Bahrain - a conundrum for the interventionists

[Banquo's Ghost]

In the Libya thread, there are several posters who advocate intervention in that country's internal conflict. One or two have claimed that we should do this in every case of liberty being denied.

The rebellion in Bahrain has largely gone unremarked. The Shia majority are protesting at their autocratic Sunni rulers and have been faced with some pretty heavy handed retaliation. Yesterday, a column of Saudi armoured personnel carriers crossed the border to deliver 1,000 troops to aid the Bahraini king - and incidentally send a message to the increasingly fractious Shia in their own country.

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

Clearly, most would argue self-interest however foul a stench it leaves. Or the non-interventionist like myself would call a plague on all their houses and extend non-intervention to include arms sales, and as soon as we can make it practical, oil sales. But there have been some very high-mided calls for action in LIbya - how do proponents of intervention plan this new war?

[rory_20_uk]

I'm a pragmatist, and I see no gain for the UK / the west in getting into this quagmire. If the Muslims can start more sectarian violence so much the better as hopefully they'll leave us alone and concentrate on killing each other.

If we can have a plan to help subsidise airfares to get those who wish to leave the UK to the warzone for Jihad of their choice that would be fantastic.

[gaelic cowboy]

Well one could be cynical and say that due to low or no oil and gas in Bahrain the world is not too bothered about it.

Myself I think it is just cooler on tv news to see tanks and warplanes so all the hype broadcasters were in Libya as a result.

[Shibumi]

We clearly have to separate the good bad guys from the bad bad guys. Not to mention the bad good guys!

Good bad guys - ie. Saudi Arabia
Bad bad guys - ie. Iran
Bad good guys - ie. France (remember the freedom fries?)
Good good guys - ie. England

This is of course from an American perspective.

[Idaho]

The US should just come out and tell the Saudis to back off. The Saudis and their tame poodles - the Al Khalifahs like to characterise the legitimate and largely peaceful Bahrain protest movement as "Iranian inspired". This is pure nonsense. A nonsense made worse by Iran chipping in and telling the Saudis to not beat up protestors (yes we can all roll our eyes at that one).

The Bahraini protest movement is young, secular and although majority Shia, is not anti-Sunni. Just anti royal autocrat - something that's just beyond the pale for the Saudis.

I've seen footage of peaceful protestors being shot at close range with baton rounds. Of piles of empty CS gas cans. Of protestors carrying the Bahrain flag and numerous signs saying "Not Shia, Not Sunni, Bahraini".

In the light of this I find some comments on this thread repellant and frankly shameful.

[rory_20_uk]

An idealist would

[Centurion1]

The US should just come out and tell the Saudis to back off. The Saudis and their tame poodles - the Al Khalifahs like to characterise the legitimate and largely peaceful Bahrain protest movement as "Iranian inspired". This is pure nonsense. A nonsense made worse by Iran chipping in and telling the Saudis to not beat up protestors (yes we can all roll our eyes at that one).

The Bahraini protest movement is young, secular and although majority Shia, is not anti-Sunni. Just anti royal autocrat - something that's just beyond the pale for the Saudis.

I've seen footage of peaceful protestors being shot at close range with baton rounds. Of piles of empty CS gas cans. Of protestors carrying the Bahrain flag and numerous signs saying "Not Shia, Not Sunni, Bahraini".

In the light of this I find some comments on this thread repellant and frankly shameful.

Why should I care or involve myself in it. Good for them they are finally tired of all the crap they put up with for thousands of years. I am tired of American blood and treasure being spent on the Middle East. Why should we involve ourselves in ANOTHER war. Sure fight the one we have and I support my government there with everything I have but why spread ourselves even thinner and support and aid people who in the end will just spit on us and call us invaders.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In the Libya thread, there are several posters who advocate intervention in that country's internal conflict. One or two have claimed that we should do this in every case of liberty being denied.

The rebellion in Bahrain has largely gone unremarked. The Shia majority are protesting at their autocratic Sunni rulers and have been faced with some pretty heavy handed retaliation. Yesterday, a column of Saudi armoured personnel carriers crossed the border to deliver 1,000 troops to aid the Bahraini king - and incidentally send a message to the increasingly fractious Shia in their own country.

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

Clearly, most would argue self-interest however foul a stench it leaves. Or the non-interventionist like myself would call a plague on all their houses and extend non-intervention to include arms sales, and as soon as we can make it practical, oil sales. But there have been some very high-mided calls for action in LIbya - how do proponents of intervention plan this new war?

I'm an interventionist. Should I ever change my mind about that, it won't be over the realisation that tyrants intervene too.

Liberty and equality for the entire universe! If it were up to me, I'd don on grandpa's blue uniform right now and march on Moscow tonight. It is practical considerations that should deter us, not ideological cynicism. For example, one does not march on Moscow at minus 85 degrees. Likewise, one does not overthrow Saudi Arabia and Iran at the same time. Better to topple the Middle East despots one by one, spread democracy like an oil slick.

[Beskar]

The issue with interventionism is simply this, "Why are we intervening?" and "What are we intervening for?".

If it is for some self-mandated higher purpose, then you would to validate this through a representative body with other like-minded nations. This could be the UN, or perhaps form a "Democratic Commonwealth".

Just randomly picking nations to invade however, is always a bad idea.

[Dâriûsh]

This rather makes pleas for Western intervention in Libya subject to interesting analysis. If the fight for liberty and freedom is to be supported in Libya, surely Bahrain should be on our list of military interventions too? Clearly these rebels, if successful, may tend towards Iran, but that is their free choice (we have invaded a country previously to depose a Sunni dictator and hand a country over to Iranian influence, so why not now)? Should they be so minded, why shouldn't Iran be allowed to invade Bahrain on behalf of the Shia non-governmental majority as the interventionist would have us do in Libya, and as Saudi Arabia has done on behalf of the dictator? Surely the Saudis, as nurturers of the 9-11 bombers and hardline Islamist dogma - a country steeped in the worst kind of Shari'a law and seemingly determined to crush the legitimate aspirations of an oppressed majority in another country by force - should be subject to immediate sanction, if not military action, at long last?

Could you imagine the world response if Iran intervened in Bahrain... or Lebanon? Yes, Saud is as dark and oppressive as Iran, but they have way better PR.


But I can tell you that the Revolutionary Guard must have been itching to set sail across the Persian Gulf. This, incidentally, is the ultimate nightmare scenario for the house of Saud. They'd let IDF soldiers spray-paint Makkah minarets before they'll let Iranian influence spread in the peninsula. So I am not surprised that they sent in their security forces to quell any potential, or perceived, Iranian-backed insurrection.


Edit: Oh, and by the way. Iran like to think it still has territorial claims on Bahrain. Crazy kooks.

[TinCow]

Bahrain has not remotely devolved into a situation where intervention is necessary. It became necessary in Libya only when it became apparent that a wholesale massacre of tens of thousands was about to occur. Deaths in any number are regrettable, but the reality is that while deaths are rare and in small numbers, the proper course is to pursue further liberties through exclusively diplomatic means. Diplomacy is still the best option in Bahrain.

[Dâriûsh]

Bahrain has not remotely devolved into a situation where intervention is necessary. It became necessary in Libya only when it became apparent that a wholesale massacre of tens of thousands was about to occur. Deaths in any number are regrettable, but the reality is that while deaths are rare and in small numbers, the proper course is to pursue further liberties through exclusively diplomatic means. Diplomacy is still the best option in Bahrain.

I diagree. The West chose not to intervene in Bahrain because it would upset too many "allies".

In Bahrain, a despot king is killing his own people with foreign soldiers (Saudis and Pakistani mercenaries). In Libya, that foolish colonel is killing his own people with Chadian, Sudanese, and what not mercenaries. Both despots need to be stopped.


Apparantly, the only difference is that Gadaffi has no friends outside the African Union, where he sponsors a few despots, while Bahrain is friendly with Saud and the United States (which has a naval base there). Saud, and the United States I'm sure, does not like the idea of a pro-Iranian popular government in Bahrain.


...They prefer to quell it with violence, apparantly, while pretending to fight for Libyan freedom. How ackward.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Bahrain looks to be heading in a democratising direction anyway, where Libya was in the Iron Grip of a military despot. The crackdown is brutal but it is not the same as having African merc running around lynching people, and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

So, I don't think the two are the same.

[Dâriûsh]

Bahrain looks to be heading in a democratising direction anyway, where Libya was in the Iron Grip of a military despot. The crackdown is brutal but it is not the same as having African merc running around lynching people, and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

So, I don't think the two are the same.

No, they might not have that many African mercenaries in Bahrain. But they do have one thousand recently hired Pakistani mercenaries. And I am willing to bet that they will be better paid and equipped than Gadaffis poor Guineans, Nigerians, Chadians, et al.


And with Saudi involvement in Libya, you can bet they'll find a way to install some religious kooks in the power hierarchy. That's the price. Saud wouldn't mind turning Libya into a religious colony. And it is a fertile land for that. Remember all those Libyans who went to fight in Iraq, not to mention those special Islamic legionaries Gadaffi created to fight wars in Uganda and Tanzania.

[Hax]

and the threat of another Islamist State is very real there.

Is there anything to back this up?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is there anything to back this up?

Large gains be religious Sunni and Shia parties in elections since 2002, forming an overall majority in the elected chamber.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Diplomatic intervention only. They are arguing over religion rather than democracy. A more extreme example of a similar phenomenon in Yemen. Diplomatic influence over our "friends"

[Viking]

I diagree. The West chose not to intervene in Bahrain because it would upset too many "allies".

