![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
dreamville-bg.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWe've seen lots of ink being spilled over this issue, and arguments tend to vary widely - from sensible analyses of the geopolitical interests of the great powers (and the greatest of them all, the US), to outright worn-out banalities and cliched tropes that are as useless as a pair of soiled diapers.
If we're to simplify the whole thing though, in a nutshell, the US (and by extension, Europe's) approach towards the Middle East is rather simple: there's no desirable side to support, no possible long-term ally, no possible desirable outcome, and realistically no hope of stability and peace in the long term. So, instead of trying to pour water into a broken bucket to no end, better pit the various regional players against each other, and make sure they remain strong enough relative to each other, but weak enough relative to ourselves.
Example. If Iran starts getting too powerful, prop up Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda becomes too powerful, back ISIS. If ISIS becomes too powerful, prop up Iran. Throw in some Turkey, a pinch of Iraq and an ounce of UAE into the mix. While everyone is busy slaughtering each other, the oil keeps flowing, while all those scoundrels are kept occupied, and most of their attention is diverted away from us, so they don't try any dirty moves and we don't have a ton of terrorism on our hands to deal with. It tends to happen only when for some reason they want us involved into a war or two, which of course we should avoid doing, and let Muslims kill each other instead. That's the whole point of US (and Western) policy in the Middle East. Just leave those turban-clad sheep-shaggers (or whatever they're called) to their mutual suicide, until everybody in the region gets so sick of Islam eventually, they themselves start killing their despots, sheikhs and mullahs and whatever. Then we step in, and take some more oil cheaply.
And that does make a lot of sense really. I mean, what other options do we have? Whenever we've put a hand there, we've had our arm bitten very badly. The only exception (and dire mistake, I daresay) was Iraq War II. At first, Saddam was our buddy because he was more desirable than Iran. Iran was the big threat, so we armed Saddam against them. Then Saddam went crazy and stopped heeding our "advice", so we trimmed him the first time, and then chopped him off the second time. This led to ISIS and the like, etc. As for Assad, he was more desirable for a time (just like Mubarak), but he was always doomed to fail eventually, because he represents a tiny minority in his country (less than 1/5 of the population), and that's not a good offer in the long run. Same story with Saddam, by the way. Perhaps Bahrain could like to take a note or two while they still have the opportunity. Because the Saudis' support for that regime won't be able to sustain it much longer, now that Iran has gone active.
Anyway. For the first time in a long time, the US/West policy towards the Middle East is not trigger-happy, but is cautious and thoughtful. Not saying it's the best one that could be had, but it's still way better than the trigger-happy option that has brought us to the current situation in the first place.
Of course, the consequences of all these reckless actions in the past that are now mostly befalling the countries of the region (war, destruction, economic strife, refugee pressure) are not that important for those guys comfortably sitting in their armchairs somewhere on the East Coast of North America, pretending to be smart members of the various think-tanks that craft US foreign policy. Hey, it's all happening thousands of miles away after all, no?
Finally, a word about the so called Color Revolutions. I hate to say it, and you may accuse me of racism or any other form of -ism all you like, but it is unfit for most Muslim societies. Turns out, people in the Middle East, in their large majority, simply do not desire liberal democracy. They only want a democracy in order to be able to elect radical Islamists who'll then enforce Sharia. All those nation-building neocons who have various pipe dreams regarding that region should've already realized by now that there's no hope of seeing a liberal democracy in the Middle East, as this is quite simply NOT what the vast majority of Muslims aspire to - simply because their cultural model and tradition is different. They don't view democracy as an end in itself, but merely a means to and end. Even if it's a noble purpose, like getting rid of corruption, or secular governments, or governments that do not represent the religious majority, etc. They've just got much more pressing concerns than democracy and freedom, and we should acknowledge this before we presume to know what's best for those societies, and before we're embarked on our next geopolitical adventure in the most complicated region of the world.
If we're to simplify the whole thing though, in a nutshell, the US (and by extension, Europe's) approach towards the Middle East is rather simple: there's no desirable side to support, no possible long-term ally, no possible desirable outcome, and realistically no hope of stability and peace in the long term. So, instead of trying to pour water into a broken bucket to no end, better pit the various regional players against each other, and make sure they remain strong enough relative to each other, but weak enough relative to ourselves.
