Mullen: US must treat Bahrain differently from Libya

[cali]

By Jordan Fabian - 03/20/11 10:29 AM ET

The U.S. is not taking military action against the government of Bahrain like it is against the Libyan regime because the two countries have a long-held alliance, America's top military official said Sunday.

Asked about the dichotomy on ABC's "This Week," Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen did not directly address Yemen, but said Bahrain has been a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

"I think we have to be very careful to treat every country differently," he said. "Bahrain is in a much different situation than Libya."

Rulers in Bahrain and Yemen have used force against anti-government demonstrators and some members of Congress have questioned why the U.S. government has not intervened to stop the violence there like it has in Libya.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/150881-mullen-we-have-treat-every-country-differenty

so, if our friends perpetrate atrocities against their own civilians it's not as bad as if those who aren't our friends do it?

[Cali_Democrat]

1. K&R for exposure of hypocrisy. n/t

[joshcryer]

2. Are you advocating unilateral action against Bahrain?

I would denounce that but would back an international move. If the US vetoed I'd denounce it.

[cali]

8. no. I'm pointing out the clear hypocrisy

[joshcryer]

9. The US did not unilaterally attack Libya.

But you knew that.

[cali]

16. what's with the red herring about unilateral action?-

Mullen says it clearly- Bahrain should be treated differently from Libya it's a friend. Forget unilateral action- you will not see the U.S. supporting ANY U.N. action against Bahrain or SA.

[joshcryer]

18. Correct. Because there won't be an UN action against Bahrain or SA.

The point is that these situations are not comparable. I know it's hard to accept for a whole whole whole lot of people here.

[Duende azul]

30. The attack on Iraq had it's coalition of the willing too.

But you knew that.

[joshcryer]

33. Iraq wasn't the topic.

[Duende azul]

35. So what? Multilateral aggression is ok by now but wasn't then?

If your criteria for not going to war is to avoid unilateralism, Iraq was ok, at least under that rule.

Just out of curiosity: Did you support the Iraq war?

[joshcryer]

37. Bush did not have international support.

That's a fact.

[golddigger]

3. The hypocrisy is stunning from this administration and

its supporters.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. No kidding! People in Bahrain can be killed by their leaders because they're our friends.

What about the Bahrain humanitarian need and ongoing "Genocide?" Where's the outrage?????

If this wasn't so sad, I'd have a belly laugh at the hypocrisy.

[Angry Dragon]

4. ........

different rules for friends



:hide:

[malaise]

5. Duh

We know :cry:
I cry for humanity

[FrenchieCat]

7. How many deaths in Bahrain and or in Yemen, and how many in Libya?

Please provide dates and the number of dead in each of these countries....

Also provide statements from said leaders of these countries, and what they have
threatened to do to their own people and when these statements were made.

Then we will see if we are dealing with apples and apples.
Then we can judge the hypocrisis that folks have decided exists.

Thanks! :hi:

[joshcryer]

13. Nah, you go down that road Libya deaths are dismissed as "combatants."

I assure you that the rhetoric is strong.

[Duende azul]

34. The more you are spinning this, there more I doubt what you try to sell about "non combatants"

[SolutionisSolidarity]

19. How many deaths were in Israel?

nm

[FrenchieCat]

21. Did the Israelites protest their government, and demanded that the Israel PM step down

after 42 years?

[SolutionisSolidarity]

24. Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Palestinians do "protest" Israel's government.

Since we are broadening the meaning of the word protest to mean armed resistance for Libya, we might as well do it for everyone. As far as Gaddafi's length of time running Libya, while that may be a justification for revolting against his government, it does not justify military intervention.

[Better Believe It]

10. So why doesn't the Obama administration at least cut-off military assistance to Bahrain ....

dictatorship and oppose the Saudi invasion of Bahrain?

[cali]

12. that is a good question.

[amandabeech]

15. I hope that you know the answer to your own question. n/t

[Catherina]

11. US has officially supported the Saudi invasion of Bahrain

US has officially supported the Saudi invasion of Bahrain

"“It’s a priority for the US administration to work with partners in the Gulf region against the concern over the behavior of Iran,” she said. Commenting on the deployment of troops from the Peninsula Shield Force in the Kingdom of Bahrain in the wake of violent protests, Clinton said it was a sovereign right for Bahrain to seek help from GCC member states under the joint defense treaty they had signed."
Posted by As'ad AbuKhalil at 8:51 AM

Scratch my head over the hypocrisy here. So it's Bahrain's right to call in outside help to shoot at and kill protesters but not Libya's right? My personal opinion is that it should be nobody's right but that would bring down the whole creepy house of cards.

I guarantee you this isn't going over well at all on the Arab street.

[joshcryer]

14. I know I'm on ignore. But, uh, Gaddafi called in outside help to shoot and kill his protesters.

But you knew that.

