...and Dumber

Not a group for reasoned analysis, the New York Times editorial writers are on a roll. Their 4/1/15 editorial criticizes the Saudis for interfering militarily in Yemen: "The Saudis Ominous Move Into Yemen."

It is not that the Times is unable to acknowledge that Sunni-run Saudi Arabia "...has watched with growing alarm as Shiite-majority Iran has gradually extended its influence throughout the region, from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq, and fears Iran is poised to do the same in Yemen, a Sunni-majority nation." So, Saudi concerns are legitimate then?

The Times also acknowledges that the possibility of a deal between Iran and the P5+1 "...has alarmed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states even more..." So, more legitimate concerns by the Saudis then?

But for the NY Times, legitimate concern does not give the Saudis a right to actually do anything. No. The Times says how "irresponsible" the Saudis are for openly discussing the possibility of getting nukes of their own. So Shiite Iran is making a deal that may allow them to get nukes; Shiite Iran is on the march throughout the Middle East; and now Shiite Iran-backed forces may be taking over a country on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. But don't do anything!

Now, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have agreed to form a pan-Arab force of 40,000 troops to fight who? Islamic extremists. How awful! I am sure that there would be no complaints from the Times if the force was being formed to fight those evil Israelis. But Islamic extremists?

If you thought that the Times could not get any dumber than their comment about religion not being under assault in this country (see prior post "Dumb...) then how about this: "It would be a catastrophic mistake for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to allow the Yemeni civil war to become the catalyst for a larger sectarian Shiite-Sunni war with Iran." A catalyst? Are they kidding? Just how dumb are they?

Here are a few quotes from Lt. General Michael Flynn, Retired, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "We have almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East. A new Middle East is essentially struggling to be born." To put it another way - we are way past the "catalyst" stage.

After noting how Shiite Iran is indeed on the march, Lt. Gen. Flynn said this: "We also have what I would call a real sort of push back by the Sunni governments and their lack of trust and their lack of respect for the United States. And I think that at the end of the day we have just this incredible policy confusion - never mind what our strategy is to execute that policy."

But the Times says that any action by Saudi Arabia is "likely to further increase tensions." The Middle East is aflame, but Saudi actions will "increase tensions?" Stunning! The answer for the Times: "Saudi Arabia should be using its power and influence to begin diplomatic negotiations." Well, so long as the Saudis are patient. I mean really, really patient. After all, the Iranians are now in their 12th year of negotiations with the West regarding their nuclear capabilities, all the while biding their time while inching towards having nuclear weapons - and the missiles with which to launch them. And didn't Iran just get yet another extension?

Said Lt. Gen. Flynn of the Obama Administration's policy: "It's almost a policy of willful ignorance." Willful ignorance - something with which the New York Times can agree.