<Without Egypt, our approach in the Middle East is not going to work.>
I'm not at all convinced our approach is working.
<It's a HUGE country with a massive population and no oil to speak of. So we must help Mubaric fight his fight within the country.>
I'm not sure I understand how improving diplomatic ties with IRAQ fits into this. Also don't understand why huge, overpopulated, and impoverished equals WE MUST. Do understand why those conditions equals Mubaric MUST HAVE OUR HELP.
What if Mubaric loses "his fight"? I've often heard similar statements about other countries leaders (Iran under the Shah and Vietnam spring to mind immediately) only to have the dreaded, unthinkable circumstance come to pass anyway.
I am very aware that I don't know all the nuances of global politics. In fact, I tend to give the State Dept. the benefit of the doubt, figuring they DO know the details. However, the call for a UN conference to consider the terrorism problem (I don't recall the exact wording), along with a statement specifically not supporting the U.S. in this, along with the announcement of improved diplomatic ties with Iraq, expressing the desire for increased trade with that country, leads me to wonder what Mr. Mubaric and/or the Egyptian people, in whole or in part, are trying to pull. And yes, as short sighted as it may be, I would still prefer that my tax dollars not be sent there.
ARS |