Example. If Iran starts getting too powerful, prop up Al Qaeda. If Al Qaeda becomes too powerful, back ISIS. If ISIS becomes too powerful, prop up Iran. Throw in some Turkey, a pinch of Iraq and an ounce of UAE into the mix. While everyone is busy slaughtering each other, the oil keeps flowing, while all those scoundrels are kept occupied, and most of their attention is diverted away from us, so they don't try any dirty moves and we don't have a ton of terrorism on our hands to deal with. It tends to happen only when for some reason they want us involved into a war or two, which of course we should avoid doing, and let Muslims kill each other instead. That's the whole point of US (and Western) policy in the Middle East. Just leave those turban-clad sheep-shaggers (or whatever they're called) to their mutual suicide, until everybody in the region gets so sick of Islam eventually, they themselves start killing their despots, sheikhs and mullahs and whatever. Then we step in, and take some more oil cheaply.
And that does make a lot of sense really. I mean, what other options do we have? Whenever we've put a hand there, we've had our arm bitten very badly. The only exception (and dire mistake, I daresay) was Iraq War II. At first, Saddam was our buddy because he was more desirable than Iran. Iran was the big threat, so we armed Saddam against them. Then Saddam went crazy and stopped heeding our "advice", so we trimmed him the first time, and then chopped him off the second time. This led to ISIS and the like, etc. As for Assad, he was more desirable for a time (just like Mubarak), but he was always doomed to fail eventually, because he represents a tiny minority in his country (less than 1/5 of the population), and that's not a good offer in the long run. Same story with Saddam, by the way. Perhaps Bahrain could like to take a note or two while they still have the opportunity. Because the Saudis' support for that regime won't be able to sustain it much longer, now that Iran has gone active.
Anyway. For the first time in a long time, the US/West policy towards the Middle East is not trigger-happy, but is cautious and thoughtful. Not saying it's the best one that could be had, but it's still way better than the trigger-happy option that has brought us to the current situation in the first place.
Of course, the consequences of all these reckless actions in the past that are now mostly befalling the countries of the region (war, destruction, economic strife, refugee pressure) are not that important for those guys comfortably sitting in their armchairs somewhere on the East Coast of North America, pretending to be smart members of the various think-tanks that craft US foreign policy. Hey, it's all happening thousands of miles away after all, no?
Finally, a word about the so called Color Revolutions. I hate to say it, and you may accuse me of racism or any other form of -ism all you like, but it is unfit for most Muslim societies. Turns out, people in the Middle East, in their large majority, simply do not desire liberal democracy. They only want a democracy in order to be able to elect radical Islamists who'll then enforce Sharia. All those nation-building neocons who have various pipe dreams regarding that region should've already realized by now that there's no hope of seeing a liberal democracy in the Middle East, as this is quite simply NOT what the vast majority of Muslims aspire to - simply because their cultural model and tradition is different. They don't view democracy as an end in itself, but merely a means to and end. Even if it's a noble purpose, like getting rid of corruption, or secular governments, or governments that do not represent the religious majority, etc. They've just got much more pressing concerns than democracy and freedom, and we should acknowledge this before we presume to know what's best for those societies, and before we're embarked on our next geopolitical adventure in the most complicated region of the world.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/16 12:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/16 11:45 (UTC)Neither the US or Europe actually wants to rule. They just want the oil without having to put in place the mechanisms of rule, with all the concomitant costs therein.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/16 15:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/1/16 17:07 (UTC)Long version: let's kick some hornets' nest and make short-term profit. Someone else will sweep the shit afterwards.
Short version: we don't know what the fuck we're doing.
(no subject)
Date: 20/1/16 20:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/1/16 07:38 (UTC)That's the problem with nation-building. These situations are too complex, and the outcomes of regime change is too unpredictable. We don't even begin to try understanding the particularities of those societies - we just see what's on the surface, and we assume that tinkering with the surface a little bit by weakening a regime or toppling it altogether, things would turn in our favour. But of course, reality is rather different. And our own actions then come to bite us on the ass.