Follow by Email

Monday, August 19, 2013

New York Times, "False Choices on Egypt": No Mention of Churches Being Torched by the Muslim Brotherhood

Do You Remember Shays' Rebellion? Probably not, given that it occurred in Massachusetts between August 1786 and June 1787. Impoverished US Revolutionary War veterans, who had closed courts to halt debt collection trials, sought to seize the federal Armory in Springfield in January 1787. A hastily raised militia fired grape shot at Shays's men, resulting in four dead and twenty wounded, and caused the rebels to flee. Ultimately, most of the rebels were pardoned; however, several were hanged.

Yes, even in the early days of the United States, shit happened.

Some 137 years later, there was also the violent 1924 evacuation by US troops of the Bonus Army, consisting of needy World War I veterans and their families, encamped outside of Washington.

What do Shays' Rebellion and the Bonus Army have to do with recent events in Egypt? Answer: In the real world, no-win situations often arise, demanding difficult choices by world leaders, unless you are President Obama and can afford to take the opportunity to play golf in Martha's Vineyard.

In an editorial entitled "False Choices on Egypt" (, The New York Times begins by observing:

"After overthrowing Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president, the military could have been a positive force if it had put in place a transition plan that included all groups, including Mr. Morsi’s allies in the Muslim Brotherhood."

No mention by The New York Times that Hitler was also democratically elected. No mention by the Times that the Muslim Brotherhood is now busy torching Christian Coptic churches througout Egypt (see:

The Times editorial concludes:

"President Obama’s muted chastising of the generals and his indecisive reaction to the slaughter does not inspire confidence. Instead of wringing their hands, administration officials should suspend the $1.3 billion in annual American military aid to Egypt — including the delivery of Apache helicopters — until the military puts the country on a peaceful path.

. . . .

Long term, Egypt cannot subsist on handouts and needs to develop a real economy to provide jobs, education and other opportunities to its people. That is the road to true stability and will require tourism and foreign investment. But that cannot happen in a country in perpetual turmoil with a repressive military intent on obliterating its adversaries. The United States should not be complicitous in this unfolding disaster."

Query: How is the military to put Egypt on a "peaceful path" when the Muslim Brotherhood is busy torching churches?

I don't condone the excessive use of force by the Egyptian army; however, they are not confronting Cub Scouts and Brownies.

The crisis, which Obama is so anxiously seeking to avoid, involves a no-win situation. On the other hand, unless order is brought to Egypt, further chaos will continue to envelop the Muslim Middle East.

The Egyptian army had very friendly ties with the US until Obama's abnegation of power. Obama's refusal to take action is in keeping with prior decisions to avoid any involvement whatsoever in Syria's ongoing human tragedy and in Iran's 2009 Green Revolution.

No, I am not calling for US military intervention in Egypt or elsewhere. However, with regard to Egypt, Obama has succeeded in alienating a long-standing friend, i.e. the Egyptian army, while surrendering any ability to moderate its conduct.

Why am I not surprised?

1 comment:

  1. "After overthrowing Mohamed Morsi, Egypt’s first democratically elected president"
    This is not normal, people. Something is rotten in this tower.
    It looks like we have a new axis:
    Iranian new Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan new Chavez and ... the same old New York Times.
    They make identical statements.