In Bahrain, a despot king is killing his own people with foreign soldiers (Saudis and Pakistani mercenaries). In Libya, that foolish colonel is killing his own people with Chadian, Sudanese, and what not mercenaries. Both despots need to be stopped.


Apparantly, the only difference is that Gadaffi has no friends outside the African Union, where he sponsors a few despots, while Bahrain is friendly with Saud and the United States (which has a naval base there). Saud, and the United States I'm sure, does not like the idea of a pro-Iranian popular government in Bahrain.


...They prefer to quell it with violence, apparantly, while pretending to fight for Libyan freedom. How ackward.

The fact that the US has chosen to ally itself with despicable dictatorships such as Saud Arabia does of course matter - a lot, but the situation Bahrain is far from comparable to that in Libya. It is nothing new that states shoot at and kill protesters, it typically never leads to military intervention. The situation in Libya is pretty unique, given that the rebels took control over an entire part of the country in a civil war slash revolt.

Diplomatic intervention only. They are arguing over religion rather than democracy. A more extreme example of a similar phenomenon in Yemen. Diplomatic influence over our "friends"

To my understanding, the Bahraini democracy is severely flawed. It has been claimed that it is the regime that plays the religious card, not the protesters.

[Sarmatian]

It is nothing new that states shoot at and kill protesters, it typically never leads to military intervention. The situation in Libya is pretty unique, given that the rebels took control over an entire part of the country in a civil war slash revolt.

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

[TinCow]

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

Intervention is only merited when the number of deaths likely to result from the intervention is less than the number that is likely to result without it.

[Sarmatian]

Intervention is only merited when the number of deaths likely to result from the intervention is less than the number that is likely to result without it.

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

[Viking]

So, it's basically okay to kill protesters, intervention is merited only when protesters arm and upgrade themselves to rebels?

Yes, it is ok to kill protesters...no, it isn't. It would though set a pretty expensive/impossible precedence to intervene in such a case, not to mention the fact the alliances in the region would make it very hard to intervene. Expensive not only in $$, but also in human lives.

You sound you like you want the world to be all about absolutes rather than shades of grey, but the world has no such thing to offer..

[TinCow]

Sounds like one of Murphy's laws. How do we count the refugees? Half a point? Kids are worth two each and destroyed homes count only if it's a tie?

Seriously, in that sentence there's likely and deaths two times. You may wanna rethink it.

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

[Sarmatian]

No, I don't. I'm perfectly happy with that definition. Your dislike of the words does not invalidate it.

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

[TinCow]

No, what invalidates it is the fact that there is no way to accurately assess number of deaths in either scenario.

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

[Idaho]

No, they might not have that many African mercenaries in Bahrain. But they do have one thousand recently hired Pakistani mercenaries. And I am willing to bet that they will be better paid and equipped than Gadaffis poor Guineans, Nigerians, Chadians, et al.

There is some doubt about the stories of Gadaffi's mercenary hordes. Libya is a more complex place than many think.

Mercenaries or Libyans from Fezzan?

[Sarmatian]

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to even remotely accuratelly assess the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for an intervention.

[Sarmatian]

Are you suggesting that there is some scientific or mathematical method for determining when intervention is warranted?

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

[TinCow]

Actually, I thought you were suggesting that, since in your opinion that's the basis for an intervention. No, my point is that since it is impossible to make an even remotely accurate assessment of the damage in either scenario, that can not and must not be a basis for intervention.

Every single method for determining whether to intervene is going to be subject to a subjective determination. There is no 'accurate' method because there is, frankly, no right answer. Some people will say intervention should always be done to protect human rights, even if no one is dying. Some people will say intervention should never be done for any reason, even mass genocide. There is no authority that can say one view is right and the other is wrong.

For me, it is a cost-benefit analysis that is weighed in human lives. We're going to have to guess no matter which method we use, so my preference is to guess in a manner that is designed to keep as many people alive as possible. Yes, I have to guess to determine whether more people will die with or without intervention, but since guessing is required in every single case that doesn't really seem to be a negative to me. Guessing and subjective determinations are part and parcel of the entire question of intervention, so what difference does it make if the guessing involves the numbers of human lives lost?

[PanzerJaeger]

The problem is that there was no real evidence that a genocide was imminent. The violent suppression of an armed rebellion by a dictator does not make said dictator a genocidal maniac. There were no such mass slaughters in Zawiya, Ras Lanuf, or Ajdabiya after Gaddafi forces retook them.

And Sarmation brings up an important point. We intervene on behalf of armed rebels who have a means to defend themselves, but do nothing as governments slaughter protestors? Oddly enough, of all the Arab leaders facing uprisings, Gaddafi is actually the most justified in retaliating with military force.