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.
Topic: Entangled - Why America must stay engaged in the Middle East - page 2. (Read 1228 times)
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.
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
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
Jump to: