HERE are three great articles that lay the whole situation out in very plain English. Our Arab allies in the Middle East aren't our allies, they are dictatorial theocrats who want us to do their dirty work and pay for it with American lives and tax dollars. (Do yourself a favor and click the link to the interactive map below) E mail your representative, your senators and Pres Obama, tell them we have had enough, we do not want another Middle East war. From +Mother Jones .....
| Fri Sep. 12, 2014 10:43 AM EDT
Here is the least surprising story of the day:
But that's not what's going on. It's not that they don't want American intervention. Many of these countries have been practically begging for it. The problem is that they want our help solely in support of their own sectarian and nationalist pursuits. They want America to commit an endless well of troops and arms in service of ancient enmities and murderous agendas that they themselves are unwilling to commit their own troops and money to. And for some reason, we keep playing along with the charade.
Fighting ISIS isn't really part of this agenda. It's Sunni; it's anti-Assad; and it's far away. Most of our putative allies in the Middle East either don't care very much about it or have actively supported it in the past. They'll pay lip service to destroying it now because they don't want to break with the United States entirely, but that's about it. It's just lip service.
By tomorrow they'll be back to privately griping that we haven't turned Iran into a glassy plain or something. And then, like a couple who knows their marriage is broken but can't quite bear the thought of divorce, we'll be back to stroking their egos and promising that we really do share their interests. We don't, thank God: we're not quite that depraved. We just want their oil and a sort of unstated tolerance of Israel.
It never changes. Next year the details will be slightly different, but we'll go through the same dance all over again. Hooray.
Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.If Arab countries just flatly didn't want to support our anti-ISIS effort, that wouldn't be surprising. American intervention in the Middle East hardly has an enviable history of success. It would be entirely understandable if they just wanted us to keep our noses out of things.
....The tepid support could further complicate the already complex task Mr. Obama has laid out for himself in fighting the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: He must try to confront the group without aiding Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, or appearing to side with Mr. Assad’s Shiite allies, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, against discontented Sunnis across the Arab world.
But that's not what's going on. It's not that they don't want American intervention. Many of these countries have been practically begging for it. The problem is that they want our help solely in support of their own sectarian and nationalist pursuits. They want America to commit an endless well of troops and arms in service of ancient enmities and murderous agendas that they themselves are unwilling to commit their own troops and money to. And for some reason, we keep playing along with the charade.
Fighting ISIS isn't really part of this agenda. It's Sunni; it's anti-Assad; and it's far away. Most of our putative allies in the Middle East either don't care very much about it or have actively supported it in the past. They'll pay lip service to destroying it now because they don't want to break with the United States entirely, but that's about it. It's just lip service.
By tomorrow they'll be back to privately griping that we haven't turned Iran into a glassy plain or something. And then, like a couple who knows their marriage is broken but can't quite bear the thought of divorce, we'll be back to stroking their egos and promising that we really do share their interests. We don't, thank God: we're not quite that depraved. We just want their oil and a sort of unstated tolerance of Israel.
It never changes. Next year the details will be slightly different, but we'll go through the same dance all over again. Hooray.
| Thu Sep. 11, 2014 1:28 PM EDT
Here's something I don't get. Republicans seem to universally hold the following two opinions about Iraq and ISIS:
"Residual force" sounds good too. But if we don't want boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS, what exactly would it have done? Hang around Baghdad to buck up the morale of the Iraqi forces that came fleeing back after encountering ISIS forces? Conduct ever more "training"? Or what? Can someone tell me just what everyone thinks this magical residual force would have accomplished?
- President Obama is to blame for the military success of ISIS because he declined to keep a residual force in Iraq after 2011.
- In the fight against ISIS, we certainly don't want to send in combat troops. No no no.
"Residual force" sounds good too. But if we don't want boots on the ground in the fight against ISIS, what exactly would it have done? Hang around Baghdad to buck up the morale of the Iraqi forces that came fleeing back after encountering ISIS forces? Conduct ever more "training"? Or what? Can someone tell me just what everyone thinks this magical residual force would have accomplished?
Kevin Drum
| Fri Sep. 12, 2014 1:49 PM EDT
Behold, the Middle East! If we could just understand what all the
strong countries, the falling-apart countries, the
unrecognized-countries, the "non-state actors", and the outside powers
all thought of each other, we might be able to chart a clear way
forward, right? Don't get your hopes up, although the latest project by
British data visionary David McCandless is a really valiant effort to
make sense of it all nonetheless.
McCandless' charted 38 regional players— from Afghanistan to Yemen, Al Qaeda to the European Union— and connected each to its major friends and enemies. The result is a tangled ball that illustrates the enormously complicated relationships in the region. (You can parse each actor's relationships on the full, interactive version on McCandless' site, Information Is Beautiful, which you should really check out.)
McCandless calls this work an "ongoing, evolving diagram," so it may be missing a few connections (Russia's close, getting closer relationship with Iraq, for instance). If you have more ideas, he welcomes input at the email address posted on his site.
McCandless' charted 38 regional players— from Afghanistan to Yemen, Al Qaeda to the European Union— and connected each to its major friends and enemies. The result is a tangled ball that illustrates the enormously complicated relationships in the region. (You can parse each actor's relationships on the full, interactive version on McCandless' site, Information Is Beautiful, which you should really check out.)
McCandless calls this work an "ongoing, evolving diagram," so it may be missing a few connections (Russia's close, getting closer relationship with Iraq, for instance). If you have more ideas, he welcomes input at the email address posted on his site.
No comments:
Post a Comment