"There will be consequences."

[Are_grits_groceries]

@AntDeRosa:
U.S. Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff says "there will be consequences" if Egyptian military intervention is "badly handled" - @CNN

Can people just stop issuing public warnings?
Even if somebody would be better off following the advice, they will balk at appearing to act as if this guides them. A leader cannot appear to be under the thumb of somebody else.

In addition, what the hell does 'handled badly' mean? That's a vague demand.
The US government has also said it is reviewing the huge aid package that they send Egypt.

Is diplomacy dead? The US appears to be conducting business through the media. If they don't have any contacts in Egypt that can reach out to help them deliver messages, then what the hell have they been doing in the previous years?

This shite just makes us look like blustering fools. This tactic should be used as a last resort. Did they not learn from the 'red line' proclamation to Syria about using chemical weapons? NEVER issue a promise of action unless you intend to carry it out because you box yourself in. Know what you are going to do and how it will be carried out.

This type of action should be used as a last resort. Now the JCS chairman has put himself out there and dragged everybody with him. Good luck with that.

[MADem]

1. Is there a link? I would like to see context. I can't believe the CJCS is sabre-rattling.

I think he's offering a strategic analysis, not a "warning" and I'd like to see the full flavor of his comments.

There absolutely WILL be consequences if this isn't handled right--one of the big ones is the billions in aid we give them every year. The other consequences will be a disturbance in the balance of power in the region (with the inevitable influx of bad actors with nefarious intent) if they don't do a "reset" fairly quickly.

The Turks do this sort of thing on the odd occasion; but they have a tradition of doing it going back to Attaturk; so it's not as upsetting. Egypt is still in transition from historical military rule to civilian leadership, and the concern is that they not go backward.

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. Here's a link:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey on Wednesday warned the Egyptian military of consequences if its overthrow of President Mohamed Mursi is viewed as a coup.

"At the end of the day it's their country and they will find their way, but there will consequences if it is badly handled," he told CNN. "There's laws that bind us on how we deal with these kinds of situations."

Dempsey's remarks refer to the laws that require the United States to cut off aid when a democratically elected government is deposed by military coup or decree. The United States sends $1.5 billion every year to Egypt, most of it in military aid.
http://news.yahoo.com/u-military-chief-warns-consequences-egypt-army-action-225955591.html

We are telling them to obey international law? The irony!

I am not saying there won't be consequences or that there shouldn't be consequences. I agree with your concerns. Why begin with public pronouncements instead of watching the events unfold while trying to maintain contact and privately saying these things?

We seem to have set ourselves up in an adversarial position. Why not couch such language with an attitude of keeping in contact and helping them as needed?

We forget to walk softly with that big stick.

[MADem]

3. Entirely appropriate comments--not out of line at all.

At the end of the day it's their country and they will find their way, but there will consequences if it is badly handled,

No irony at all--we give them, every year, a frigging FORTUNE in direct aid, foreign military sales, mil-to-mil and people-to-people endeavors, and for all that cash, we expect a stable relationship. It is what we're paying for.

It is not unreasonable to note this--it wasn't done in a mean way, either--it was said with an understanding that "they will find their way" and we simply hope they find a way that we can live with, so we can keep sending money their way and maintaining a nice geopolitical relationship. The "laws" he is talking about are US laws governing foreign aid, not "international law."

The ones that will be crying are the Egyptians, if they lose access to the money they are provided. And they WILL lose the cash if they don't clarify their position quickly--that's all Dempsey is saying....he's pointing out that we have laws in place that govern distribution of that cash.

His words are phrased appropriately; I see nothing out of line.

If he said "You'd better, or else..." that would be one thing, but he didn't say it that way. The only consequences are the ones that will accrue as a result of existing US law--no honey, no money.

[Democracyinkind]

4. I think the warning pertains more to the flow of US tax dollars than outright intervention.

But yes, for political reasons it might be wise not to have american military brass comment on political developments in Egypt. But I don't see it as that overt a threat.