[cali]

17. how does that mitigate what the Saudis and the ruling family of Bahrain are doing?

[joshcryer]

20. Bahrain enlists outside help with treaty, Libya enlists outside help with blood money.

You know, different situations.

Not that I support the Saudis bringing in security, but it's highly unlikely that that security is going to massacre thousands of people like Gaddafi's paid army has done.

[Duende azul]

31. Lol, the Saudis don't need to be paid "blood money". How generous of them.

[kenny blankenship]

22. How is that you don't see that the US has limits on its power?

Saudi Arabia holds the US dollar, as the currency accepted for oil transactions and thus the world's reserve currency, HOSTAGE.

If they feel we are threatening them directly -or fomenting subversion inside their country- they can shoot that hostage. It would hurt them, but it would hurt us a lot more, and they can do it at any time.

The consequences for every American would be catastrophic. Better we should have a Fukushima Daiichi meltdown going on in every state. If we have to start paying for foreign oil with Euros and Renminbi, you are all FUCKED. Every one of you. Some of you reading this would literally freeze to death in your beds the next winter.

Even the mighty United States of America has limits on what it can do and how freely it can act. We cannot deal as we might like with UAE, or Qatar, Oman, Bahrain or Yemen. The first four are sheikdoms close to the Saudi Royal family. If you go back far enough they share ties of blood. They share ties of religion, culture, and their fucked up medieval system of "government". Including Yemen, they are all physically close to the Saudi Kingdom and Arabian peninsula. Like a robe Saudi Arabia wears between itself and the outside world. The closer you get to that peninsula, the more CAREFULLY you must consider your words and actions. Saudi Arabia has actually sent its own troops into Bahrain to assist their cousins put down a Shi'ite insurrection. That should explain to you -unless you are just stupid or willfully blind- how they view the situation there: a threat to the kindred kingdom of Bahrain is a threat to Saudi Arabia.

There are things in your life you have power over, and then there are conditions over which you have no power - at least not as yet. In foreign policy it is the same. There are problems and conditions you can act on, if it seems good and just, and then there are problems you can't do anything about, even if you think the cause is just. Even George W. Bush, who came into office blustering about how he was going to break North Korea to his will, and that Clinton had coddled Kim Jong Il out of softheaded lib'rulism, came to see that North Korea was a problem the US just couldn't do much more about. Bahrain is shielded by Saudi Arabia. We can urge the Bahraini monarchy to liberalize, and we have. We can condemn the brutality of their crackdown, and we have. We cannot, however, take an overt side in what is fundamentally a conflict between religious sects that goes back a thousand years, and we cannot afford to have Saudi Arabia start viewing us as a THREAT TO THEIR EXISTENCE. No one who could be trusted with the office of Utilities Commissioner or higher would be that stupid and irresponsible.

Unlike Bahrain, Libya is a problem we can do something about. There is murk in the Libyan picture but it is no where near as murky as getting into the middle of a Sunni-Shi'ite spat. The villain status of Col. Gaddawful is durable and will hold up in the court of public opinion. We can take our pick of responses there in Libya, although I favor using military power for the traditional military ends of producing a clear winner and clear loser and the drawn out nature of a campaign of "bombing to keep warring sides separate on the ground" worries me. There is no Saudi Arabia to bar our way with a flaming gas pump in Libya.

And finally, if you want to see democratization in places like Bahrain and Yemen, you should back the Revolution in Libya, as in Egypt, Tunisia. The Sheikdoms and Emirates around the Arabian peninsula are the Saudi's robe, that hides their shame from the outside world. The secular autocracies of Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia are a Bedouin tent they live in. As long as the tent looks the same and isn't forced to modernize, the robe will not seem old fashioned either. The best way to get at the shame of Saudi Arabia is to peel first the tent and then the robe off, working from the outside in.

[joshcryer]

23. Thanks for that insightful commentary.

I was looking at it far more abstractly than that.

[malletgirl02]

25. That was brilliant.

You explain the reason for U.S. difference in action perfectly.

[14thColony]

28. Straight to the heart of the matter. Well spoken.

While I despise the Realpolitik view that "they may be cruel dictators, but at least they're OUR cruel dictators," I likewise despise the extreme form of Idealism that seems to hold that if you can't act everywhere you shouldn't act anywhere.

[DJ13]

26. The dead citizens in those two countries dont see the difference

[provis99]

27. refreshing that Mullen spoke the truth, hypocrisy and all.

How come military leaders just speak the truth, while our political leaders hedge and haw and lie to us?

[inna]

29. hypocrisy in abundance, that's for damn sure

[TBF]

32. Typical. K&R nt

[RB TexLa]

36. Amazing that a member of congress could show that much stupidity