Entangled - Why America must stay engaged in the Middle East

[Chef Ramsay]

IN THE mid-1990s a celebrated Syrian playwright captured the anguish of living under an Arab autocrat with the lament, “We are condemned to hope.” Almost 20 years later, even hope has withered.

The Middle Eastern order sustained by the United States has collapsed. Civil wars are devouring Syria, Iraq and Libya. Black-robed jihadists from Islamic State (IS) have carved out a caliphate. Vying with Iran for regional influence, Saudi jets are strafing Shia rebels in Yemen. Peace may not return to the Middle East for a generation.

For most Arabs, including presidents and kings, the lesson is that American power has had its day. For most Americans, including the man in the White House, the lesson is that outsiders cannot impose order on chaos. Both claims are exaggerated. The Middle East desperately needs a new, invigorated engagement from America. That would not only be within America’s power, it would also be in America’s interest.

The starting-point is to understand what has gone so disastrously wrong in the Arab world. Democrats in Washington will tell you that the villain is George W. Bush, who invaded Iraq in 2003, creating a bloodthirsty Sunni insurgency and, across the region, a hunger for rebellion. Republicans insist that the fault lies with Barack Obama for letting Iran dominate Iraq and failing to curb the villainy of Syria’s Bashar Assad.

In fact there is more than enough blame to go round. As that Syrian playwright suggested, the roots of the Arab malaise run deep. After the second world war, centuries of infantilising colonial rule gave way to woeful self-government. Arab economies were regulated, subsidised and planned so clumsily that they failed to provide for Arab citizens. Leaders, lacking legitimacy, took refuge in Arab nationalism and came to depend on coercion instead of consent. Young populations without prospects found comfort in religion, some in the zealotry peddled by the likes of IS. For years America propped up its client states in this failing order. But the Arab spring showed that the stability Mr Bush shattered at such great cost was already doomed. Mr Obama’s inaction only added momentum to an unfolding catastrophe (see article).

All the more reason to stay out, perhaps. Except that America has interests in the Middle East. Today’s chaos is trashing human rights and torching values that many, including this newspaper, look to America to defend. Not everyone will agree—some Americans are tired of their country acting as a global policeman, and others rightly point out that its geopolitical priority is China’s growing ambition (see Banyan). But even allowing that, the Middle East still matters.

Terrorism in places like Libya or Syria sooner or later ends up striking at the West. IS’s successes in Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria attract money and fighters. Minimising the threat means doing more in places where jihadism flourishes.

More...http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21653612-why-america-must-stay-engaged-middle-east-entangled

 

[bryant.coleman]

Without the Americans and their weapons supply, Middle East would be a peaceful place. Look at Syria. Before the Americans armed the Islamist FSA to wage war against the Assad government there, it was a peaceful country, where Alawites, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, Yazidis, Christians and Turkmen lived in complete harmony. The Americans messed it up.

[Harry Hood]

I think the last 50 years of western involvement in the Middle East has taught us one thing - only the Middle East countries can bring peace to their region. No one else. Think about if Saudi Arabia tried to involve themselves in the Euro debt crisis or if the UK tried to involve themselves in S. American squabbles. Philosophically and logically that kind of intervention can't work, it'll only lead to a "mind your fucking business" response.

The challenge, 50 years ago, is that the West needed oil and the Middle East had it. Now, the West has oil and other energy technology. Not a completely neutral position but the dependency is going down significantly. The West should let the Middle East deal with their own problems for a while, and one of three scenarios will occur:

1) The ME will figure out how to solve their problems,

2) The ME won't be able to figure out their problems and will ask the West for help, or

3) The ME won't be able to figure out their problems, won't seek help, and any aggression that seeps out of the region will be met with swift resistance from the rest of the world.

[Bobsurplus]

I cant believe that article failed to mention all the Saudi money that keeps funding the terrorists. Including ISIS, Bashar Al Asaid, Boko Haram and AQAP just to list a few.
If the money got cut off early on like in the AQ days and the Saudi's faced more pressure from the western world maybe the violence wouldn't be so bad today. Granted, ISIS is now armed to the tee mainly because of the American equipment they came into when the Iraqis ran and left all the stock behind but up till that point most weapons and equipment used by most of the terrorists today was Saudi funded.

