Global Events & Politics Überthread

yeah, 30 years ago the installed Bush/Cheney regime, through voter suppression and a partisan (R) stacked Supreme Court, invaded and occupied Iraq.
10 years before that Arabians (binLaden) were offended at the behavior of Americans based in Saudi Arabia during the first Iraq invasion.

Isn't there a common thread running through this.

While the sycophant's were cheering the detainment / banning of brown people and a symbolic economy --- our foreign policy offices were filled with the same people that brought us those 40 years.

History is some funny stuff and must be read backwards
 
Is thethe really going to lay the blame for the negative consequences of the Iraq War at the feet of Democrats? Most of them wanted nothing to do with Iraq.
 
thethe said:
[Tw]1213866024711393282[/tw]

And the collective buffoons are the ones criticizing the current administration.
Click to expand...

Idiots isn't the right word. Short sighted is perhaps the better term. The issue is we've had no cohesive foreign policy there. We've rocked back and forth between interventionism and isolationism where the Middle East is concerned.

One of my favorite books is Name of the Wind. In it, there's a library the main character spends a lot of time in. It has over a million books in it. The problem is there is no complete catalog system so no one knows what all is in the library. Cataloging the library would take several lifetimes and each new head of the library thinks they have a better cataloging system. So each time there's a new head of the library, they start a completely new system. You have a chain of, as the book calls it, half built houses.

I feel our policy in the region suffers from the same problem. Actually solving problems in the region takes longer than one president's term(s) and each new administration has different ideas on what needs to be done. This leads to a chain of half built foreign policy houses. None can be complete before the next administration comes in and starts building their own.

Unfortunately, Iran's leadership has been stable and so they've actually been able to stick with working on goals long enough to complete them.
 
striker42 said:
Idiots isn't the right word. Short sighted is perhaps the better term. The issue is we've had no cohesive foreign policy there. We've rocked back and forth between interventionism and isolationism where the Middle East is concerned.

One of my favorite books is Name of the Wind. In it, there's a library the main character spends a lot of time in. It has over a million books in it. The problem is there is no complete catalog system so no one knows what all is in the library. Cataloging the library would take several lifetimes and each new head of the library thinks they have a better cataloging system. So each time there's a new head of the library, they start a completely new system. You have a chain of, as the book calls it, half built houses.

I feel our policy in the region suffers from the same problem. Actually solving problems in the region takes longer than one president's term(s) and each new administration has different ideas on what needs to be done. This leads to a chain of half built foreign policy houses. None can be complete before the next administration comes in and starts building their own.

Unfortunately, Iran's leadership has been stable and so they've actually been able to stick with working on goals long enough to complete them.
Click to expand...

There is some long-term consistency. During and after the Cold War, we have worked to limit Soviet (Russian) influence in the region. With quite a bit of success. It is sometimes forgotten, but Egypt, Iraq and even Kuwait were at various times pro-Soviet. And no longer are.

We have also sustained a policy that broadly supports Israel. And done so while maintaining close ties with most Arab countries. That counts for something. To be able to surmount the Arab-Israeli conflict. And to be able to in some limited way to contribute to peace (often a cold peace) between Israel and some of its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan). And this process continues. Netanyahu visited the Sultan of Oman in 2018.

While the pace of progress might often be slow with frequent reversals, I think there has actually been a fairly consistent and yes successful American foreign policy that has endured in the Middle East. Not everyone is happy with all aspects of it. Another one of my understatements. But it is there.

Looking forward, I think one of the challenges is something I alluded to earlier. How do the Sunnis treat the Shiites in the places they hold political power. And how do the Shiites treat the Sunnis in the places where they hold political power. American foreign policy actually has a potentially very constructive role to play in that regard. We can't dictate policy to other countries but we can nudge them in the right direction. It requires patience and persistence. And results come slowly over time. Sometimes very slowly. And never in a straight line.
 
Last edited:
So Australia wildfires is not an example of climate change anymore?

I cant keep up with the psychotic overreactions anymore.
 
