Tuesday, October 10, 2006

...American troops in the Sinai.

Granted, it's a small amount (I think a battlion or so) and rotated out very often (I think every 6 months if I remember correctly). The point is, we try to keep the peace between Israel and Egypt with a symbolic gesture.

That begs the question...what if the shit hits the fan? What if Israel or Egypt lost their marbles and moved divsions of mechanized infantry into the Sinai. Do we expect our battalion along with the other UN forces to oppose the agressor or just stand by? Haven't we learned by now that UN forces have no teeth unless they are directly attacked and have to act in self defense?

As far as I know, the Sinai officially belongs to Egypt after the Israelis beat their asses, took their terriotory and then gave it back in good faith. All of that occurred after an attempt by Egypt to irradcate Israel (with some help, of course).

So here is what I propose...since the Suez canal is largely regarded by the bulk of the world as free for all nations to transit, why is the Sinai (which makes up the eastern border of the canal and staffed with UN troops) not an official "No-Man's land?" Because Israel gave it back? Please. They could still be in control of it today with Israeli warships patrolling the canal if it suited their national interests.

So, it's simple to me. It does not suit Israeli interests to contest "ownership" of the Suez Canal. But I'm willing to bet it's in Egypt's interests to "retain control" of what amounts to No-man's land (ceded to UN troops). What's the deal here? Just a reason to talk tough? I give up. The logic or lack thereof in that region totally escapes me.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home