|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:44 pm Post subject: The Talk about US Policy in the Middle East Thread |
 |
|
We have been spending quite a bit of time talking about people leaving the Middle East, so lets talk a bit about what's actually going on there. It seems to me that the United States has a terrible Middle East policy, but I am not sure what a good Middle East policy would be or would look like. Also, it seems like Russia has more or less the same policy, with the major difference of supporting a (more and more marginal) 'legitimate' state actor and working with Iran and Iraq.
To contribute to the discussion, I present this
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/19/official-mission-creep-timeline-us-war-in-syria-obama-administration/
| Quote: |
In Washington foreign-policy circles, there is an allergy to history, especially of the recent varieties that could illuminate current policy debates. Thucydides, the Founding Fathers, Carl von Clausewitz, and Winston Churchill (and other assorted men of history) are acceptable touchstones and references for historical reflection, but the foreign-policy objectives of current or recent White House occupants are referred to far less frequently. The common reason offered is that the United States finds itself in the current situation and should focus exclusively on forging a way ahead. And, in my experience, when recent illuminating history is raised, the response one gets is: “Well, yes, OK, but what should we do now?”
President Barack Obama faces yet another “what to do now” question with regards to his anti-Islamic State strategy in response to Russia’s 2-week-old bombing campaign in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman declared broadly, “Barack Obama is under pressure, at home and abroad, to restore the image of American strength by responding more forcefully,” while Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed “strategic boldness” in the form of destroying Russian air and naval assets if President Vladimir Putin did not stop his country’s attacks in Syria. Although there have reportedly been White House or State Department reviews of military options (for five years now, actually), it does not appear that Obama will authorize a significant, overt U.S. military escalation within Iraq or Syria.
Before diving into what the United States should do now regarding its anti-Islamic State strategy, it is essential to first look back and analyze exactly how the United States has arrived at where it is. Claims that Obama is demonstrating “restraint” or is “doing nothing” overlook the gradual accretion of U.S. forces and arms shipments, and the enlarging scopes of the missions being undertaken. When listening to debates about what to do now in Syria, please bear in mind the history of the last year-and-a-half. To help readers do this, here is your official “mission creep” timeline of the 15 most significant military policy declarations since June 2014, when the Islamic State’s uprising in Iraq dramatically escalated. |
Within the article is a timeline of each time we have increased US commitment to Syria, and today Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has proposed to "step up its operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including through “direct action on the ground."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/carter-syria-iraq-isis/412681/
I think that some action is smart and defensible, such as making sure the Kurds are not overrun, humanitarian airlifts, such as when the Yazidi's were trapped on the mountain. Mostly, I think for a sustainable solution to come, it needs to come from the people in the region, but seeing as how the dictators we supported actively crushed all non-religious civil society I am not sure how this would work in practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The US has a terrible Middle East policy if you are approaching it from the perspective of the costs/benefits for Americans and America. However, if you are looking at it from the perspective of the costs/benefits for Israel, it is very reasonable. Israel fears strong neighbors and leaders that are antagonistic towards its long term goals for establishing the Greater Israel (or Oded Yinon) Plan. They want to break up any country they see as a threat which, unsurprisingly, is just about all of them. Since Israel obviously cannot do this themselves, they rely on their dual-citizen powerbrokers inside the US gov, the media, think tanks, etc., as well as the banking cartels they operate, to manufacture a reality, persuade, and bribe insiders into enacting policies conducive to their goals. Their financial and media influence also gives them a stranglehold over the political process, allowing them to negate or ruin any politician who speaks ill of Israel or offers resistance. Pat Buchanan referred to D.C. as “Israeli occupied territory” in the 1970s; that description is likely even more apt now. Washington is as incompetent as ever.
They finally got rid of Saddam and shattered Iraq, did the same with Gaddafi and Libya, and were on the brink of a similar success with Assad and Syria before Russia stepped in. But they failed in Lebanon and have yet to push the US into a war that atomizes Iran, despite decades of propaganda and lobbying. Iran is a major lynchpin for Lebanon and Syria, everyone knows this, Russia especially. But this is where it gets a little complicated. Controlling the opposition and having a backup plan is a key strategy for long term success. While the Israeli Lobby and neocons are chickenhawks that constantly try to push the US into war, Israeli-firsters also control J Street, a seemingly more moderate lobbying group that helped broker the Iran deal. You win even when you lose if you manage the terms.
