What's the Answer in the Middle East?

[bradly1101]

I hear the calls from both sides as to what to do in the Middle East/Northern Africa. Generally the far right wants to hit harder and voices on the far left say pull out.

Examining the first option for me requires that I try to put myself in the place of the radicalized Muslim and wonder why they are so motivated to fight against our presence in their region. Then I wonder how many here would rise up if there was a militarized presence of Middle Easterners/Muslims trying to gain a foothold in our region. I'm of course not agreeing with the actions of violence of any side, just wondering why we are where we are. Many people across the world from different religions and cultures just want to be left alone (like us). Back when there was more peace in the Middle East we generally kept to ourselves while supporting one side or the other, fueling conflict and strife as we went. But now, just like in the past, in the dizzying and generally catastrophic wake of our wars we want to leave strategic bases, thus being seen more of as occupiers.

Alternatively I've heard some on the left wanting to take the opposite tack and pull out of the Middle East. To me that sounds wise, but we have so many interests there as well as a confusing web of allies and enemies who may just take extreme measures without the balancing power we try to be. Unfortunately our presence seems to have had the opposite effect by arming evil regimes who don't necessarily use their newfound power responsibly or humanely. So is the answer pulling out, even at the risk of looking weak (so obviously that won't work ), and the region possibly falling into chaos? Is that the only way past all these regional, religious, and territorial disputes?

Or can we keep playing our current game? Is the answer in between the two (which seems to lead to a constant, simmering conflict)?

There are some great minds here; surely we can figure this out.

 

[chucky2]

You either need to decide one of three things:

1. Pull out.
2. Lend passive support and thus piss off whoever you're lending support to is shitting on with said support.
3. Take over the country and remain there for 40 Years or so, but do so as the controlling role so as to maximize indoctrination factor.

All other schemes are doomed to fail, and #2 is likely a failure anyways.

 

[master_shake_]

well leaving it alone wasn't an option in 2003....for reasons?

so you break it you bought it.

in it's current state (the one you left it in) it's fucked.

there is no way to fix it.

but hey murica amirite?

 

[Newell Steamer]

I chose other.

We are well behind this option, but I would prefer it.

Figure out an alternative energy source. Whatever it is and whatever it takes to get off of Middle Eastern oil. Strap a nuclear power plant to the hood of you car? Do it. Jam a wind mill into you skull? Do it.

The Middle East needs to get fucked. Let it rot in it own madness. It is rife with abuse, violence and people who don't want to enter the modern world. Let them live in dust. Let them murder one another. Let them be.

If we truly recognized and accepted what the Middle East is, we would have thought to ourselves; this place is crazy, let me make sure I don't have to rely on these nut jobs... And, we would have started looking into alternative energy sources.

Instead, we saw an oppressed region and figured we would get in on the take.

It's done. The juice is not worth the squeeze - or whatever "control" or influence we think we have.

The Middle East is chained to old ideas; slavery, oppression and extremism. And, if the people don't like it, let them revolt and push for a change at the cost of their own blood - not ours, because we want to get at their resources.

Let them be and let them figure it out. Not even one American life is worth a nation of Middle Eastern people - especially in the name of oil.

My view is secure an alternative energy source (which we could have figured out already in the last 50 years) and get the fuck out.

 

[woolfe9998]

I wrote in "other" because the question is framed as pertaining to the entire "middle east." However, there may well be a different course of action appropriate for say, Israel and the Palestinians vs. say, ISIS in Syria and Iraq vs. the civil war in Yemen. I've never found a one size fits all policy to be a good idea.

 

[Screech]

Or can we keep playing our current game? Is the answer in between the two (which seems to lead to a constant, simmering conflict)?

