"Occupation by Policy" - How Victors Inadvertantly Provoke Resistance Insurgency

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---if you think we seem to have coherent policies in the US that foreign populations understand check this comment from Congress.

Congress babbles. That's what they do. It isn't policy.

I did not see volunteers from Congress wanting to be the first back into Iraq---but hey talk is cheap.

Yes, it is... and war is very, very expensive. That's one of many reasons why we should not go into wars unless we have clear, practical, achievable objectives and viable plans for attaining those objectives.

Note---noticed the Iranians have offered "military advice" and supplies against AQ---and who said Iraq is not a part of the Iranian Green Crescent?

Yes, Iran will try to gain influence in Iraq, and will try to control Iraq if they can. I haven't heard anyone say otherwise.

Not so sure what an offer of "military advice" is outside of sending troops as "volunteers" as they did in Lebanon and Syria.

Yes, they will send people, weapons, and money.

What do you think the Saudi response will be to that offer?

They will order the Americans to do something, pout when we don't obey, and then send people, guns, and money to support their own chosen proxies.

More weapons, cash, fighters into Syria or participation in the coming Syria talks-----

All of the above, most likely.

And what is our policy towards Syria currently---do not rock the boat and just talk at a meeting that will go nowhere except cement Russian influence in the ME, keep Assad in power and keep the Shia controlling the Green Crescent if the US does not support the anti Assad forces.

The policy is to participate in the talks but not to take sides or get involved in the fighting. What I think you're missing here is that neither side is worth support in this venture, and a victory for the Sunni would be no better for the US than a victory for the Shi'a. So why get involved at all? The knee-jerk reaction of "if the Russians support one side, we must support the other" went out with the Cold War.

I do not for a moment think Assad will give up and walk away from his country and go where---would have to be Iran as he could be hauled in front of the Hague for crimes against humanity.

Of course he won't. How is that an argument for US involvement?

When we get involved in a fight like this, it means taking sides. Because we're American, of course we can't just take a side. We have to declare that the people we support are the good guys, the while hats, the true spokesmen to the people. We have to call them our friends, and make a commitment... and then we give them guns and money. Few months later the money is in the Cayman Islands, nobody wants to talk about where the guns are, and our "friends" are back with their hands out. The smart thing to do at this point would be to walk away, but if we do that Carl and the Quds Force (great name for a band) would accuse us of abandoning our friends, so we double down and send more guns and money. Surprisingly, the same thing happens. By now everybody knows we've been played, but to admit that would be to admit that we made a mistake, and we can't do that, so we double down again. We send more guns and money, and this time we send advisers as well. Then we have to secure the advisers, and they want air support so we have to go all shock and awe on the air defenses... and then we're at war, tossing hundreds of billions into a black hole with no realistic goal, no exit strategy, and a bunch of "friends" that are about as useful to us as an anchor is to a long distance swimmer.

Why would we want to go down that road? What's in it for us?

[carl]

Sorry to use the word, but that's just getting silly. If you want to save someone, figure out who most needs saving and who you can save without getting yourself into a mess. The religious affiliation of those to be saved has no place whatsoever in the calculation.

Silly? No, not at all.

For decades we have been involved in a struggle with and defending ourselves against attacks from people who proclaim, strongly and often proclaim, that their motives are religious. The justification for their murders is religious, distorted religion, but religious. If religion was removed from their calculus they couldn't exist as they do. They incorporate it into their actions to the extent they will kill an innocent if they don't know the name of the Prophet's mom, murder for being the wrong religion. Therefore religion suffuses this conflict whether we choose to acknowledge it or not. Religion determines in many cases whether somebody will get the chop, as in throat being cut, blood spurting all over, the victim flopping around and gurgling as they die chop. So since the enemy chooses victims by religion, it stands to reason that it be proper that we can factor the religion of potential victims into the decision about who we offer refuge to.