But I give Obama some credit here. He realized that the neocons burned him in Libya and hasn’t overcommitted himself too much since, and US might be at war with Russia, Iran, or both now if McCain or Hillary was at the helm. Also worth mentioning is that, since Obama wasn’t willing to commit, the Israelis and others (probably with the assistance of the US) empowered ISIS to go in and finish the job while the US was pretending over the last year plus to passively oppose ISIS. Putin called this bluff, went in, and has had ISIS running ever since. Or that was how it seemed the last I checked.
Finally, to the point about change in the Middle East coming from within: While I agree that the US has no business in the region, quarantine is likely the best option. These are low-trust, tribal cultures with shocking levels of inbreeding:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg/2000px-Global_prevalence_of_consanguinity.svg.png
These effects are now prevalent among Muslims in Europe.
http://dcgazette.com/muslim-inbreeding-may-genetic-catastrophe/
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/591577/British-Pakistanis-13-times-more-disabled-children
High institutional functionality and democratic principles in Western societies are the evolutionary result of high-trust and non-tribal attitudes. The people make the country, not the other way around, although importing people from tribal societies will certainly change that dynamic. Low IQ, low-trust, kin-based tribal cultures cannot reproduce that high level of functionality in any comparative fashion. Meaning, the Middle East will likely be a basket case prone to strongman rule for a long time to come. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2015 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have not really been paying attention very lately. I do hear that Obama has committed ground troops, because I guess the United States finally received the memorandum that air power has very strict limitations.
In any case, I strongly oppose putting boots on the ground to combat ISIS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The policy of the US in the Middle East should be to help the non Muslims and no one else. The US can produce enough oil on its own we don't need the duplicitous Saudis and the rest of the Arabs. Iran should get wacked. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| young_clinton wrote: |
| The policy of the US in the Middle East should be to help the non Muslims and no one else. The US can produce enough oil on its own we don't need the duplicitous Saudis and the rest of the Arabs. Iran should get wacked. |
Some truth to that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 2:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
We must appear tough: Hillary's boldish stance against Daesh
| Quote: |
Like Obama, Clinton rejected the notion, advanced by some Republicans, that crushing ISIS, as the terrorist army is also known, would require a large U.S. troop presence on the ground in Iraq and Syria.
“That is just not the smart move to make here,” she said. “If we have learned anything from 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s that local people and nations have to secure their own communities. We can help them, and we should, but we cannot substitute for them.”
But Clinton said that Obama had not sent enough elite U.S. commandos into Syria, where they have been working with rebel forces caught between ISIS and government forces loyal to strongman Bashar Assad.
“We should be sending more,” she said.
At the same time, Clinton said an attack on U.S. soil might increase pressure to send conventional U.S. troops into Syria but that “it would be a mistake” to do so. |
Aerial bombing doesn't work alone; although the deployment of air power works really well in coordination with ground troops. Now, the US has been bombing ISIS, but ISIS is still there. Why? They own the space. ISIS was able to take control over an impoverished, war-torn, climate-changed, water-deprived region. It has held it through a high tax, high spending welfare state (it got the ball rolling on spending after seizing all those banks in Iraq). Bombing isn't going to change that dynamic in a radical way. Neither will special operations ground forces. Clinton's plan is just Rumsfeldian; we're going to have to put boots on the ground, but lets make it the smallest and most affordable force possible. That's not how it works over the medium-term; a platoon or squad gets wiped out, and then there's more political pressure to ramp up involvement. Alternatively, generals advise more troops and he gets them while the President and Congress downplay the involvement (which is how we now have thousands of troops in Iraq to counterbalance ISIS).
If the US wants to decisively destroy ISIS, it will have to (a) defeat them on the ground, and (b) nation build. The US is probably incapable of the latter, so why do the former? Oh, right, Military Industrial Complex.
Also, Outside Powers Must End their Proxy Wars in Syria.
| Quote: |
The Islamic State’s international attacks call for a strategy. If the goal is to eliminate ISIS from territory it rules in Iraq and Syria, and from which it plots murder elsewhere, the forces opposed to it must come together. It took more than 100 dead in Paris and 224 passengers on a Russian airliner for France and Russia to coordinate their airstrikes in Syria. What will it take for the U.S. to do the same?
Airstrikes, however, do not win wars. Warplanes drop bombs, meaning they function as airborne artillery. No military doctrine holds that artillery alone can conquer territory. That takes forces on the ground. The ground forces exist in both Syria and Iraq, and they are not from the Western world. The Syrian Army, though odious to many Syrians and to the Western powers, is the strongest of these and has weathered four-and-a-half years of war without breaking up. It lost territory to ISIS in northeast Syria and at Palmyra, and it has reclaimed some of it with Russian air support. The Kurds of Iraq, supported by Kurds from Turkey and Syria and by U.S. airstrikes, have clawed back most of the territory that ISIS seized from them last year. The Shiite militias in southern Iraq, which filled the vacuum left by mass desertions from the U.S.-created Iraqi Army, with Iranian support and American air cover saved Baghdad from ISIS conquest and regained lost ground. The war requires infantry, but not American, British, and French troops. Nothing would turn Iraqis and Syrians to the jihadis more quickly than a Western invasion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Aerial bombing doesn't work alone; although the deployment of air power works really well in coordination with ground troops. Now, the US has been bombing ISIS, but ISIS is still there. Why? They own the space. ISIS was able to take control over an impoverished, war-torn, climate-changed, water-deprived region. It has held it through a high tax, high spending welfare state (it got the ball rolling on spending after seizing all those banks in Iraq). Bombing isn't going to change that dynamic in a radical way. Neither will special operations ground forces. Clinton's plan is just Rumsfeldian; we're going to have to put boots on the ground, but lets make it the smallest and most affordable force possible. That's not how it works over the medium-term; a platoon or squad gets wiped out, and then there's more political pressure to ramp up involvement. Alternatively, generals advise more troops and he gets them while the President and Congress downplay the involvement (which is how we now have thousands of troops in Iraq to counterbalance ISIS).
If the US wants to decisively destroy ISIS, it will have to (a) defeat them on the ground, and (b) nation build. The US is probably incapable of the latter, so why do the former? Oh, right, Military Industrial Complex. |
Now, let’s apply some deductive reasoning to this armchair-general logic and that of professional liars, and see where it leads us.
ISIS is attacking Syria and trying to weaken/overthrow Assad. Despite being a hardcore Islamist group operating in close proximity to Israel, ISIS, amazingly, does not seem very concerned with Israel, and ISIS soldiers have actually been treated in Israeli hospitals then released back onto the battlefield. For all of the talk in the US about the threat posed by ISIS, the US and ISIS (along with Israel, of course) share the same goal, which is to see the Assad regime collapse. And finally, the US “campaign” against ISIS has not been very effective. I wonder why?
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have done so a long time ago. The facts indicate that ISIS is a mercenary group puppeted by Israel and the US, formed after the Israelis and dual-citizen chickenhawks in the US were unable to push America into a direct war with Syria to further the Oded Yinon or Greater Israel Plan; too many Americans were hesitant after the prior disasters in Iraq and Libya. However, to appease Israel’s psychopathic objective, which is to destroy all potential regional threats, the US was content to play along and pay lip-service to the ISIS threat, doing a little here and there to make sure this proxy death squad it helped create didn’t get too out of control.
Regardless, those who have been paying attention have known most of this for well over a year, it’s all fairly clear at this point. As I said above weeks ago, Russia called this bluff and is now *actually* fighting ISIS. Which has put the US in an awkward position to say the least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The only problem with the US Middle East policy is that there is no helping Muslims. The US should have and should in the future let them wallow in their own problems. They take help and turn around and bite the hand that feeds them. "Teacher you don't know how important our religion is too us" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Aerial bombing doesn't work alone; although the deployment of air power works really well in coordination with ground troops. Now, the US has been bombing ISIS, but ISIS is still there. Why? They own the space. ISIS was able to take control over an impoverished, war-torn, climate-changed, water-deprived region. It has held it through a high tax, high spending welfare state (it got the ball rolling on spending after seizing all those banks in Iraq). Bombing isn't going to change that dynamic in a radical way. Neither will special operations ground forces. Clinton's plan is just Rumsfeldian; we're going to have to put boots on the ground, but lets make it the smallest and most affordable force possible. That's not how it works over the medium-term; a platoon or squad gets wiped out, and then there's more political pressure to ramp up involvement. Alternatively, generals advise more troops and he gets them while the President and Congress downplay the involvement (which is how we now have thousands of troops in Iraq to counterbalance ISIS).
If the US wants to decisively destroy ISIS, it will have to (a) defeat them on the ground, and (b) nation build. The US is probably incapable of the latter, so why do the former? Oh, right, Military Industrial Complex. |
Now, let’s apply some deductive reasoning to this armchair-general logic and that of professional liars, and see where it leads us.
ISIS is attacking Syria and trying to weaken/overthrow Assad. Despite being a hardcore Islamist group operating in close proximity to Israel, ISIS, amazingly, does not seem very concerned with Israel, and ISIS soldiers have actually been treated in Israeli hospitals then released back onto the battlefield. For all of the talk in the US about the threat posed by ISIS, the US and ISIS (along with Israel, of course) share the same goal, which is to see the Assad regime collapse. And finally, the US “campaign” against ISIS has not been very effective. I wonder why?
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have done so a long time ago. The facts indicate that ISIS is a mercenary group puppeted by Israel and the US, formed after the Israelis and dual-citizen chickenhawks in the US were unable to push America into a direct war with Syria to further the Oded Yinon or Greater Israel Plan; too many Americans were hesitant after the prior disasters in Iraq and Libya. However, to appease Israel’s psychopathic objective, which is to destroy all potential regional threats, the US was content to play along and pay lip-service to the ISIS threat, doing a little here and there to make sure this proxy death squad it helped create didn’t get too out of control.
Regardless, those who have been paying attention have known most of this for well over a year, it’s all fairly clear at this point. As I said above weeks ago, Russia called this bluff and is now *actually* fighting ISIS. Which has put the US in an awkward position to say the least. |
The twists and turns of your logic have outdone themselves this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Aerial bombing doesn't work alone; although the deployment of air power works really well in coordination with ground troops. Now, the US has been bombing ISIS, but ISIS is still there. Why? They own the space. ISIS was able to take control over an impoverished, war-torn, climate-changed, water-deprived region. It has held it through a high tax, high spending welfare state (it got the ball rolling on spending after seizing all those banks in Iraq). Bombing isn't going to change that dynamic in a radical way. Neither will special operations ground forces. Clinton's plan is just Rumsfeldian; we're going to have to put boots on the ground, but lets make it the smallest and most affordable force possible. That's not how it works over the medium-term; a platoon or squad gets wiped out, and then there's more political pressure to ramp up involvement. Alternatively, generals advise more troops and he gets them while the President and Congress downplay the involvement (which is how we now have thousands of troops in Iraq to counterbalance ISIS).
If the US wants to decisively destroy ISIS, it will have to (a) defeat them on the ground, and (b) nation build. The US is probably incapable of the latter, so why do the former? Oh, right, Military Industrial Complex. |
Now, let’s apply some deductive reasoning to this armchair-general logic and that of professional liars, and see where it leads us.
ISIS is attacking Syria and trying to weaken/overthrow Assad. Despite being a hardcore Islamist group operating in close proximity to Israel, ISIS, amazingly, does not seem very concerned with Israel, and ISIS soldiers have actually been treated in Israeli hospitals then released back onto the battlefield. For all of the talk in the US about the threat posed by ISIS, the US and ISIS (along with Israel, of course) share the same goal, which is to see the Assad regime collapse. And finally, the US “campaign” against ISIS has not been very effective. I wonder why?
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have done so a long time ago. The facts indicate that ISIS is a mercenary group puppeted by Israel and the US, formed after the Israelis and dual-citizen chickenhawks in the US were unable to push America into a direct war with Syria to further the Oded Yinon or Greater Israel Plan; too many Americans were hesitant after the prior disasters in Iraq and Libya. However, to appease Israel’s psychopathic objective, which is to destroy all potential regional threats, the US was content to play along and pay lip-service to the ISIS threat, doing a little here and there to make sure this proxy death squad it helped create didn’t get too out of control.
Regardless, those who have been paying attention have known most of this for well over a year, it’s all fairly clear at this point. As I said above weeks ago, Russia called this bluff and is now *actually* fighting ISIS. Which has put the US in an awkward position to say the least. |
The twists and turns of your logic have outdone themselves this time. |
Again, as already stated, what is explained above is not based on my own logic, Leon. It has been expressed by many others and is grounded in factual analysis of what we know about the situation.
If you would like to note which parts you take issue with, maybe I can help educate you on the topic, since we know this isn’t your region of expertise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Swartz wrote: |
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Aerial bombing doesn't work alone; although the deployment of air power works really well in coordination with ground troops. Now, the US has been bombing ISIS, but ISIS is still there. Why? They own the space. ISIS was able to take control over an impoverished, war-torn, climate-changed, water-deprived region. It has held it through a high tax, high spending welfare state (it got the ball rolling on spending after seizing all those banks in Iraq). Bombing isn't going to change that dynamic in a radical way. Neither will special operations ground forces. Clinton's plan is just Rumsfeldian; we're going to have to put boots on the ground, but lets make it the smallest and most affordable force possible. That's not how it works over the medium-term; a platoon or squad gets wiped out, and then there's more political pressure to ramp up involvement. Alternatively, generals advise more troops and he gets them while the President and Congress downplay the involvement (which is how we now have thousands of troops in Iraq to counterbalance ISIS).
If the US wants to decisively destroy ISIS, it will have to (a) defeat them on the ground, and (b) nation build. The US is probably incapable of the latter, so why do the former? Oh, right, Military Industrial Complex. |
Now, let’s apply some deductive reasoning to this armchair-general logic and that of professional liars, and see where it leads us.
ISIS is attacking Syria and trying to weaken/overthrow Assad. Despite being a hardcore Islamist group operating in close proximity to Israel, ISIS, amazingly, does not seem very concerned with Israel, and ISIS soldiers have actually been treated in Israeli hospitals then released back onto the battlefield. For all of the talk in the US about the threat posed by ISIS, the US and ISIS (along with Israel, of course) share the same goal, which is to see the Assad regime collapse. And finally, the US “campaign” against ISIS has not been very effective. I wonder why?
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have done so a long time ago. The facts indicate that ISIS is a mercenary group puppeted by Israel and the US, formed after the Israelis and dual-citizen chickenhawks in the US were unable to push America into a direct war with Syria to further the Oded Yinon or Greater Israel Plan; too many Americans were hesitant after the prior disasters in Iraq and Libya. However, to appease Israel’s psychopathic objective, which is to destroy all potential regional threats, the US was content to play along and pay lip-service to the ISIS threat, doing a little here and there to make sure this proxy death squad it helped create didn’t get too out of control.
Regardless, those who have been paying attention have known most of this for well over a year, it’s all fairly clear at this point. As I said above weeks ago, Russia called this bluff and is now *actually* fighting ISIS. Which has put the US in an awkward position to say the least. |
The twists and turns of your logic have outdone themselves this time. |
Again, as already stated, what is explained above is not based on my own logic, Leon. It has been expressed by many others and is grounded in factual analysis of what we know about the situation.
If you would like to note which parts you take issue with, maybe I can help educate you on the topic, since we know this isn’t your region of expertise. |
Who are these others? Your fellow travelers? Let me state categorically that you seem clueless about this, and I doubt any education provided would improve my understanding.
| Swartz wrote: |
Despite being a hardcore Islamist group operating in close proximity to Israel, ISIS, amazingly, does not seem very concerned with Israel, and ISIS soldiers have actually been treated in Israeli hospitals then released back onto the battlefield. For all of the talk in the US about the threat posed by ISIS, the US and ISIS (along with Israel, of course) share the same goal, which is to see the Assad regime collapse. And finally, the US “campaign” against ISIS has not been very effective. I wonder why?
