Originally
posted by
TAN:
How about:
1) Stop supporting dictators that oppress their own people (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, to name a few).
2) Stop supporting a colonial power that can do just fine on its own (Israel).
3) Stop supporting one faction over another (Sunnis vs Shias), or creating them (Mujahideen/Al-Qaeda).
4) Stop sanctioning countries that lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands (Iraq).
5) Stop bombing dictators and creating power vacuums (leading to the rise of ISIL in Iraq).
Basically, if the USA would just mind its own fluffing business in the Middle East, you might actually get somewhere in solving this "problem" instead of trying to drop bombs on ideas.
1) I would stop supporting Saudi Arabia if the reality on the ground in the Middle East were a little different. Sadly, supporting one bad actor is a primary way of containing a worse actor in the Middle East right now. For the time being, I would pressure Saudi Arabia as much as possible to liberalize their country and would flat out demand that they shut down the religious schools that are creating jihadists.
Not sure how you can call Jordan an oppressive dictatorship. While the King of Jordan does hold significant power, they seem pretty far from a dictatorship in the class sense. The treatment in politics of women and Christians is an example of that should be held up for the rest of the Middle East. Frankly, they're one of the few Middle Eastern countries that deserves significant support.
In Egypt, we have a military that is friendly to the US/Israel. We have a military that seems intent on keeping Egypt headed in a path towards a Jordan-like future. We have also had an idiotic constitutional process which held elections for a government and then wrote the constitution. Really? Have we learned nothing from history? First comes writing the constitution. Second comes ratifying the constitution by super-majority. Then and only then do you elect the government to operate under the terms and restrictions of the country's constitution. The Military toppling Morsi was not the military toppling a properly elected leader; no the Muslim Brotherhood wrote the constitution for the Muslim Brotherhood, not all Egyptians. Agree or disagree with the military's power in Egypt, the serve to balance the country. Right now the Egyptian government is fighting and facing opposition that would suppress other Egyptians most basic rights.
2) Israel has unilaterally pulled back from Palestinian areas numerous times. It has only bought them more death. The only time Israel has gotten the peace they asked for in exchange for the land they held was when they made peace with Egypt. If the world wants to solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, then the world needs to sit the Palestinians down and tell them how it has to be. Until the world is willing to see Palestinians equally the perpetrators of violence as the world is willing to see them as the victims of oppression, we are unlikely to get anywhere. When the rest of the world stops the violence towards Israel, then the US could find the political will to bring Israel along in the peace process. For now, however, Israel will continue to expand their settlements because they have never gained peace by stopping or reversing settlements. Bottom line, Israel has a right to exist in peace on much of the land they occupy. Modern Israel is not now, nor have they ever been a colonial power; what they have been is the victim of near continuous aggression from their neighbors.
3) I actually agree with this position, mostly. The Kurds deserve US support because they have by and large supported our interests for decades. Other organizations should be supported on a common interests basis. I don't think we should take sides in sectarian conflicts, but the US should recognize when one side or the other has taken sides against the US.
4) I suppose that Kuwait deserved to be invaded or that the Shiites/Kurds deserved to be gassed. You know what we actually should have done? We should have finished the job the first time; that's the lesson we can take from Iraq.
5) Let's not pretend that some of these dictators didn't create their own instability. Saddam Hussein was a destabilizing agent in the Middle East. The only good he did was keep Iran in check and by the time he was taken out, even that was on shaky ground. To be honest, I am not certain that Iraq can really exist as a country in the long-term. In hindsight, the US probably should have tried to use Iraq to solve Turkey's conflict with their Kurdish population (vis a vis a United Kingdom devolution style solution), induced Syria to friendlier relations, and enticed Iran to the negotiating table. In short, the US should have invaded Iraq with the intention breaking the country apart. We should have taken care of the peoples in Iraq instead of trying to preserve the nation.
I would not have supported the fall of Hosni Mubarak, but would have moved to ensure a far more orderly and proper constitutional process after he fell. In Libya, there was likely very little the US or anyone could have done through action or inaction to effect the long-term outcome of their Civil War. Dictatorships are, by their own nature, unstable governments.
All this being said, I'm not about to support removing the House of Saud from power in Saudi Arabia, even as I support pressuring them to modernize/liberalize.
The Middle East has plenty of problems that would exist with or without a US presence. While their are many situations, particularly when conflicts are staying contained to the areas involved that the US should mind our own business, there are also situations where innocent countries have been attacked or where the US has legitimate interests at play. Let's not pretend that all the bad (or even a majority of the bad) situations in the Middle East are caused by the US. The Middle East is a conflict rich part of the world all on its own.