This, obviously. Ignore the moral implications for the moment and consider the current state of the middle east for a moment. Many individuals with perhaps less then wonderful views of America (Assad, Hezbollah, al quaida/al nusra, and the nutcases in ISIS) as well as powers with which we might at some point compete more directly (Russia, Iran) are spending lots of lives (in the first, primarily) and money (in both) to kill each other (edit: well we have already engaged in proxy stuff with russia of course...). Seriously, if we just stoke a couple sides up a bit (as we have done with the Kurds and certain Rebels, in addition to Iraq obviously) to keep it simmering forever, it will be the constantly turning garbage disposal for militants from the muslim world, as well as a certain number from the West.

Obviously, you sorta have to have basically no concern for the millions of people in that part of the world as well as taking necessary steps to avoid blowback (see: the russian airplane that was taken down by a bomb, as well as ISIS reaching out to here) but usually when your enemies are busy killing each other it isn't really that terrible of a thing. Arming the kurds seems the right choice, provided we can somehow tell Erdogan and turkey to go fck themselves without them becoming best buds with Russia. Of course, this all also relies on what number of which militants would exist in the world in the absence of this conflict and that is rather difficult to quantify.....

 

[DrPizza]

Figure out a fair way to separate the Shia from the Sunni from the Jews. Separate countries. And, get the big powers - China, Russia, and the U.S. to agree that if any of them step out of line and are violent toward their neighbors, we'll smack the shit out of them.

 

[master_shake_]

Figure out a fair way to separate the Shia from the Sunni from the Jews. Separate countries. And, get the big powers - China, Russia, and the U.S. to agree that if any of them step out of line and are violent toward their neighbors, we'll smack the shit out of them.

because look how well that worked for palestine and israel

 

[brianmanahan]

Figure out an alternative energy source. Whatever it is and whatever it takes to get off of Middle Eastern oil. Strap a nuclear power plant to the hood of you car? Do it. Jam a wind mill into you skull? Do it.

The Middle East needs to get f***ed. Let it rot in it own madness. It is rife with abuse, violence and people who don't want to enter the modern world. Let them live in dust. Let them murder one another. Let them be.

this would be my preferred approach as well. if we could get beyond the need for oil, the value of the middle east would plummet and would change a lot of things.

i'd just hope that it would finally drive them to improve the situation there, and not drive them to further desperation and last-ditch nuclear attacks.

in the words of rashid bin saeed al maktoum:

"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel."

 

[bradly1101]

You either need to decide one of three things:

1. Pull out.
2. Lend passive support and thus piss off whoever you're lending support to is shitting on with said support.
3. Take over the country and remain there for 40 Years or so, but do so as the controlling role so as to maximize indoctrination factor.

All other schemes are doomed to fail, and #2 is likely a failure anyways.

Good breakdown. I guess if I'm asking if there's another way the answer is "no". By process of elimination #2 seems out, since it's already failed and has no foreseeable end, and #3 may work in a culture not unlike our own, but I don't think ever in a Middle Eastern country, which leaves #1.

 

[Humpy]

I wrote in "other" because the question is framed as pertaining to the entire "middle east." However, there may well be a different course of action appropriate for say, Israel and the Palestinians vs. say, ISIS in Syria and Iraq vs. the civil war in Yemen. I've never found a one size fits all policy to be a good idea.

Is it oil? Israel? Russia? There's usually some combination of those, and other things, that whenever we get involved with something in the ME it's hard to tell what exactly the problem is, let alone the solution.

 

[brianmanahan]

it's sad that the situation is so bad there too, because it is the area of the foundation of modern civilization.

i am hoping that things get miraculously better there before i die, so i can safely visit.

 

[Jaskalas]

The answer to the Middle East depends on your objective.
It is not a simple poll question.

Eliminate ISIS, isolate extremism, and stabilize governments.
How do we go about doing that?

Assist Russia.
Learn the lesson of Iraq and realize that military rule and dictators aren't the end of the world. They are, in fact, a better stabilizing force than any alternative we may provide. A better government cannot be forced. At this point these people would be fortunate to have ANY government.

Tribal warfare needs to be quelled, that means Assad has to be victorious. That means we have to stop being the supplier of terrorists. We have to join Russia in ending the ISIS threat.

A military campaign to support local governments against ISIS means working directly with the governments of Syria, Iraq, and Iran. It may mean a ground force invasion where we cut off the roads and end travel in terrorist land. The locals can then move back in to pick apart the dismantled enemy forces.

You have to be willing to fight. To kill. Else you a destined to lose any war.
But that is not enough. You have to know what you are fighting for.
You need an intelligent strategy utilizing the locals, not just a dumb occupation. Not a dumb invasion.

Reform Turkey before its too late.
I said you cannot force a better government. That's only partially true and pertaining more to our use of military force. To our Iraq invasion, our Libyan destruction, or our arming of Syrian terrorists.

Those aren't our only options, merely the retarded ones that we have chosen.

What we can, and desperately need to do, is work on combating the rising tide of Islamic extremism and if "Western" Turkey isn't the place to do it, then I don't know what is. If we cannot help convince them not to fall to Islamic Oligarchy then there is no hope for coexisting with the Islamic world.

Ground zero for "give peace a chance" needs to start at the doorstep to Europe. We need an outreach and economic program developed on a global stage to invite human rights, to separate religion from government, and to take a chance that there are still people out there who want a better life.

Such efforts may be turned on us, they could even fail, but we haven't even tried and you can see how Turkey is falling to Islamic rule before our eyes. We don't need another Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Pakistan. Is there nothing we can try besides violence?

You want to talk about trade deals? Make this the ultimate economic incentive. Let's agree to enrich those who want to coexist. Who want to "play by the rules", simple rules such as not enslaving women. Not harming minorities. The Western world needs to stand for such things and put our money where our mouth is.

IMO, the basis for this idea starts with Turkey, and then moves onto other nations.
If you have a better candidate for prototyping this project, feel free to mention it.

 

[Ventanni]

The Middle East will continue to burn until a fundamental change occurs in their religious ideology. The problem is that Islam just doesn't really allow room for the concept of forgiveness, tolerance, servitude, and love. Sorry, but you cannot say you preach love unless tolerance, servitude, and forgiveness go with it. Instead, it teaches vengeance. I was reading a story about how one of the prisoners who was just rescued by our special forces was praying before he was supposed to die. He prayed for his family and peace, which is great and all, but then he wrote down the names of those who turned him in (being that he was a former cop) so that he could be avenged. Upon reading this I said to myself, "Here lies the dang problem in the first place!" And so you have millions of Muslims who are being taught this and they wonder why their entire region is burning in war. Shia's seek revenge upon Sunni's, and Sunni's seek revenge upon Shia's. And then you have these fundamentalist rolling through and they'll murder anyone who doesn't tolerate their ideology. It's just a never ending cycle of hatred, intolerance, and death.

 

[bradly1101]

well leaving it alone wasn't an option in 2003....for reasons?

so you break it you bought it.

in it's current state (the one you left it in) it's fucked.

there is no way to fix it.

but hey murica amirite?

Probably.

 

[bradly1101]

I chose other.

We are well behind this option, but I would prefer it.

Figure out an alternative energy source. Whatever it is and whatever it takes to get off of Middle Eastern oil. Strap a nuclear power plant to the hood of you car? Do it. Jam a wind mill into you skull? Do it.

The Middle East needs to get fucked. Let it rot in it own madness. It is rife with abuse, violence and people who don't want to enter the modern world. Let them live in dust. Let them murder one another. Let them be.

If we truly recognized and accepted what the Middle East is, we would have thought to ourselves; this place is crazy, let me make sure I don't have to rely on these nut jobs... And, we would have started looking into alternative energy sources.

Instead, we saw an oppressed region and figured we would get in on the take.

It's done. The juice is not worth the squeeze - or whatever "control" or influence we think we have.

The Middle East is chained to old ideas; slavery, oppression and extremism. And, if the people don't like it, let them revolt and push for a change at the cost of their own blood - not ours, because we want to get at their resources.

Let them be and let them figure it out. Not even one American life is worth a nation of Middle Eastern people - especially in the name of oil.

My view is secure an alternative energy source (which we could have figured out already in the last 50 years) and get the fuck out.

I like it!

 

[Thanatosis]

Ask yourself this question: What has US involvement in the middle east over the last quarter century done for America?



I can't think of anything good at all. I think we should pull out and wash our hands of the whole situation. Israel is a big boy that can handle itself and the rest of those countries hate our guts.

 

[ivwshane]

Leave.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Other: Seed their country with armored Walmarts and destroy their culture.

 

[compuwiz1]

Get out of there and stop providing any aid to them. Don't let them come here either. Deport the radicals. Bacon bomb them.

 

[bradly1101]

I wrote in "other" because the question is framed as pertaining to the entire "middle east." However, there may well be a different course of action appropriate for say, Israel and the Palestinians vs. say, ISIS in Syria and Iraq vs. the civil war in Yemen. I've never found a one size fits all policy to be a good idea.

But there seems to be a thread that runs through them all but doesn't pass through the west. How many times do we have to hear, "You're not welcome here," or "Give us your weapons and we'll do your bidding or sell you resources as long as we can oppress women, execute gays, stone sinners, etc."

 

[theeedude]

Pull out and spend the money we spend fighting wars over there on converting our country to solar energy and electric cars.

 

[sportage]

Sad truth, it is probably too late to not be engaged in the middle east.

Fighting war and terrorism will be the norm for Americans come generation after generation.
And we will become immune to that.
As technology becomes more accessible, affordable, and threatening, America will have no other choice for our very survival to engage one way or the other in middle eastern battles.
Our use of bombs, or drones, and from time to time actual need for boots on the ground.

Think of it as a home security system.
When would you ever say, "Well I'm safe now. I can remove my security system".

It's only going to get worse.
Long after ISIS has been long forgotten, we will see more savvy, technologically advanced, more organized and more thoroughly financed terrorist groups come along.
All it would take is one highly advanced attack against our country and shutting down our power grid across the nation, or power to a large chunk of the country, that would set our entire nation into a frenzy.
Not to mention some terrorist attack targeting one cities water supply, or air supply, or an actual localized terrorist nuclear incident.

You can blame George Bush for starting a war and opening this can of worms, but long term engagement within the middle east was probably inevitable no matter the president.
And no future president will claim our ability to disengage as a realistic possibility.
Generation after generation, we will know and become involved with war in the middle east.
It will never end, it cannot end.
The risk would be too high.

Once you install that home security system, never comes a time when you no longer need it. You just get use to it, and rely on it to protect your family.
War against middle eastern terrorism will one day become exactly the same.
We just haven't fully realized that, yet.

Depending of the scope of some future terrorist attack, how crippling that attack might be for the entire nation, there could come a day when our only option is to totally wipe some middle eastern region off the face of the earth for our very survival.

If terrorist should ever gain possession of nuclear capabilities and the ability to deliver nuclear weapons against our country, that day would threaten our very existence.
It would come down to us or them.
When that day comes, I could see some future president having to make the decision to eliminate an entire middle eastern region off the face of the map.
And I doubt few if any would argue the merits of doing whatever it may take to ensure our very survival.

It is hard to imagine the day when terrorist threats out of the middle east could threaten our very survival, but toss in a few nuclear weapons and terrorist ability to deliver such weapons within our border, it may come down to eliminating masses of people and large regions of the middle east to ensure our very existence survives.
Welcome to the future of freedom vs terrorism.

 

[JEDIYoda]

because look how well that worked for palestine and israel

I see your failing at intellect,,,,

 

[Anubis]

pull out
let them kill each other off till 1 side has outright victory
negotiate with the victor