Anyway, a big problem is the Saudi's and their willingness to fund terror.

Just wanted to get that out there.

[bryant.coleman]

I cant believe that article failed to mention all the Saudi money that keeps funding the terrorists. Including ISIS, Bashar Al Asaid, Boko Haram and AQAP just to list a few.

If you think that Bashar al Assad (president of Syria) and the Islamic State is the same, then you have ZERO understanding of the situation in the middle east.

It is true that money from the Saudi Arabia and Qatar is what keeping the ISIS alive. And so far, the United States and its NATO allies have not shown any committment to stop these financial inflows.

[Bobsurplus]

I cant believe that article failed to mention all the Saudi money that keeps funding the terrorists. Including ISIS, Bashar Al Asaid, Boko Haram and AQAP just to list a few.

If you think that Bashar al Assad (president of Syria) and the Islamic State is the same, then you have ZERO understanding of the situation in the middle east.

It is true that money from the Saudi Arabia and Qatar is what keeping the ISIS alive. And so far, the United States and its NATO allies have not shown any committment to stop these financial inflows.

You're retarded. I have a fair grasp of the situation going on. They are both terrorists. Just because one has a flashy title doesn't excuse the fact that Bashar is indeed a terrorist. He uses chemical gas on his own people.
If he's not a terrorist then you're a terrorist lover!

[Harry Hood]

So what was the Economist's conclusion in the article. What were their reasons for America to stay engaged in the Middle East? Did they mention any intervention from any other country?

[Snail2]

You're retarded. I have a fair grasp of the situation going on. They are both terrorists. Just because one has a flashy title doesn't excuse the fact that Bashar is indeed a terrorist. He uses chemical gas on his own people.
If he's not a terrorist then you're a terrorist lover!

No mate, as I see you have little knowledge about what's going on there. Actually the US backed FSA used chemical weapons on civilian population to provoke a (for them) favourable reaction from their western allies...

FYI:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

[bryant.coleman]

You're retarded. I have a fair grasp of the situation going on. They are both terrorists. Just because one has a flashy title doesn't excuse the fact that Bashar is indeed a terrorist. He uses chemical gas on his own people.
If he's not a terrorist then you're a terrorist lover!

Yeah... you are indeed having a fair grasp of the situation. Your friends, the Al Qaeda allied FSA used chemical weapons in Syria against the civilian population. And right now, Bashar al Assad is the only person who is capable of defeating the ISIS in Syria. You can support the Al Qaeda and the ISIS as much as you like, but don't whine here claiming that Assad is a terrorist.

[jaysabi]

Without the Americans and their weapons supply, Middle East would be a peaceful place. Look at Syria. Before the Americans armed the Islamist FSA to wage war against the Assad government there, it was a peaceful country, where Alawites, Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurds, Yazidis, Christians and Turkmen lived in complete harmony. The Americans messed it up.

Yeah, there was never war in the Middle East before America brought all the hate and weapons, ruining the rainbows and multi-ethnic harmony for everyone!

[bryant.coleman]

Yeah, there was never war in the Middle East before America brought all the hate and weapons, ruining the rainbows and multi-ethnic harmony for everyone!

I never said that there was no conflict in the Middle East, before the Americans started their dirty work. The Americans either inflamed the old tensions (such as those between Iraq and Kuwait) or created entirely new conflicts (like the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988), solely for their own benefit. I have no doubt in saying that Middle East would have been a much better place, without the Americans.

[galdur]

Yes, if everything you touch turns into horse manure don´t give up, do more of the same. Great advice, just look at Ukraine now.

[Possum577]

Yes, if everything you touch turns into horse manure don´t give up, do more of the same. Great advice, just look at Ukraine now.

You're blaming the US for Ukraine's problems, why?

