|
DesideriScuri -> RE: Iraq........ Mission unaccomplished. (6/15/2014 9:01:56 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The level of insight into the Iraq situation being demonstrated by some nutsackers here is appalling. Their hatred of Obama is such that they cannot see the problem lies not with an individual but with US policy, its absurd bias and ridiculous goals.
Both the GOP and Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq, the standout disaster in the series of disasters that comprise US policy in the region. Both Bush and Obama have found reasons to prosecute wars in the region. If there is any difference between the two parties, its that the Dems seem a little faster to realise their mistakes though they are just as hopeless as the GOP at correcting them.
Forget about individuals, they are irrelevant as long as US policy and strategic goals remain unchanged. What is needed is a complete revision of US policy towards the entire region. That is a complete revision starting with the 'security alliance' with Israel - surely the most insane, absurd strategic alliance in history - and everything else. Until this happens, we can look forward to more of the same, which in practice means more disasters to join the long list of disasters the US has visited upon the region.
I agree and disagree, Tweaks. I don't believe the US has to end it's security alliance with Israel. Maybe the only revision is to make it clear that if Israel is in the wrong (as determined by the US), we will either not support Israel in those endeavors, or actively oppose Israel in those endeavors (depending on the severity of the overstep). As far as the other countries in the Middle East, as long as they leave Israel alone, we should treat them as sovereigns (departure from the last few decades of ME foreign policy), allowed to self-determine.
DS, my point here is that the Israeli alliance skews all Middle Eastern policy in a manner detrimental to US interests, the extent of which can be judged by the entire Iraq fiasco and the current situation there.
Every step the US takes in the region is considered through the light of how it affects Israel in the first instance and all other consequences are secondary. The Israelis take full advantage of this favoured position to do more or less whatever they like knowing that the US has no choice under its current policy settings but to go along. One can hardly blame the Israelis for that - everyone would do it if they could. The real blame lies in US policy which sets Israel up so that it can behave or misbehave knowing that there won't be any consequences. Any ME policy with this as its major goal will inevitably be unbalanced and consequently, as we currently see, disaster-prone
If the US wants to have a deep relationship with Israel that's a legitimate choice for the US. But that relationship shouldn't be given such a priority that all other considerations in the region become secondary to it. Other considerations here include the US's own interests as well as the relationship(s) the US enjoys with the Arab world and Iran. They also cover oil and overall strategic considerations such as maintaining a regional balance of power favourable to long term US interests. Nor should any security alliance be a one way street as it currently is. Recall that for all the US's military invovlement in the region, to its own great cost, the largest beneficiaries of this involvement hasn't contributed a single boot on the ground not a bullet fired in anger. What use is a military alliance with a country that doesn't participate in the US's military missions (whatever their justification or otherwise)?
It makes sense for the US to put its own interests above those of Israel. Doing so would allow the development and implementation of a US Middle Eastern policy that puts US interests first. That is the first step to be taken if the US wishes to avoid being caught up in a never ending series of disasters that is the current outcome of US policy. The ME is a lot larger and far more important than Israel alone.
The extent to which current US policy perverts matters is underlined by this question - why does it take a non-American to urge Americans to put their own ME interests first? A balanced US ME policy is in everyone's interests but particularly in the US's best interests
That's my whole point, Tweaks. I have no problem with the US showing that we will defend Israel from aggression. I would much rather the US protect Israel from attack, with the caveat that if Israeli action is causing the retaliation, that we would not support Israel in that, and, if it's bad enough, we'd oppose Israel in it. All in all, US support for the continued existence of Israel (which is definitely not in the interests of some of Israel's neighbors) and US support for the continued existence of the current countries (and official existence of a Palestinian state (or 2; Gaza and West Bank could end up as their own entities). Don't support Israel destroying a Palestinian state. Support either the removal of Israeli camps outside Israel's borders, or absorption of those same camps into the Palestinian state.
If some of the states surrounding Israel weren't so intent on Israel's eradication, there would be much less reason for the US to back and defend Israel.
|
|
|
|
