. As for the Taliban, as
clients of Islamabad they would have come to Pakistani heel. The Afghans
would be a threat to nobody but themselves.
asbestos mesothelioma lawsuit compensation mesothelioma about mesothelioma
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen