Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

hoover.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#31

Post by clarry »

mwfunk wrote: post #13
jalfresi wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop funding and meddling with them?

Yes, but how? As an American I can try to vote for politicians that are opposed to meddling in the region, but the most that would do is create a non-meddling America. That's not going to affect the policies of other countries. In fact, a non-meddling America would likely open the door for even more meddling by countries like Russia. So: how? I really want to know.

I don't think Russia is interested in meddling.

If anything, it seems like a made up "threat" the US officials can use to justify whatever the heck they're doing.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#32

Post by mason240 »

keeganjw wrote: post #2

This article should have a (2013) tag at the end of it. But yeah, the Hoover Institute predicted this fight pretty damn well.

It was widely predicted that Iraq would descend into sectarian war if the US withdrew before the Iraqi government and military was ready, but the party that wanted the withdrawl said the didn't care - it wasn't our problem.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#33

Post by enraged_camel »

ars wrote: post #26
saiya-jin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this advice should have been used and adhered to for last 50 years, and the world would be truly much better place. what a dream...

Sort of. Most of the time America intervened not for the benefit of the locals, but for its own (or its allies) benefit (including as a proxy against Russia). It's harder to criticize that. It's bad for the locals, but America needs to do what's good for America. In this case though, it's entirely "for" the locals, so America should stay out of it because it's not actually helping the locals.

It's difficult to claim that America's actions in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world have been good for America.

In fact, the only war America participated in that ended up being a net good for America was World War 2, which resulted in the devastation of much of Europe and allowed American industries to expand and advance virtually unchallenged for almost 50 years.

The Vietnam War however was a disaster of epic proportions. So was the Iraq War. The latter, instead of installing a friendly regime that guaranteed the uninterrupted flow of cheap oil, resulted in even more instability in the region, not to mention further radicalization of extremist forces. And things continue to go downhill.

At the end of the day, it is worth understanding that America's wars benefit only a small number of people in America: higher ups in the military-industrial complex, the oil companies and the construction conglomerates. For everyone else, it's a waste.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#34

Post by [deleted] »

finid wrote: post #16
ralmidani wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that the Syrian Revolution began with foreign (especially US) meddling is absurd. In 2011, the US was in the process of normalizing relations with the assad regime. Obama had appointed a new ambassador the year before. Clinton thought assad was a 'reformer.' The war broke out for a very simple reason: assad's forces kept shooting peaceful protesters. Despite assad's violence, the Revolution remained largel…

That's the official (US) narrative, and it's the real absurdity here. You should find out how those "peaceful protests" started, and the activities of the US ambassador to Syria just before the protests broke out. It's from the same playbook that was used successfully in Libya and Ukraine, and almost succeeded a few years ago in Cuba. It's an interesting exercise if you have the time. Venezuela is in the same neighbo…

[deleted]

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#35

Post by saganus »

ufmace wrote: post #24
hx87 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the conspiracy theory narrative, and it's the real real absurdity here. US ambassadors don't have the power to raise hell on the streets of any given country, especially in one where a significant portion of the population have long-standing and legitimate aggrievances against the current government.

It's not a conspiracy theory so much as a oddly popular Chompsky-ite view of foreign policy that can be summarized only a little tounge-in-cheek as: America is somehow responsible for every bad thing that has ever happened anywhere in the world. Nothing bad can happen anywhere without it somehow being a result of something that America did. Which serves to infantilize the entire population of every other country in t…

I was under the impression that it's not so much about America being responsible for every bad thing in the world, but that historically America has been taking advantage of those thousands of years of history, culture and of course conflict, to their own benefit.

So if due to some political agenda there is profit or benefits to be reaped from nudging certain conflicts this or that way, there's a high probability that people in power would try to obtain said benefit. I think it's in that sense that "America puts its nose into every conflict around the world".

Not saying that I agree or disagree with that view, but I do think it's a bit naive to say that America is the root of all evil, as much as it's naive to think that the most powerful nation in the world (for different definitions of most powerful) would have no interest in other countries' conflicts or in influencing them to their benefit.

In other words, if for whatever reason an escalation in the conflicts in Syria or other parts of the Middle East (or the world for that matter) could benefit the US, would it be so far-fetched to think that they would have a vested interest in creating the conditions for that escalation to actually happen?

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#36

Post by mason240 »

saiya-jin wrote: post #21
ars wrote: post #15

America should rescue civilians and force safe corridors to stay open, but otherwise stay the hell out of there, and let them fight it out. And yes, that includes ISIS! If the people who live there can not defeat ISIS American help will not work long term.

this advice should have been used and adhered to for last 50 years, and the world would be truly much better place. what a dream...

That advice is what lead to ISIS in the first place, when the US withdrew from Iraq too early before it was stable enough.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#37

Post by nickik »

sremani wrote: post #22
pjc50 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? While the Russians are supporting the status-quo Assad/Alawhite faction and the American backed "liberation" factions have mostly died out? (People seem to have stopped talking about AQ in the context of Syria?)

There are no "liberal" syrian rebels, the factions america along with Saudis are supporting are Sunni militias which are cousins if not brothers of AQ. You have divided interests of Kurds, Turks, Alawite regime + Russian, Sunni Militias + Saudi + USA, Iraqi Shia + Iran each having their varied interests. Assad wants ISIS to linger around since the focus would be on it rather than him, and he is focused on fighting th…

The Kurds are not unified, and the Turks don't universally oppose them. The Syrian Kurds do not want to create a independent Kurdistan, while the Iraqi Kurds (KGP) do, and they are on good terms with the Turks.

The US support of different groups has been overplayed. The US efforts were rather small and "in bed with AQ" is just spouting new headlines. The US tired to build a fraction, but failed, they have largely abandoned the effort.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#39

Post by nickik »

mason240 wrote: post #36
saiya-jin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this advice should have been used and adhered to for last 50 years, and the world would be truly much better place. what a dream...

That advice is what lead to ISIS in the first place, when the US withdrew from Iraq too early before it was stable enough.

You seem to live under the assumption that everything would have been better with the US there. That is a fantasy world that some right wing people live in.

First of all, the US had a signed a agreement, breaking that would have been terrible (maybe read something about the history of foreign military bases that were not wanted in Iraq). Second, the US could not have sustained the force for financial reasons. Third, the US had done a horrible job of setting up the state and fixing that would have been almost impossible.

"stable enough" could easily mean multiple decades or never. Britain has tried that as well.

These problems were predicted by anybody who had a head on its shoulder in 2003. Invading Iraq was called the worst foreign policy failure since Vietnam by many important people form within the US government.

Staying there even longer and spending even more money (long term strategic resources) on a essentially doomed nation building process. The US has already shown that they are absolutely terrible at nation building.

Re: The Coming War in the Middle East (2013)

#40

Post by jwtadvice »

nickik wrote: post #28
pjc50 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? While the Russians are supporting the status-quo Assad/Alawhite faction and the American backed "liberation" factions have mostly died out? (People seem to have stopped talking about AQ in the context of Syria?)

> If I've got this right, in Syria, Iran is opposed to ISIS/Daesh and Saudis are funding them? Well, I have a problem with saying "Saudis are funding them". Some people, even some in government are funding many different groups and maybe ISIS. The state itself does not directly fund ISIS. ISIS today is self funded, they function more like a normal state and they are taxing people, selling of assets and more. > While…

> The state itself does not directly fund ISIS.

The State does, through 'donations' and by laundering money through private entities.

Just as it has supported the Muslim Brotherhood and other organizations that have benefitted it - it has done this 'off the record'.

Don't take the lack of an announcement seriously.

Post reply on HN