China's Far West provinces (inc. Tibet)

[Dayuhan]

If the West continues with a historic approach, we will help China conduct counterterrorism against this nationalist insurgent movement and to exert controls over the Chinese Muslim populace they represent.

The Chinese will not need, want, or request our help.

My recommendation is that we out-compete AQ for influence with this populace.

My recommendation is that we leave it alone. It's not our business, it's not our problem, and it's very unlikely that any side of the story wants us involved in any way. We are not the solution to every problem, and there's no need for us to get involved in every problem. Let it be. We've enough issues elsewhere.

Who guards the people of Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Egypt from the abuses of their governments? Again, not the US, who enables those governments to act with impunity as well.

The degree to which we "enable" anything is highly debatable. In Saudi Arabia our "enabling" role is absolutely nonexistent: the US could withdraw completely from all engagement with the Saudis with no effect whatsoever on the Saudi relationship with its populace. They don't need our help to contain their populace and they don't care what we think... we'd lose a fair bit of intel (and a whole lot of defence contracts) but that's about it

In Egypt our "enabling" role is minimal: they like the aid but it's not enough to give us enough leverage to force them to change anything, and they don't step on their populace because we enable it. They'd do it in any event. Once upon a time they were dependents, not now. They could survive without the aid, and it's likely that others would replace it if we withdrew.

In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.

The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.

[Tukhachevskii]

My recommendation is that we leave it alone. It's not our business, it's not our problem, and it's very unlikely that any side of the story wants us involved in any way. We are not the solution to every problem, and there's no need for us to get involved in every problem. Let it be. We've enough issues elsewhere.

Agreed 150%

In Yemen, arguably, we enable a bad government to survive... but I've seen few good options proposed. Important to note that Yemen doesn't face "an insurgency" with "an insurgent leadership" that we can deal with if the government is unsuitable. Yemen faces a crawling chaos of ethnic, sectarian, and tribal conflict; the threat is not an insurgent victory but a descent into Somali-style anarchy.

Again, agreed with your accurate assesment.

The whole notion of "enabling" is something you seem to asume but do not demonstrate; I think you vastly overrate what we can or do actually "enable". Certainly in China, no matter what policy we adopt, we will not be "enabling" anything.

Exactly, it didn't/hasn't/doesn't work with Tibet I don't see how or why it should with ETIM or the Uighur people. Non-intervention not more intervention should be the norm at least if we still believe in the notion of state soveriengty. Ultimately, whatever problems a people has with its government are its problem unless the issues should be so severe as to threaten regional and international security in which case its a regional problem (essentially the Edmund Burke doctrine from the French revolution) and only in the last instance is it an international one....unless you subscribe to the idea of universal peace/government (which demands intervention) which is a dream and not even a nice one. Indeed, in a number of cases (if not the majority) local dis/malcontents tactitly if not overtly assume and rely upon the internationalisation of their greivance. Turning a local issue into a global one which not only complicates its resolution but also involves parties who have no business being invlved in the first place and seek simply to gain in some way. Remove that and you, IMO only, dampen the flames that lead to escalation.