Whether we openly admit it or not, I think we do recognize the religious aspect of this conflict, at least in the negative sense. For example, this exchange was begun when I asked Bob Jones' opinion of the persecution Christians in some Muslim countries, pretty benign inquiry. A mere solicitation of opinion. I got nothing back, nothing at all. Why? Well I figure Bob works amongst movers and shakers and his words are watched carefully. He couldn't answer because to do so would be to tread in politically incorrect territory. It is politically fraught. It wouldn't be so hot a potato that it couldn't be mentioned unless it is integral to the conflict.

You do the same thing, recognize the importance of religion in all this. Your first response to my inquiry to Bob was this. (By the way Bob, I am still interested in your opinion.)

Is that something we need to change? A problem, yes, but our problem?

Muslims are also persecuted in many places... parts of Russia, western China, Burma, southern Thailand, southern Philippines. How would we change that short of something stronger than talk, if it can be changed at all? And again, why would we try?

Lots of people being persecuted in lots of places... not a good thing of course, but appointing ourselves world cop seems not a good thing either, and appointing ourselves defenders of any particular faith seems an even worse thing, to me at least.

Notice the first specific examples you mentioned involved religion, the only specific examples you brought up involved religion. You could have left the religion out of it but you chose not to. There is nothing wrong with that. It is only natural given the nature of this conflict.

The conflict has strong religions overtones and those overtones were brought to it by the enemy. They are pursuing a largely religious vision; and whether we like it or not, by defending ourselves we are confounding their religious vision. That is a religious act in their eyes.

So given all that, I see nothing improper at all in offering Christian victims of religious persecution from Muslim countries where it is particularly strong favorable visa treatment. We would not be defending the faith, I think we would be defending victims who are of a faith, chosen by takfiri killers to die because of that faith. Those same takfiri killers by the way, are after us too.

[carl]

The smart thing to do at this point would be to walk away, but if we do that Carl and the Quds Force (great name for a band) would accuse us of abandoning our friends, so we double down and send more guns and money.

Young man you are incorrigible, incorrigible I say. My original comment had to do with the importance of others perception of our past actions, as you can see below.

The Quds force leader said this "‘We’re not like the Americans. We don’t abandon our friends.’ ”.

That is quite an indictment. If he thinks that, others in the world think that so things may go hard for us in the future.

You can see it is an observation about how I think we are viewed by the Quds Force and perhaps by others and the import it may have for us in the future. It is a comment about how others may see us, not one advocating action based on the need to change that perception.

But then if that was recognized, there wouldn't be a springboard to launch into a series of 'Why should we...?'s and 'We ain't going there...'s. Oh well.

Now do I think us being viewed like that is bad? Yep. (I've decided to ask and answer the question, a variation on your technique.) Do I think that there are people in Syria we should support? Yep. Do I think we should because it would help further our immediate interests? Yep. Do I think we should because the Quds Force commander will say we are yellow if we don't? Nope. Do I think if we did it would change that perception I think others may have of us immediately? Nope. Do I think that our apparent reputation for inconstancy was gained over decades and will take years to change and involve more than what we do in Syria? Yep. Do I think the basic difference in our positions is that you think being viewed as a reliable ally means you are a sucker and I view it as being vital to our interests? Yep.

That was fun.

[davidbfpo]

Within a broad ranging article Rory Stewart, a British MP, with an interesting resume, reflects upon his life to date and his lack of power as a MP:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...wart-interview

Pertinent to this debate are these two passages on intervention, with my emphasis:

In the end, the basic problem is very, very simple. Why don't these interventions work? Because we are foreigners. If things are going wrong in a country, it's not usually that we don't have enough foreigners. It's usually that we have too many.

Our entire conceptual framework was mad. All these theories – counterinsurgency warfare, state building – were actually complete abstract madness. They were like very weird religious systems, because they always break down into three principles, 10 functions, seven this or that. So they're reminiscent of Buddhists who say: 'These are the four paths', or of Christians who say: 'These are the seven deadly sins.' They're sort of theologies, essentially, made by people like Buddhist monks in the eighth century – people who have a fundamental faith, which is probably, in the end, itself completely delusional.

I wonder if Rory ever debates COIN plus with those who are apparently deluded. I'd pay to see that.

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---a major problem with your comments is an interesting one at that.

When you someday make to the ground, live/participate in that target population and see "how they take something we define as a policy" and "interpret" it among themselves THEN you will finally "understand" and "see" what Robert is alluding to.

Target populations do not always react the way we think they will based on our Western focused rational way of thinking or what I call our still lingering American Puritan Ethnic biases from the 1700s.

The ability to "understand" and "see" is one of the hardest a researcher, a tactical field operator, or any decision maker has to do---Why--- one has to drop his personal biases---one has to frame the environment, frame the problem and then frame the solution at multiple levels all the while never leaving the "effect" on the target population out of the "problem" and final "solution" --that is extremely hard for anyone to do.

AND by the way constantly changing the "solution" as the "environment" changes---really, really not easy as it takes time and it is constantly ongoing/changing---the WHY today is not the WHAT from 30 minutes ago.

And yet you seem to think it is. It is great to ask questions and to turn arguments inside out for the sake of doing it, but really instead of tearing other arguments apart---WHAT is your answer to the WHAT and WHY of say Syria, Egypt, Libya or actually what the whole ME is about---namely the final settlement between the Shia and the Sunni followed closely by security and economic growth all the while trying to figure out the hegemony issue of a region---a natural drive by countries by the way for the last 1500 or so years.

Do you not agree that Islam has not had their Reformation?

If you agree with this comment then you are on the road to "seeing" the problem but you are still a long way from "understanding" the problem because you are not "framing" the problem.

Pan Arab nationalism was stopped due to our policies and really what we are seeing is the final play out of that original movement dressed in other terms ie "Arab Spring"---the question has to be-- have our policies at the national level contributed to or hindered that final move by the various target populations?

What Robert and I have repeated in different ways is the problem US foreign policy has shown over the last 12 years and for me maybe the last 45 years---not understanding the impact of those decisions on the target population WHICH must be included in any policy decision.

You keep asking for evidence---how do you personally make your decisions?

Betting it is based on your environment, your education, your family, your work experience or lack of experience, your biases, your religion, your race/culture, your travels to other cultures or maybe not, your position within say a specific culture, your ability to speak other languages or not and the list goes on and on.

Now I am supposing you then wrap all of that up in your mind and you come to a personal belief or as some say your personal biases---and then you act on those beliefs/biases.

How then do you measure all of the above that is going on in your own personal mind against say an American policy targeting you, your population and your environment?

In the ME many times it is usually an emotional reaction colored by biases of 40 years of US involvement in the area ---do you honestly expect the various ME populations to react in a Western rational thinking way?---come on now.

You balance it all and then measure it against the policy-simple actually-but extremely hard to measure as it takes someone stepping outside their own biases and frankly looking at it from the target population perspectives.

It takes someone who has a natural curiosity of cultures, someone who speaks hopefully the target population language/any foreign language, and someone who has lived/worked within a population---not many of them in the inner circle of policy advisors these days---they are all academics, think tank types, contractors, personal friends, people from the IC---they are the ones who advise decision makers and then you add all of that to the biases of the decision makers and you "wonder" what Robert and I are talking about.

It is all about perception and it has been for years---if you cannot "see and understand" that then you will be doomed to ask questions all the time never coming to a final biased decision.

You keep asking for evidence of the slant of the US towards Shiaism--and yet you refuse to look at the available open source information---it is out there for all to "see" and "understand" and by the way target populations tend to have that ability.

By the way there is a great quote in the public domain that states 80% of all intelligence can be gleaned out of open source materials---at the height of the Cold War the Soviet KGB/GRU had over 25,000 open source researchers---much of their foreign policey towards the US came from that open source material. Then confirmed or denied by actual intelligence methods.

By the way we fumbled badly in the use of OSINT in both Iraq and AFG as we "viewed" it as "propaganda".

