Political Animal
Blog
As various first anniversaries of the roiling events dubbed the “Arab Spring” have passed, there have been frequent reassessments of conditions in Tunisia and Egypt. Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of the outbreak of protests in Libya.
But a year ago today occurred the beginning of one phase of the Arab Spring that has not been well-remembered or honored: the unsuccessful popular protests in Bahrain, crushed ruthlessly as the United States stood by and the world watched in dismay.
In a special “Sneak Preview” from the March/April issue of the Monthly, we’re proud to offer today the definitive account of the events in Bahrain: “The Crackdown,” by NPR foreign correspondent Kelly McEvers. It’s a memorable account of events that have too quickly been forgotten.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on February 14, 2012 12:16 PM:
The rain,
Of pain,
Is not limited
To Bahrain.
And just wait until Conservatives get a hold of power here in the US.
They'd LOVE to crush a "Liberal Spring."
Joe Friday on February 14, 2012 12:18 PM:
Of course, Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, will seek to impose sanctions against Bahrain, and demand their government leaders step down.
Danny on February 14, 2012 12:41 PM:
File under "damned if you stand by, damned if you intervene". Here's a thought: we're not responsible for everything that happens in the world.
Josef K on February 14, 2012 12:44 PM:
Bahrain should have (and still could be) a wake-up call for those of us who, rather naively I think, expected the "Arab Spring" to change the region wholesale. Let's be honest, these protests and demonstrations haven't actually toppled any autocrats whose hold on power wasn't already shakey as hell.
Yes, these protests have accomplished great things thus far, and led to the overturning some truly ugly regimes. But we shouldn't get our hopes too high up for positive changes, especially when you consider what a mess Egypt and Libya still are, and how unstable Europe itself is starting to look. Athens is literally on fire, for pity's sake, much like London and the whole of England was this time last year.
DAY on February 14, 2012 12:51 PM:
In the course of three centuries Great Britain most thoroughly screwed the planet.
Then America usurped their dominance, and will accomplish the same in a century- or less.
SecularAnimist on February 14, 2012 1:08 PM:
Danny wrote: "Here's a thought: we're not responsible for everything that happens in the world."
Here's a thought: we ARE responsible for millions of dollars per year in military aid to the repressive government of Bahrain.
Joe Friday on February 14, 2012 1:09 PM:
Danny,
"Here's a thought: we're not responsible for everything that happens in the world."
Tell that to the crowd that wants to smuggle even more weaponry into Syria.
Perhaps the West could start putting little stickers on their military armaments that say: LIKUD PARTY UBER ALLES.
Danny on February 14, 2012 3:31 PM:
@SecularAnimist
Good point, I didn't even know about that. But it does sound like a good reason to withhold aid.
@Joe Friday
Smuggling weapons into Syria doesn't sound like anything we should get involved with, whatever McCain, Lieberman and Graham's thoughts on the subject. Apparently the Arab League are talking about arming the rebels - let them do it. Seem impossible to predict whether arming the rebels will actually do any good or just tip the country into civil war. Besides, Al Qaeda in Iraq seems to have a presence. I think we should stay out of that one..
Joe Friday on February 14, 2012 5:43 PM:
Danny,
Now that you mention it, how the hell does the West manage to keep siding with al-Qaeda ?
First they side with the anti-Gadhafi side in Libya, and we end up losing tens of thousands of advanced SA-24 shoulder-launched jam-resistant SAMS to al-Qaeda.
Now the West is siding with the anti-Assad side in Syria, which is not just being cheered-on by Ayman al-Zawahri, but al-Qaeda recently carried out the terrorist bombings in both Damascus and Aleppo.
Danny on February 14, 2012 6:31 PM:
@Joe
Well, short answer is that Obama's administration made a decision to (semi-consistently) pro-democracy movements because a) it's consistent with our proclaimed values and b) it's in our interest because our propping up autocrats was one of the factors behind the formation of Al Qaeda and they used it in their recruiting efforts. Al Qaeda were a) always opposed to the secular despots, b) they need good PR after the demise of Bin Laden and opposing Assad is popular, and c) the opposition in Syria are sunnis like AQ, while Assad is not.
Let me add that - while I frankly doubt anyone lost "tens of thousands" of SAMS to Al Qaeda - "we" most certainly didn't loose anything, as we don't own Libyan state property and are not responsible for what happens to it. In Iraq we were an invading Army and thus we were somewhat responsible for what got stolen or not, law and order etc. In Libya we provided air support (as part of a UNSC coalition) to a homegrown rebellion. They - the Libyans - own their own country, and they were responsible for keeping track of their stuff.
Of course, I'm sure we did what we could do (without presence on the ground) anyway to keep weapons out of the hands of AQ. But what we did we did out of a vested interest and not because we had a responsibility to do anything.
Joe Friday on February 15, 2012 12:24 AM:
Danny,
Eh, that was a rhetorical question.
I'm well aware of the stated rationale for siding with the so-called opposition, but it certainly has nothing to do with democracy. Neither those who opposed Gadhafi or those who now oppose Assad are interested in democracy, as both are aligned with al-Qaeda.
As to the SAMS:
* Der Spiegel reported that the chairman of the NATO military chiefs secretly briefed German Bundestag members and senior NATO officials that at least 10,000 shoulder-fired SAM missiles are unaccounted for in Libya.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,789556,00.html
* Peter Bouckaert of 'Human Rights Watch' who photographed SAMS being carted off:
"In Libya we're talking about something on the order of 20,000 surface-to-air missiles. This is one of the greatest stockpiles of these weapons that has ever gone on the loose."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nightmare-libya-20000-surface-air-missiles-missing/story?id=14610199
Dennis Komorrowski on February 15, 2012 11:59 AM:
I generally love anything here. Even if I disagree, there's something to make me think and wrestle with. But I am not going to be reading Kelly McEvers's nonsense. I listened to her on NPR this morning, that was advocacy and not journalism.
I agree with the points made in this post:
http://thecommonills.blogspot.com/2012/02/walts-insane-mcevers-is-new-judy-miller.html
She is not in Syria. She is taking at face value her own little circle. It's not at all different than what Judith Miller did. Especially since Miller wanted the US in Iraq and McEvers makes clear this morning on NPR that she wants "intervention" in Syria.
I remember a time when journalists weren't allowed to do what she's doing. But I also remember a time when, if you weren't in the country, you weren't considered eligible to report on it.