• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Would Ike Do?

subgenius

Illuminator
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
Hitler on the Nile
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
......
Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment rather than invasion.
......

Nasser had the potential to upset the globe in a way that Saddam doesn't. Nasser was idolized by the Arab masses and aggressively intervened abroad. He helped the Algerians fight the French, forged close ties with Russia and infiltrated terrorists into Israel. (Israel also ran terrorist operations in Egypt, blowing up American libraries and cultural targets in an attempt to tarnish Nasser.) When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, the West was sure that the canal would fall apart and disrupt global trade. Cairo Radio once boasted: "Millions of Arabs are . . . preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."

Oh, the hawks will protest: Nasser didn't have weapons of mass destruction. Actually he did. Nasser's troops used mustard gas in Yemen.

European leaders were determined not to appease this "Hitler on the Nile." France, Israel and Britain conspired to invade Egypt and oust Nasser. "It was too risky to allow this adventurer, this miniature Hitler, to develop," Prime Minister Guy Mollet of France later told Nasser's biographer Jean Lacouture.

Ike was outraged and did to the Europeans what they are trying to do to us now: He forced the invaders to retreat and solve the crisis peacefully. "The United States is committed to a peaceful solution," he declared.

Thank God for Ike. If the hawks had been running the show then, we might still have troops in Egypt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25KRIS.html
 
Well, Nasser did then destabilise the region for the following two decades, including being the moving force behind a number of wars, which the US had to bankroll from the Israeli side.

Only when finally defeated militarily and facing Egyptian territory annexed by the Israelis did he come the negotiating table and truly deliver peace.
 
Just to add, that I think the US took the right line on Suez, which was simply an attempt to seize back assets nationalised by Egypt (i.e. the canal). Although distasteful, the Egyptian Government was within its rights.

If you subscribe to the theory that the US have the same obective, but Iraq's oil reserves as the toy in question, then there is a similarity. However, I don't.
 
I like the containment policy he had with Stalin. Instead of driving Stalin out of east europe he let him have east europe. I am sure the citizens of east europe are still glad for that containment policy.
 
Actually, the US took that line because the USSR had just offered direct miltary assistance to the egyptians. The result of this could have been global nuclear catastrophe.

Rank hypocrasy though, when you consider that the US took up France's imperial sword only a few years later in Vietnam.
 

Back
Top Bottom