That is what Robert means when he uses WHAT and WHY.

Reinforced by what I call the ability to "listen" and no the US has not been "listening" to the Saudi's as what they say is not fitting into what we want our policies to be.

[OUTLAW 09]

David---a really good set of quotes---never thought of it in that way-but it works and makes sense. Great catch.

Goes to what I meant when I say and maybe what Robert means when we both use the word that things are sometimes actually simple if one correctly looks at the WHAT and WHY.

[Bob's World]

Rory did a 2011 TED talk on Afghanistan that is worth a listen as well. About 20 min

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...735D7E45E7C402

[OUTLAW 09]

carl--will answer the Christian comment.

In the ME Christians are on the losing side and are targeted as it goes back to the Crusades thing and the development of Islam is that region of the world. What is crazy about all of the "religious" problems of the ME is that Islam generated itself out the two other main religions of the period just with a Arabic/nomad spin as a "unifying" ideology of the area against encroaching "foreigners" expanding outside control over their area---maybe the first example of colonialism under the guise of religion from Europe. There is an Islamic saying that "we are all people of the book"--we share some of the same prophets, some of the same religious personalities which they respect but do not accept, Islam is a firm respecter of the Virgin Mary for example, and understand the son of God--Islam just interpreters it differently.

That is what is so strange in this clash of religions.

But again how Christians or any other religious minority are usually treated---badly tolerated/just tolerated in any country where they are not the majority religion can be seen throughout history and in any geo location of the world.

A second comment---how were "Protestant's/Catholics" (kind of a Shia/Sunni thing of the modern times)treated in Europe during say the 30 and 100 year wars---badly depending on what Protestant/Catholic army one belonged to---how was the effect of these wars on the population--a disaster--some areas in Germany had not a single human living in them--so yes we on the "Christian" side have had our Shia/Sunni brutality years as well. Again how were say European "Christian" deviant beliefs treated in say Europe---they all ended up in the US if my history is correct.

I will turn your comment on it's head---how do we in the US treat religions that are not of the founding religions of the US from the 1600s? How do we treat religions that are "strange" to us in the US? IE say Islam, or Hinduism?

We may not kill them off or we may not drive them out of a region---but how exactly are they treated?

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---will now give you a vivid example of the WHAT and WHY with our "so called open and frank discussions" with the KSA which you indicated the Saudis were angry because we did not do what they wanted us to do.

It also shows you when a US policy goes astray and is not understood by the ME population---I have asked you often just WHAT is the US Syrian policy and WHY it is so?

In the ME and I keep pounding the response it is all about perception---right now the Saudis as well as others perceive that we do not understand the Syrian internal struggle/Syrian related issues and actually they are correct.

This comment came from of the same Saudi Prince (delegated messenger) who has been repeatedly saying the same thing over and over for the last few weeks for anyone in the US who will "listen". A country cannot be more specific in it's beef with us.

US WH Speakers' recent comment when asked about it---the Prince is basically a nothing as he is not part of the Government nor in a governmental position anymore---and we do have a frank and open dialogues with the KSA--quote unquote.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the KSA knows where this Prince is coming from and he would not be repeating it if he did not have internal KSA approval---shows you just how we fail to "listen" if it does not fit our current policies. Just because a Saudi Prince does not clothe a governmental position does not mean he is not speaking for the KSA.

We always tend to shoot the messenger when the message does not fit our views.

For a Saudi Prince that is a nothing in the eyes of the WH Speaker --his comments nail the current view of the US Syrian policy if there such a thing in the eyes of the ME population. I am not as well sure the US population really knows also what the Syrian policy is or is not.

Notice the fact that not once did he mention Iran in the solution set---as that problem set is in fact a thorn between the two and is not being discussed in public---it is being carried out through direct actions ie money, fighters, and 3B in weapons for the Lebanese Army.

Taken from a US News release from today:

President Barack Obama "made mistakes" and the United States failed in its dealing with the Syrian conflict", an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, told CNBC.

"America has had some big issues with doing the right thing -- for example in Syria," Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC. "In Syria, we see the war continuing after three years. From the beginning Saudi Arabia called for a diplomatic solution."

"The U.S. president is engaged in so many internal issues in America, he inherited the economic breakdown, two wars and other issues of gridlock with Congress and the budget, the government shutdown…but I think on Syria, definitely, he made mistakes."

He believed, he said, that "if there was goodwill on everybody's part, the world can put an end to this tragic and very bloody conflict in Syria."

Prince Turki's comments come at a time of heightened tensions in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia and Iran emerging as the two big powers in the region vying for influence over surrounding countries.

Tensions are also rising with the West over how to resolve regional conflicts.

[carl]

We may not kill them off or we may not drive them out of a region---but how exactly are they treated?

That is the nut of the thing. We don't kill them off or drive them from the region. That is the important thing, the physically verifiable thing, dead bodies and refugees. That is what is happening today in some of these countries. I understand the history and the parallels that can be drawn, but that has nothing to do with dead bodies and displaced people, today. (And the Crusades doesn't have a lot to do with Pakistan despite what some soreheads will say.)

Anyway, to get back to my original question to Bob Jones, in the circles you move in do people talk about the persecution of Christians in some of these countries? What do they think about it? Do they even know it exists? Does the kind of thing I advocate make it into the discussion at all?

---they all ended up in the US if my history is correct.

That is the kind of thing I was advocating. Turned out good for them. Turned out good for us. Them are us.

[Bob's World]

Actually the era of perhaps the most favorable US influence in the greater Middle East was established and nurtured through Christian NGOs - missionaries.

Arriving in the Ottoman Empire full of the spirit of God they were told by Ottoman officals in no uncertain terms that they were welcome to visit, but that they were absolutely forbidden from preaching the Gospel. So being enterprising Yankees, being denied what they wanted to do they set out to do what they could do. They built and ran Hospitals and Universities.

Over the next hundred years the US wielded tremendous influence and earned respect through these Christian hospitals and universities.

We have a long and storied history in the Middle East that did not begin on 9/11. The best single source book I have read is "Power, Faith and Fantasy: Amerca in the Middle East - 1776 to the Present."

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---the two things that pull in the eyes of the ME populations---health care and education.

"Over the next hundred years the US wielded tremendous influence and earned respect through these Christian hospitals and universities."

[OUTLAW 09]

This is a few sentences out of a NYTs article from today concerning the perceived slant of the US policy towards Iran and sidelining the KSA---quotes from the Iranians are of great interest if one reads between the lines---they see the slant what are we not seeing in the US BUT the KSA is in fact seeing? Seems like the recent remarks of the Saudi Prince were right after all---regardless of what the WH Speaker states.


Analysts in Iran say that Tehran is pursuing a clever strategy, using the United States to undermine its greatest regional rival, Saudi Arabia.

“Cooperating skillfully with Russia, Iran has managed to change the game both in Iraq and in Syria,” said Hooshang Tale, a Tehran-based nationalist activist and a member of Parliament before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. “If we play our cards well, we will end up outsmarting both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.”

He and others note that Iran has managed to keep Mr. Assad in power and wields considerable influence over its neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rightly or wrongly, they view their regional enemy Saudi Arabia as being on the verge of collapse, saying in Friday Prayer speeches and in televised debates that the kingdom is ruled by old men who have lost their way.

[OUTLAW 09]

This is from the category of the dumbest drug cartel moves in the last year or so.

Today in Berlin Germany employees of a discount food chain were stocking bananas before opening for business and in case four through case nine of bananas they found over 146 kilos of cocaine that were in the boxes surrounded by bananas.

Evidently the cocaine came out of Columbia via ship into Germany---someone on the receiving end really blew it as they are saying street value was in the
6M Euro range.

[Dayuhan]

When you someday make to the ground, live/participate in that target population and see "how they take something we define as a policy" and "interpret" it among themselves THEN you will finally "understand" and "see" what Robert is alluding to.