[tw]1214178054748213248[/tw]

what we have to hope for is that the Iraqis calm down and do a dispassionate analysis of whether an American presence in their country is in their interests or not...it would be helpful if chosen one toned down the twitter threats and tirades
 
nsacpi said:
There is some long-term consistency. During and after the Cold War, we have worked to limit Soviet (Russian) influence in the region. With quite a bit of success. It is sometimes forgotten, but Egypt, Iraq and even Kuwait were at various times pro-Soviet. And no longer are.

We have also sustained a policy that broadly supports Israel. And done so while maintaining close ties with most Arab countries. That counts for something. To be able to surmount the Arab-Israeli conflict. And to be able to in some limited way to contribute to peace (often a cold peace) between Israel and some of its neighbors (Egypt and Jordan). And this process continues. Netanyahu visited the Sultan of Oman in 2018.

While the pace of progress might often be slow with frequent reversals, I think there has actually been a fairly consistent and yes successful American foreign policy that has endured in the Middle East. Not everyone is happy with all aspects of it. Another one of my understatements. But it is there.

Looking forward, I think one of the challenges is something I alluded to earlier. How do the Sunnis treat the Shiites in the places they hold political power. And how do the Shiites treat the Sunnis in the places where they hold political power. American foreign policy actually has a potentially very constructive role to play in that regard. We can't dictate policy to other countries but we can nudge them in the right direction. It requires patience and persistence. And results come slowly over time. Sometimes very slowly. And never in a straight line.
Click to expand...

I was thinking more of the Iraq, Iran, Syria group over the last 40 years or so when I was talking about inconsistent foreign policy. You have the war between Iran and Iraq, the first Gulf War, monitoring Iraq's WMD programs, periodic air strikes, the invasion of Iraq, pulling troops out of Iraq without any agreement in place, fighting Isis' spread, further pulling troops out, the proxy war with Iran, now this.

The amount of reversals and policy changes in that history is staggering. Nothing was seen through to the end.
 
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...5p7JwyUYQ5OKHXhZ-44G8KrFBFJVksKi5rP_4Jj8xf9RY

Without explicitly giving his opinion about whether the United States should stick with the agreement, Mattis said that after reading the full text of the deal three times, he was struck by provisions that allow for international verification of Iran’s compliance. He said that since becoming defense secretary in January 2017, he also has read what he called a classified protocol in the agreement.


“I will say it is written almost with an assumption that Iran would try to cheat,” he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. “So the verification, what is in there, is actually pretty robust as far as our intrusive ability to get in” with representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency to check on compliance.
Click to expand...

Was SO dumb for Trump to withdraw. The deal wasn't perfect but it was a bridge to better relations. Amazing Trump will meet with someone like Kim when we had no official working relationship with NK, and he had one set up perfectly with Iran and decided to tear it up when Mattis and Tillerson both told him to STAY and that Iran was complying.
 
striker42 said:
I was thinking more of the Iraq, Iran, Syria group over the last 40 years or so when I was talking about inconsistent foreign policy. You have the war between Iran and Iraq, the first Gulf War, monitoring Iraq's WMD programs, periodic air strikes, the invasion of Iraq, pulling troops out of Iraq without any agreement in place, fighting Isis' spread, further pulling troops out, the proxy war with Iran, now this.

The amount of reversals and policy changes in that history is staggering. Nothing was seen through to the end.
Click to expand...

