« That about sums it up | Main | Alone with the dishes (reprised) »

Monday, September 02, 2013


I find it telling that the Arab League and Turkey (many of whom receive sizeable military aid/equipment packages from the US and other western countries), are coming out strongly in favor of a US military attack on Syria... but have no intention of lifting a finger to help.

In fact, Turkey's Prime Minister has made several public statements to the effect that a few days of firing missiles at military targets won't be enough.  He wants the US to intervene militarily to remove the Assad regime.

My question is this:

Why the hell do the US and other western powers give military aid to these clowns?  Why do Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have the latest jet fighters and helicopters provided by the US and Europe.  Why do these countries have well-equipped armies, navies and air forces on someone else's dime if there is no expectation that when push comes to shove, they will join a coalition led by their benefactor(s)?

I've heard the old saw that 'It isn't a reasonable or ethical request to expect Muslim countries to join a US attack on another Muslim country!'  

Oh really?  Why not?!  

Have we really all bought into their bullsh*t that Muslims are some sort of special class of humans, and to expect them to take a stand against one of their own would be tantamount to fratricide?!

Puleeze!  They have no trouble slaughtering one another at the drop of a hat when the mood strikes them.  

Are we really saying that we have zero expectations of these countries after all that has been done for them?  Are we really okay with them, once again, standing by like some schoolyard mob pushing the hapless combatants forward, yelling, "Fight, fight, fight...", all the while staying safely on the sidelines and enjoying the spectacle?

I think the time has come for the western powers - particularly the US - to take a close look at who they supply with military aid, and make that aid contingent upon rolling up their sleeves and providing some support (troops, planes, ships, airfields, refueling tankers, intelligence, etc.), whenever a fight breaks out.

Fail to step up just once?  Kiss that fat aid check good-bye.

I don't really care that this risks pushing them into the sphere of influence of Russia or China.  I'd rather Russia and China be bled dry by these leeches.  

Bottom line: If these countries aren't willing to vote with the west at the UN... side with the west on global issues... share their oil with the west at an equitable price...and above all, put some skin in the game when the west really needs them to have our back... they aren't really in the west's sphere of influence in the first place, now are they?

Posted by David Bogner on September 2, 2013 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cowards:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Required reading for anyone in the U.S. Congress, this is.

Posted by: Elisson | Sep 3, 2013 1:06:12 AM

Amen. Preach!!

Posted by: anon | Sep 3, 2013 2:04:36 PM

In principle you are correct. But which Arab country of effectively dealing with Syria (as you pointed out, no one really has a solution)? And I don't think the US wants to join up with an Arab country. Didn't work so well in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Fred | Sep 3, 2013 9:04:33 PM

Maybe Erdogan can send a "protest flotilla" to the Syrian coast. I'm sure the authorities there will be ever so much more humane than the Israelis were...

Posted by: psachya | Sep 3, 2013 11:51:26 PM

Why? Because that aid keeps them along side. Cutting them off means lost influence with them and will create a vacuum..a vacuum that will be filled by either the Russians, China or both. That is exactly what happened when the West (mainly the US) refused to provide Nasser with weapons and fund the Aswan High Dam project. Foreign aid doesn't always guarantee influence, but it often does.

Posted by: Karl | Sep 6, 2013 6:49:10 AM

Karl... Are they really 'along side'? Is the US really able to influence them? Those are the key questions, and I suggest that the answer to both are 'no'. Nassar was in RUssia's sphere of influence and did as he pleased. Today Egypt is in the US's sphere of influence. Do you really think the US has any influence whatsoever over what goes on there today?

Posted by: treppenwitz | Sep 10, 2013 4:14:26 PM

"Do you really think the US has any influence whatsoever over what goes on there today?"

With the military, yes. The current head of the Egyptian Army trained in the US and still has contacts with his former American classmates.

Providing these countries with support isn't always wise and it doesn't give us control, but it does give us some influence.

Posted by: Karl | Sep 16, 2013 3:03:04 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.