I've spent most of my adult life on the ground among the populace in a multi-insurgency country that has seen way more than its share of capricious and baffling US policies. Given that it's also a country in which a government often at odds with its populace has been historically sponsored by the US, I think I'm in a better than average position to see what Robert is alluding to. I'd also point out that your positions on Syria are yours, not Robert's, and only peripherally related to Robert's points. If Robert has something to say on the matter I'm sure he'll say it himself.

Target populations do not always react the way we think they will based on our Western focused rational way of thinking or what I call our still lingering American Puritan Ethnic biases from the 1700s.

No "target population" will ever react the way we think they will. Populations also don't react with any internal consistency: there will be a spectrum of reaction within any given "target population", and it will often be quite wide.

WHAT is your answer to the WHAT and WHY of say Syria, Egypt, Libya or actually what the whole ME is about---namely the final settlement between the Shia and the Sunni followed closely by security and economic growth all the while trying to figure out the hegemony issue of a region---a natural drive by countries by the way for the last 1500 or so years.

I don't have an answer. Neither do you. Neither does anyone else. The Middle East is evolving. Nobody knows how the process is going to run or where it's going to end up. The process will involve violence, as it has elsewhere. Our efforts to direct or control political evolution in other places have not generally gone well, and I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the US can or should dive into the mess in an effort to direct or control that process. We don't have an answer. We can't have an answer. It's not our question and we have no business trying to answer it.

Do you not agree that Islam has not had their Reformation?

Depends on how you define "reformation". Religions go through all kinds of changes, no cause to assume that any given religion will ever go through a process analogous to what we call a "reformation".

If you agree with this comment then you are on the road to "seeing" the problem but you are still a long way from "understanding" the problem because you are not "framing" the problem.

You're implying superiority again. It is unbecoming.

Pan Arab nationalism was stopped due to our policies

No, it collapsed because Arabs couldn't get along with each other and agree on who was going to steer the proposed pan-Arab ship. US policies played a part but were in no way the deciding factor.

...and really what we are seeing is the final play out of that original movement dressed in other terms ie "Arab Spring"---the question has to be-- have our policies at the national level contributed to or hindered that final move by the various target populations?

At times both. US policies are only one among many variables and any attempt to declare that any given outcome was "caused by" US policy is pointless. US policies are part of a complex mix of influences, not a sole determinant.

What Robert and I have repeated in different ways is the problem US foreign policy has shown over the last 12 years and for me maybe the last 45 years---not understanding the impact of those decisions on the target population WHICH must be included in any policy decision.

I hear you and Robert saying quite different things, so I suggest that you speak for yourself and let Robert speak for himself.

Of course potential impacts of policies on populations have to be considered, though in most cases we can't accurately predict what those impacts will be or how people will react to them.

You keep asking for evidence---how do you personally make your decisions?

Betting it is based on your environment, your education, your family, your work experience or lack of experience, your biases, your religion, your race/culture, your travels to other cultures or maybe not, your position within say a specific culture, your ability to speak other languages or not and the list goes on and on.

Of course. As do you. All I'm asking you to do is explain what policy you want us to adopt in Syria, and why. I don't think that's unreasonable.

How then do you measure all of the above that is going on in your own personal mind against say an American policy targeting you, your population and your environment?

I've actually been in the position of having an American policy targeting me, my population, and my environment. It's complicated. I used to introduce myself as a Canadian, just to avoid having to explain.

In the ME many times it is usually an emotional reaction colored by biases of 40 years of US involvement in the area ---do you honestly expect the various ME populations to react in a Western rational thinking way?---come on now.

I've never said I expect anyone to react rationally. What I've said is that I can't predict what the spectrum of reaction will be, neither can you, and that trying to build policy to evoke a consistent desired reaction is a fool's errand.

You balance it all and then measure it against the policy-simple actually-but extremely hard to measure as it takes someone stepping outside their own biases and frankly looking at it from the target population perspectives.