It is very hard to sustain policies that become wedge issues in our domestic politics. Obviously, Vietnam is the arch type of that. But it applies to the Middle East as well. Reagan used our problems with Iran to portray Carter as weak and indecisive. Bush I was able to throw Iraq out of Kuwait without getting us too deeply entangled. But his political opponents found it useful to portray him as caring more about foreign policy than the economy. Then you had the no fly zones and eroding sanctions regimes under Clinton. There were all these pictures showing starving Iraqi children who were not getting medical care. Even though the anti-Saddam policy was relatively restrained it became difficult to sustain. And then 9/11 where we were traumatized and lost our sense of proportion. So yeah, lots of mistakes. And many of them became fodder for domestic politics. The unfortunate part is even when policies were reasonable and having some success, they were not supported by a domestic consensus.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
It is very hard to sustain policies that become wedge issues in our domestic politics. Obviously, Vietnam is the arch type of that. But it applies to the Middle East as well. Reagan used our problems with Iran to portray Carter as weak and indecisive. Bush I was able to throw Iraq out of Kuwait without getting us too deeply entangled. But his political opponents found it useful to portray him as caring more about foreign policy than the economy. Then you had the no fly zones and eroding sanctions regimes under Clinton. There were all these pictures showing starving Iraqi children who were not getting medical care. Even though the anti-Saddam policy was relatively restrained it became difficult to sustain. And then 9/11 where we were traumatized and lost our sense of proportion. So yeah, lots of mistakes. And many of them became fodder for domestic politics. The unfortunate part is even when policies were reasonable and having some success, they were not supported by a domestic consensus.
Click to expand...

Yep. The domestic angle is hugely important here. The larger picture is horribly complex and thorny. It's very difficult to get an average person to understand a comprehensive policy for a region that would take books to explain. But without that comprehensive look, it's very difficult to understand how the long term benefits outweigh the short term costs. It's even harder to get them to accept short term costs in exchange for long term gains even when they understand them.

Short term costs, on the other hand, tend to be simple and straight forward. It's the body count of American soldiers. It's the suffering in refugee camps. It's the spike in gas prices. People base decisions far more on short term than long term as well.
 
thethe "We need to to pull all the troops out of the middle east and let the barbarians kill each other!!!"

Also thethe "The time to attack Iran is now!! They're too weak to do anything!! We must avenge the deaths of our fellow Americans!!!"




10 million internet dollars says thethe had zero clue who this guy was a week ago or the history he had.
 
Carp said:
thethe "We need to to pull all the troops out of the middle east and let the barbarians kill each other!!!"

Also thethe "The time to attack Iran is now!! They're too weak to do anything!! We must avenge the deaths of our fellow Americans!!!"




10 million internet dollars says thethe had zero clue who this guy was a week ago or the history he had.
Click to expand...

Did I beat the war drums? I'm thrilled iraq shias voted for us to leave. Keep making stuff up though.

And no...I did not know who he was but its clear that his death will have a significant negative impact to iran. Hard for you guys to be ok with that since its in vogue to root against america because orange man bad.
 
thethe said:
Did I beat the war drums? I'm thrilled iraq shias voted for us to leave. Keep making stuff up though.

And no...I did not know who he was but its clear that his death will have a significant negative impact to iran. Hard for you guys to be ok with that since its in vogue to root against america because orange man bad.
Click to expand...

It's more like next man up in Iran. This man wasn't some strategical genius. And now we've made Americans less safe. Policy is important and keeping the world stable is probably the most important role for any world leader. Trump continues to show that he has zero clue how to maintain stability in the world. He's done nothing but agitate allies and stir the pot among our enemies.
 
Carp said:
It's more like next man up in Iran. This man wasn't some strategical genius. And now we've made Americans less safe. Policy is important and keeping the world stable is probably the most important role for any world leader. Trump continues to show that he has zero clue how to maintain stability in the world. He's done nothing but agitate allies and stir the pot among our enemies.
Click to expand...

You're wrong based on all the reporting on suleimanis impact.
 
Carp said:
It's more like next man up in Iran. This man wasn't some strategical genius. And now we've made Americans less safe. Policy is important and keeping the world stable is probably the most important role for any world leader. Trump continues to show that he has zero clue how to maintain stability in the world. He's done nothing but agitate allies and stir the pot among our enemies.
Click to expand...

Everything I've read from the experts called him the most irreplaceable man in Iran. His replacement is his longtime deputy that, while he is knowledgeable and skilled, isn't nearly as charismatic. This is a blow to the proxy militia strategy of Iran. How significant and whether it's worth the downside will be seen. But Iran took a hit here.
 
This guy ran all military operations and you are trying to say he is irrelevant. TDS is real.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top