I found myself discussing The U.S policy in the middle east, facing another of those who think Obama doesn't understand the current reality. I thought differently. Maybe I can persude you too.
Put yourself in Obama's shoes for a minute.
The United states has long term interests in the middle east. It might also be that the U.S still holds noble notions regarding the area. It might even be that the U.S still percieves itself as one of the few nations that truly has to fill a certain "moral role" in international relations.
But Obama's administration has a strategic problem - it can't send serious ground forces to the middle east. The U.S hands are tied in every aspect imaginable - military, financial and political.
The violent Balkanization of many areas of the middle east, and the rise of extreme islamist powers all over the place can only be stopped by the deployment of significant ground forces. Iraq and Syria are two closely tied arenas. Do you see any nation capable of building, training, arming and commanding significant ground forces other than Iran? Furthermore, Iran has a stronger interest than the U.S itself to stop Daesh.
If Iran fails in stopping Daesh, the next domino to fall is Pakistan (which isn't the most stable domino piece on the table as it is). If Pakistan falls or if some unbribable senior Pakistani officials make ideological decisions (of the kind that assisted Bin-Laden find refuge in Pakistan), the world has to deal with Nuclear Daesh. Put yourself in Obama's shoes - with whom would you prefer to negotiate - Iran (whose need in nuclear arms is not very different from Israel's, and has been very capable in keeping its cold war with Israel and other states in a desired temperature) or Daesh (whose willingness to take the world back to barbarism has been proven beyond every reasonable doubt)?
Iraq and Syria are only two arenas. Libya is another and Yemen is another. It may very well be that others are waiting ahead. The middle east is changing. The moderate Arab states have sent repeating messages to Israel that the times have changed. Senior Arab politicians all over the middle east have stated that there are worse enemies than Israel. Israel could have taken a leading role in helping moderates around the middle east unite. Just imagine how helpful it would be for problematic key states like Jordan to "sell" the moderate views if Israel moved forward with the Palestinians. Just imagine how helpful it would for Israel itself to finally stop standing as Iran's arch-rival, instead standing as one in a group of states, objecting Iran's dominance. But BB insists to stand aside, because of arguments that will sound very lame if Israel finds itself facing a new Arab caliphate in 20 years time.
Yemen has been in a civil war for most of the 20th century. either in an active war, or in its frozen stages. It was very hard to predict who is going to come on top. It still is. The temporary success of one group at the moment is not a proof of a lack of understanding of Obama's administration. It is a proof that you can't win wars without ground forces. And behold, what happens next - a series of allies of the U.S are working together to send ground forces there with the stated support of the U.S - both intelligence (the U.S has quite a good coverage of Yemen) and logistics.
What would you do differently, facing this complicated reality, standing in Obama's shoes ?
Put yourself in Obama's shoes for a minute.
The United states has long term interests in the middle east. It might also be that the U.S still holds noble notions regarding the area. It might even be that the U.S still percieves itself as one of the few nations that truly has to fill a certain "moral role" in international relations.
But Obama's administration has a strategic problem - it can't send serious ground forces to the middle east. The U.S hands are tied in every aspect imaginable - military, financial and political.
The violent Balkanization of many areas of the middle east, and the rise of extreme islamist powers all over the place can only be stopped by the deployment of significant ground forces. Iraq and Syria are two closely tied arenas. Do you see any nation capable of building, training, arming and commanding significant ground forces other than Iran? Furthermore, Iran has a stronger interest than the U.S itself to stop Daesh.
If Iran fails in stopping Daesh, the next domino to fall is Pakistan (which isn't the most stable domino piece on the table as it is). If Pakistan falls or if some unbribable senior Pakistani officials make ideological decisions (of the kind that assisted Bin-Laden find refuge in Pakistan), the world has to deal with Nuclear Daesh. Put yourself in Obama's shoes - with whom would you prefer to negotiate - Iran (whose need in nuclear arms is not very different from Israel's, and has been very capable in keeping its cold war with Israel and other states in a desired temperature) or Daesh (whose willingness to take the world back to barbarism has been proven beyond every reasonable doubt)?
Iraq and Syria are only two arenas. Libya is another and Yemen is another. It may very well be that others are waiting ahead. The middle east is changing. The moderate Arab states have sent repeating messages to Israel that the times have changed. Senior Arab politicians all over the middle east have stated that there are worse enemies than Israel. Israel could have taken a leading role in helping moderates around the middle east unite. Just imagine how helpful it would be for problematic key states like Jordan to "sell" the moderate views if Israel moved forward with the Palestinians. Just imagine how helpful it would for Israel itself to finally stop standing as Iran's arch-rival, instead standing as one in a group of states, objecting Iran's dominance. But BB insists to stand aside, because of arguments that will sound very lame if Israel finds itself facing a new Arab caliphate in 20 years time.
Yemen has been in a civil war for most of the 20th century. either in an active war, or in its frozen stages. It was very hard to predict who is going to come on top. It still is. The temporary success of one group at the moment is not a proof of a lack of understanding of Obama's administration. It is a proof that you can't win wars without ground forces. And behold, what happens next - a series of allies of the U.S are working together to send ground forces there with the stated support of the U.S - both intelligence (the U.S has quite a good coverage of Yemen) and logistics.
What would you do differently, facing this complicated reality, standing in Obama's shoes ?