Yes, I know, I've been doing that for most of my life.

It takes someone who has a natural curiosity of cultures, someone who speaks hopefully the target population language/any foreign language, and someone who has lived/worked within a population---not many of them in the inner circle of policy advisors these days---they are all academics, think tank types, contractors, personal friends, people from the IC---they are the ones who advise decision makers and then you add all of that to the biases of the decision makers and you "wonder" what Robert and I are talking about.

I'm well aware of what Robert is talking about, I've been talking about it with him for years. In your case I'm less sure. For example, I see no connection between any of what you've said above and what seems to be a desire to see the US take sides in the Syrian conflict. I say "seems to be" because you've yet to say what you want to see us do in Syria. Seems to me that everything you've said above is an excellent argument for not taking sides in the Syrian conflict

It is all about perception and it has been for years---if you cannot "see and understand" that then you will be doomed to ask questions all the time never coming to a final biased decision.

As far as Syria goes, I have reached a decision: my utterly insignificant opinion is that the US should avoid taking sides and avoid involvement to the largest possible extent. What's your utterly insignificant opinion?

Easy to say "it's all about perception", but given the range of perceptions in play and the complications involved in trying to manage perceptions (generally fruitless and often counterproductive), the words don't get us very far.

You keep asking for evidence of the slant of the US towards Shiaism--and yet you refuse to look at the available open source information---it is out there for all to "see" and "understand" and by the way target populations tend to have that ability.

You made the claim, it's up to you to support it if challenged. I don't buy it. I see more a slant toward neutrality. Easing out of a period of reflexive support for one side is not evidence of support for the other side.

By the way there is a great quote in the public domain that states 80% of all intelligence can be gleaned out of open source materials---at the height of the Cold War the Soviet KGB/GRU had over 25,000 open source researchers---much of their foreign policey towards the US came from that open source material. Then confirmed or denied by actual intelligence methods.

Yes, we all know this. That doesn't mean your interpretation of open source data is necessarily correct or better than anyone else's.

That is what Robert means when he uses WHAT and WHY.

Explanations of what Robert means should be left to Robert, IMO.

Reinforced by what I call the ability to "listen" and no the US has not been "listening" to the Saudi's as what they say is not fitting into what we want our policies to be.

Failure to adapt our policies to meet Saudi desires is not necessarily evidence of not listening. It can just as easily be evidence of a perceived difference in interests. You can listen, and hear, and decide not to comply. If you ask me to jump in a sewer to do a bit of dirty work on yor behalf, and I don't do it, it doesn't mean I'm not listening. It means I don't want to do what you want me to do.

If what the Saudis want is not compatible with what our policies to be, why should we adjust our policies to suit them?

[AmericanPride]

If what the Saudis want is not compatible with what our policies to be, why should we adjust our policies to suit them?

I think this is one of the focal points of the arguments contained in this thread. The question also extends to the idea of "occupation by policy".

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan---will now give you a vivid example of the WHAT and WHY with our "so called open and frank discussions" with the KSA which you indicated the Saudis were angry because we did not do what they wanted us to do.

It also shows you when a US policy goes astray and is not understood by the ME population

Prince Turki's comments reflect the desires and priorities of the Saudi Royal Family, not "the ME population". Two rather different things.

I have asked you often just WHAT is the US Syrian policy and WHY it is so?

As far as I can tell, the US policy is to participate in the diplomatic discussions but not take sides with any party, avoid arming and equipping any party, avoid indirect involvement, and absolutely avoid direct involvement.

The why would come down to lack of any clear and compelling national interest, lack of a viable partner to support, lack of an exit strategy, lack of a clear policy goal to be achieved by intervention, inability to control or influence a post-Assad end game, and total lack of support among the American populace for involvement in yet another Middle east quagmire.

Personally, I believe that non-involvement should be the default US response to other people's fights. That is not absolute, and the default setting would be overridden in cases where we have a clear and compelling national interest, a clear, practical, and achievable goal, and a viable plan for achieving that goal. I don't see any of those elements in place in Syria.