If the US wanted to destroy ISIS, it could have done so a long time ago. |
Why would ISIS be concerned with Israel, considering that they are plenty busy in Iraq and Syria? Israel has not targeted ISIS, however Russia and France have. Russia and France have had terrorist attacks against them, but Israel hasn't. What a huge mystery that is. Not to mention that Israel is an enemy of Iran and Hizbollah, who happen to be among the most effective forces against ISIS. Again, big surprise that ISIS is not going full force against Israel, right?
Secondly, you mention how the US goal is to get rid of the Assad regime, and then say if the goal is to destroy ISIS why hasn't the US done so? Well, a better question is why create a proxy terrorist group instead of simply destroying Assad? See, isn't that much simpler and less asinine? In a conventional sense could America have destroyed ISIS a long time ago, yes, but could the US have held the land and stopped another group from reforming and dragging the US into the same sort of hell that was our Iraq occupation, no. The conventional wisdom on this is much simpler than your twisted, convoluted, method of making leaps and logic and connecting disparate dots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Why would ISIS be concerned with Israel, considering that they are plenty busy in Iraq and Syria? Israel has not targeted ISIS, however Russia and France have. Russia and France have had terrorist attacks against them, but Israel hasn't. What a huge mystery that is. Not to mention that Israel is an enemy of Iran and Hizbollah, who happen to be among the most effective forces against ISIS. Again, big surprise that ISIS is not going full force against Israel, right? |
It’s not surprising at all for the reasons stated previously. Were you trying to make a point here, Leon? Scrapping the sarcasm might give your statements more clarity.
| Leon wrote: |
| Secondly, you mention how the US goal is to get rid of the Assad regime, and then say if the goal is to destroy ISIS why hasn't the US done so? Well, a better question is why create a proxy terrorist group instead of simply destroying Assad? See, isn't that much simpler and less asinine? In a conventional sense could America have destroyed ISIS a long time ago, yes, but could the US have held the land and stopped another group from reforming and dragging the US into the same sort of hell that was our Iraq occupation, no. The conventional wisdom on this is much simpler than your twisted, convoluted, method of making leaps and logic and connecting disparate dots. |
Again, you’re not making a clear point or negating anything I said. The only pertinent question you asked: “why create a proxy terrorist group instead of simply destroying Assad?” was something I addressed directly: The US and Israel have been trying to get rid of Assad for years. Israel can’t do that itself but it also hasn’t been able to successfully push the US into a war with Syria as a result of the bad taste left over from disasters in Iraq and Libya. That’s why.
It seems it is you who is twisting and convoluting the message here, Leon. Your retort is quite scrambled and unclear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 21, 2015 5:01 pm Post subject: Re: The Talk about US Policy in the Middle East Thread |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
We have been spending quite a bit of time talking about people leaving the Middle East, so lets talk a bit about what's actually going on there. It seems to me that the United States has a terrible Middle East policy, but I am not sure what a good Middle East policy would be or would look like. Also, it seems like Russia has more or less the same policy, with the major difference of supporting a (more and more marginal) 'legitimate' state actor and working with Iran and Iraq.
To contribute to the discussion, I present this
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/19/official-mission-creep-timeline-us-war-in-syria-obama-administration/
| Quote: |
In Washington foreign-policy circles, there is an allergy to history, especially of the recent varieties that could illuminate current policy debates. Thucydides, the Founding Fathers, Carl von Clausewitz, and Winston Churchill (and other assorted men of history) are acceptable touchstones and references for historical reflection, but the foreign-policy objectives of current or recent White House occupants are referred to far less frequently. The common reason offered is that the United States finds itself in the current situation and should focus exclusively on forging a way ahead. And, in my experience, when recent illuminating history is raised, the response one gets is: “Well, yes, OK, but what should we do now?”
President Barack Obama faces yet another “what to do now” question with regards to his anti-Islamic State strategy in response to Russia’s 2-week-old bombing campaign in Syria on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman declared broadly, “Barack Obama is under pressure, at home and abroad, to restore the image of American strength by responding more forcefully,” while Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed “strategic boldness” in the form of destroying Russian air and naval assets if President Vladimir Putin did not stop his country’s attacks in Syria. Although there have reportedly been White House or State Department reviews of military options (for five years now, actually), it does not appear that Obama will authorize a significant, overt U.S. military escalation within Iraq or Syria.
Before diving into what the United States should do now regarding its anti-Islamic State strategy, it is essential to first look back and analyze exactly how the United States has arrived at where it is. Claims that Obama is demonstrating “restraint” or is “doing nothing” overlook the gradual accretion of U.S. forces and arms shipments, and the enlarging scopes of the missions being undertaken. When listening to debates about what to do now in Syria, please bear in mind the history of the last year-and-a-half. To help readers do this, here is your official “mission creep” timeline of the 15 most significant military policy declarations since June 2014, when the Islamic State’s uprising in Iraq dramatically escalated. |
Within the article is a timeline of each time we have increased US commitment to Syria, and today Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has proposed to "step up its operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, including through “direct action on the ground."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/carter-syria-iraq-isis/412681/
I think that some action is smart and defensible, such as making sure the Kurds are not overrun, humanitarian airlifts, such as when the Yazidi's were trapped on the mountain. Mostly, I think for a sustainable solution to come, it needs to come from the people in the region, but seeing as how the dictators we supported actively crushed all non-religious civil society I am not sure how this would work in practice. |
That's about it. Supposedly our bombings of ISIS have hurt it economically, but if it continues to be able to bring in westerners, I don't think that matters that much. If recruitment starts to dry up, then it might become more of a problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if ISIS "falls" in Syria in the next 24 months, but the Libyan or Yemeni version takes it place. The upside to those two is they are harder to reach than Syria is. Tunisia is currently building a fence along the border it shares with Libya,and on the Egyptian side? I don't know. On the one hand Sisi's government hates fundies more than pretty much everyone, but it can't control Sinai, so I'm not sure it could stop people from crossing into Libya either.
And Yemen? Good luck getting there. Through Saudi or Oman? Yeah, good luck with that. By sea? There's a naval blockade I believe.
Anyway, Obama's middle east policy has, in my opinion, been generally ok until now. The exception being Syria (from the beginning). Little disturbed about this Syria mission creep too.
I'm also worried that Egypt is going to bite us in the ass again. The country is slowly getting more and more unstable, and if the fundies gain power again, they probably won't be as stupid as they were the first time under Morsi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 05, 2015 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Surprise, surprise.
Israel buys most oil smuggled from ISIS territory - report
| Quote: |
Israel has become the main buyer for oil from ISIS controlled territory, reports "al-Araby al-Jadeed."
Kurdish and Turkish smugglers are transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and selling it to Israel, according to several reports in the Arab and Russian media. An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit for the terrorist organization.
The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
In August, the "Financial Times" reported that Israel obtained 75% of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan, which the FT describe as a “potential gateway for ISIS-smuggled crude."
“Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of ISIS oil. Without them, most ISIS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel,” an industry official told the newspaper "al-Araby al-Jadeed."
"Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most ISIS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey," the industry official added. |
http://www.globes.co.il/en/article.aspx?did=1001084873
Last edited by Swartz on Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus2
Joined: 06 Sep 2015
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
why create a proxy terrorist group instead of simply destroying Assad?
|
http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf
If you're not eager to read the above you can watch the below.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/08/10/former_dia_chief_michael_flynn_says_rise_of_isis_was_willful_decision_of_us_government.html
Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn:
| Quote: |
HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
FLYNN: I think the administration.
HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
FLYNN: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
HASAN: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
|
The United States uses Sunni idiots to do those things that the US can not overtly do due to domestic political constraints. I hope we all remember that this is where Osama came from. Or maybe we now forget, only to remember when the information is convenient?
The United States also supports jihadist groups in China and Russia. It supports groups like MEK in Iran (based in an American military institution in Iraq).
| bucheon bum wrote: |
Anyway, Obama's middle east policy has, in my opinion, been generally ok until now. The exception being Syria (from the beginning). |
Libya? Maybe it's hard to keep track of all the states that get smashed. Or maybe you think Libya was a success? Or maybe you're not including it in the Middle East? Immediately after the state was smashed the USA was running weapons formerly owned by the government of Libya to sunni headchoppers in Syria. Libya should be included even if it is geographically north Africa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