Crimea voted to join Russia, no? What's the problem with that? The US didn't force Russia to invade.

[galdur]

Yes, if everything you touch turns into horse manure don´t give up, do more of the same. Great advice, just look at Ukraine now.

You're blaming the US for Ukraine's problems, why?

Crimea voted to join Russia, no? What's the problem with that? The US didn't force Russia to invade.

U.S. instigated the coup in Ukraine after which everything went to hell, so I blame them yes. And I can´t really blame the Crimeans and the eastern people in Ukraine for not being terribly excited about the Fascist/nazi crap that U.S. favors over there.

[bryant.coleman]

You're blaming the US for Ukraine's problems, why?

Who else should share the blame? The CIA spend some $5 billion to topple the democratically elected government by Viktor Yanukovych, and replaced it with a junta dominated by the neo-Nazis and rabid Russophobes. Without the intervention by the United States, Ukraine would have been a peaceful place right now.

[ThEmporium]

I cant believe that article failed to mention all the Saudi money that keeps funding the terrorists. Including ISIS, Bashar Al Asaid, Boko Haram and AQAP just to list a few.

If you think that Bashar al Assad (president of Syria) and the Islamic State is the same, then you have ZERO understanding of the situation in the middle east.

It is true that money from the Saudi Arabia and Qatar is what keeping the ISIS alive. And so far, the United States and its NATO allies have not shown any committment to stop these financial inflows.

You're retarded. I have a fair grasp of the situation going on. They are both terrorists. Just because one has a flashy title doesn't excuse the fact that Bashar is indeed a terrorist. He uses chemical gas on his own people.
If he's not a terrorist then you're a terrorist lover!

There is no denial that Assad is tyrant, However there is a proper way to handle this situation and get rid of Assad from his palace. If U.S has smartly approached Iran to get the Assad out, by now Syria would have one of the good elected government. It is actually a psychological war between Iran and Gulf countries, but I do not see GCC are doing any favor to Muslims across the world

[bryant.coleman]

There is no denial that Assad is tyrant, However there is a proper way to handle this situation and get rid of Assad from his palace. If U.S has smartly approached Iran to get the Assad out, by now Syria would have one of the good elected government. It is actually a psychological war between Iran and Gulf countries, but I do not see GCC are doing any favor to Muslims across the world

How come Bashar al Assad is a tyrant and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia is not one? The Americans are calling people like Assad as tyrants, and at the same time supporting dictators and tyrants who are even worse when compared to Assad. Why this double speak? I can perfectly understand why the Americans got their sudden concern about the democratic situation in Syria.

[galdur]

Most Americans don´t have a clue what all those wars here and there are about (well apart from god, country and democracy of course), are always eager to have the troops fight though.

[jaysabi]

Yeah, there was never war in the Middle East before America brought all the hate and weapons, ruining the rainbows and multi-ethnic harmony for everyone!

I never said that there was no conflict in the Middle East, before the Americans started their dirty work. The Americans either inflamed the old tensions (such as those between Iraq and Kuwait) or created entirely new conflicts (like the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988), solely for their own benefit. I have no doubt in saying that Middle East would have been a much better place, without the Americans.

No, you said there would peace. My point is that the thousands of years of war in the area stand in stark contrast to your assertion. Absent America, there is still not peace in the Middle East.

[Marbit]

You're retarded. I have a fair grasp of the situation going on. They are both terrorists. Just because one has a flashy title doesn't excuse the fact that Bashar is indeed a terrorist. He uses chemical gas on his own people.
If he's not a terrorist then you're a terrorist lover!

No mate, as I see you have little knowledge about what's going on there. Actually the US backed FSA used chemical weapons on civilian population to provoke a (for them) favourable reaction from their western allies...

FYI:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

I think that's mostly just speculation, I'm not particularly fond of US ideologies of interference among external affairs as though it's their responsibility, but using chemical weapons on the civilian population is something I don't fathom could take place with the government having complete knowledge. But then again, there are always delusional minds considering every act of violence they commit as a necessary evil.