In the ME and I keep pounding the response it is all about perception---right now the Saudis as well as others perceive that we do not understand the Syrian internal struggle/Syrian related issues and actually they are correct.

Are you speaking of royal families here, or populaces?

Of course we do not understand Syrian internal struggles. That doesn't mean we should allow the Saudis to impose their own very much self-interested "understanding" on us. Why would we want to get involved in a conflict we know we don't understand?

This comment came from of the same Saudi Prince (delegated messenger) who has been repeatedly saying the same thing over and over for the last few weeks for anyone in the US who will "listen". A country cannot be more specific in it's beef with us.

Actually the comments are very unspecific:

President Barack Obama "made mistakes" and the United States failed in its dealing with the Syrian conflict", an influential member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, told CNBC.

"America has had some big issues with doing the right thing -- for example in Syria," Prince Turki bin Faisal Al Saud told CNBC. "In Syria, we see the war continuing after three years. From the beginning Saudi Arabia called for a diplomatic solution."

"The U.S. president is engaged in so many internal issues in America, he inherited the economic breakdown, two wars and other issues of gridlock with Congress and the budget, the government shutdown…but I think on Syria, definitely, he made mistakes."

He believed, he said, that "if there was goodwill on everybody's part, the world can put an end to this tragic and very bloody conflict in Syria."

Note that the Prince makes no specific reference to what the "mistakes" might have been, or what "doing the right thing" might have been, or what "diplomatic solution" could have been achieved or how, or how he expects the world to "put an end to this tragic and bloody conflict. Even by the generally vacuous standards of diplo-speak, this is about as un-specific as a statement can be.

Note as well that Prince Turki does not speak for "the ME populace". He doesn't even speak for the Saudi populace. He speaks for the Saudi royal family, which is looking after its own interests and agendas. Those interests and agendas may or may not be consistent or compatible with ours, and I see no reason at all whay the US should allow the Saudis to dictate US policy.

If you want to speak of perception in the ME, one of the most consistent messages we've heard from the region over the last few decades is that US is way too quick to intervene in the region, and that we should try minding our own business and staying out of their affairs. Do we disregard that message, heard across a broad regional and popular spectrum for an extended period of time, because the Saudi royals express a desire to harness the US as their personal Rottweiler?

[Dayuhan]

You can see it is an observation about how I think we are viewed by the Quds Force and perhaps by others and the import it may have for us in the future. It is a comment about how others may see us, not one advocating action based on the need to change that perception.

Ok, so if we don't support our very hypothetical "friends" in Syria, someone somewhere MAY accuse us of abandoning our "friends". If we do choose sides and intervene in Syrai, is there not an equal or greater probability that a whole bunch of people in the region will accuse us of arrogantly forcing our way into a regional conflict that's none of our business in a cynical effort to further our own invariably nefarious objectives? The reality of "perception management" is that somebody will put a negative spin on anything we do, and somebody will believe that spin no matter what we do. If we're damned if we do and damned if we don't why not act according to our own interests and objectives?

Do I think that there are people in Syria we should support? Yep.

Ok, who? Specifically, please...

[Dayuhan]

I think this is one of the focal points of the arguments contained in this thread. The question also extends to the idea of "occupation by policy".

Agreed, though I don't see how a failure to subordinate our interests and objectives to those of the Saudi royal family constitutes "occupation by policy', especially on a matter that is a question of foreign policy for both countries.

Curious to hear what Robert thinks on the Saudi/Syria issue, as he has in the past mentioned that he thinks the US has been rather too willing to accommodate the preferences of the Saudi royals (on other issues).

[AmericanPride]

Dayuhan,

I did not intend to imply that your argument constitutes "occupation by policy" but instead that the same question (why should the perception of other actors dictate our policy?) also applies to the concept of "occupation by policy", if that in fact is US policy and it is relevant to outcomes in the ME.