I post this here and not in GD only because I don’t have the patience or determination to back up an impression of the actions of different world powers over more than a century with cites, if it can even be done for such an issue.
I am also not implying a conspiracy with a single nefarious mastermind, but instead just that whatever these governments might say in public in reality the opposite is far more advantageous and profitable.
With even the smallest amount of cynicism and rational thinking it becomes obvious why every country who is able to meddle and project troops and military hardware into the middle east does, and it has nothing to do with humanitarian concerns or terrorism fighting. It is the simple hard fact that our modern industrial society runs on fossil fuels, therefore securing a cheap and reliable supply is as important to them as a grocery store is to a man on the street. If not for this fact the ME would be mostly ignored by world attention, and arguably better off.
Even now the next generation of mentally ruined terrorists is being cultivated by the USA via drone strikes, gee I wonder what it does to human beings to live with the worldview that at any moment they or someone they love can be turned into minced meat by a silent death machine in the sky controlled by the super power on the other side of the world. I’m sure it is positive and life affirming.
For one thing I’m not sure if the world powers starting with Britain could have done a WORSE job on stabilizing the region even if they tried, but in fact the region is right where they want it to be in terms of chaos. A group of average intelligence ten year olds could most likely have done a better job than probably a small nation state worth of highly educated professionals working in foreign policy issues worldwide, fishy no?
I don’t think it’s possible for any outside government to successfully manage the Middle East and I think our government should stop trying. Everything we do there, we end up regretting. Back Afghan insurgents to drive out the Soviet Union, end up fighting Taliban 20 years later. Give money and weapons to Iran, see Iran support terrorists. Support Libyan rebels against Qaddafi, have those same rebels kill our ambassador. Overthrow Saddam, watch ISIS rise in Iraq.
Sooner or later, we need to face the facts. We have no friends in the Middle East outside of Israel. Nobody supports free, democratic government and we can’t force them to do so. We should just go home and let the Arabs sort out their own problems.
If I didn’t know better, I would say the Republican party is in the pay of Iran. Consider:
It has been alleged (though not proven) that Reagan contacted the Iranian govenment and asked that the hostages not be released before the election.
The Iran/Contra business is not a mere allegation. Iran was the big winner.
Then W takes out Iran’s biggest enemy and installs a government that is practically an Iranian puppet.
The ME is a tarpit. Everything we do digs us in worse. See ITR Champion upthread. First Britain draws up boundaries that mix up various tribes in a region that is still tribalist and the “leaders” seem incapable on benefitting only their own tribe. Then we created the Taliban and had to fight them. Then we took out Saddam, abolished his security forces and thereby created ISIS. Then Egypt demonstrated that they were as ready for democracy as I am to fly to Mars. So they will oscillate between a military government and a theocracy, no middle ground. Then there is Syria. So far, we have done relatively little, but the warhawks are crying for more intervention. Our Russian “allies” in this claim to be fighting ISIS, but end up bombing the non-ISIS forces attacking the government. Turkey claims to want to cooperate but end up trying to destroy the Kurds who are the only glint of sanity in the area (except for Israel and I am beginning to wonder about them).
You’re young enough to not have experienced the fact that this has been going on for decades, if not millennia. The details change, the acronyms change, but the reality remains.
Prior to the discovery of oil, the ME was mostly ignored by the so-called First World. If/when we can stop needing oil, that benign neglect can and probably will resume.
No. Prior to the discovery of oil it was ruled by the Ottomans for half a millenium. Its one of the most important geographic tie ups in the world… it links Europe and Africa with C Asia and the sub continent. It will always be important.
Umm… no. Rome clashed with Persia over the area, as did the Greeks (e.g. Alexander) before them and Byzantium after. Egypt clashed with Babylon. Israel with Edom. Look also at Akkad, Sumer, etc.
Ironic, considering that those two developments brought huge economic developments to the region, putting an end to centuries of Ottoman ossification. However, that is inaccurate, the regions geographical location means that any power which controls the area can project power into multiple regions, which is why Empires from Rome, the the UK, and now the US have tried to control it.
[QUOTE=Quartz]
Umm… no. Rome clashed with Persia over the area, as did the Greeks (e.g. Alexander) before them and Byzantium after. Egypt clashed with Babylon. Israel with Edom. Look also at Akkad, Sumer, etc.
[/QUOTE]
I was talking about the current political discords which are recent in origin. Otherwise every region on earth has been fought over.
(And Byzantium was not after Rome, it was Rome).
Nations have supported terrorists in various capacities. Iran supports Hezbollah. The US and Pakistan have supported Al Qaeda.
The US, after invading Iraq and the shi’ites taking over started funding sunni extremists groups linked to Al Qaeda, I believe Seymour Hersh wrote about that.
The US supported both Iraq & Iran in the Iraq/Iran war.
Considering all the combatants, I guess it is expected. Sunni vs Shi’ite. Secularists vs. Islamists. Muslims vs. Jews. States vs. terrorists. US vs. USSR. Various ethnic groups fighting (I believe even Bin Laden said he wasn’t too welcome in Afghanistan because he was an Arab, then you have the Kurds fighting in Iraq, etc) etc.
My point is that, yeah people have tried to cause a mess in the middle east for a while but I think it is mostly the combatants I outlined above (US vs USSR, Sunni vs. Shi’ite, etc).
Quite a while ago I had a very interesting evening with a guy who had been in US foreign relations for a good part of his career. I got quite a bit of insight from him, not all of which I agreed with but much of which has stood my attempts to refute it. By far the most interesting, disturbing and un-disprovable thing he said was this:
“The US doesn’t have to win wars any more. It’s enough to disrupt the other country, like poking an anthill with a stick. They can’t/won’t bother us or our allies for a generation, and we don’t have the hassles of being a victor/occupier. We just move on.”
Pro thought: Gulf War I.
Anti thought: maybe global terrorism is the wedge in the cracks of this policy.
Hell I’m not sure terrorism and religious extremism isn’t seen as an ancillary benefit. It keeps the military industrial complex flush with cash in actions in the region, and employs an enormous domestic security industry at home. Sure the downside is every once in a while some act of terrorism might be successful domestically, but it is seen as acceptable losses.
No outside nation has had any real success in getting a handle on the ME, although many have tried. The reason it never works is that these nations attempt to solve religious issues by political means. The rest of the world really should leave them to sort out their own issues. Deal with them politically on a narrow case-by-case basis only. They are not going to ever accept any type of western-style political system, because western systems separate church and state. The very idea of doing so is inconceivable in the ME.