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

[OUTLAW 09]

Bill M---this is a side comment based on this sentence--but are we as a country actually reaching this point if one sees the development of a large number of armed groups inside the US all claiming to defend the country, when we see governance at the national level actually in a stalemate where doing nothing is in fact a policy of one player, when we see at the State level one ideology driving a social agenda not really supported by a national majority, when we see how the vote by one individual now being threatened, and when we see how one party can rewrite electoral districts to their benefit in order to push another party out of national politics.

Just look at the views of some groups towards the President of the US---Socialist, Communist, Islamist, not an American by birth, acts above the law, etc---I personally have never seen a Socialist/Communist/Islamist individual before in all of history.

"It doesn't take a major stretch of the imagination to foresee a time when opposing ideology groups in the U.S. become so polarized that a viable compromise is not possible, and armed conflicts erupts."

I for one believe we are closer than some think---AQ is not our problem---we as a population and our views of governance are the problem.

In some aspects even Roberts concept fits the US right about now.

By the way your comment is interesting in that one can see this trend starting already in the early 70s just after VN and the end of the civil rights movement.

[Dayuhan]

Of course the Cold War was bloody, much bloodier than the current war we're in against terrorism, and it was also ideological. If the opposing ideologies for a dominant world ideology and system didn't exist, the Cold War wouldn't have existed.

I'm not so sure of that. Maybe it wouldn't have been called "the Cold War", or seen as a unitary entity (which it wasn't even as a Cold War), but it still would have happened. What we call the Cold War was, at the other end, the wars of decolonization, fought first to remove unwanted foreign masters and then to remover the unwanted dictators that followed the foreign masters. The whole communist/capitalist dichotomy was an external imposition with little relevance to the local perception of the issues being contested. It is of course true that the proxy meddling exacerbated and distorted those conflicts, but realistically even without that ideological conflict the "great powers" would still have been meddling in pursuit of advantage.

[Dayuhan]

It appears that we are equally "fixated." Just as I suggested to Dayuhan yesterday, we see the same facts, but assess the meanings from different backgrounds.

I think one of our most prominent divergences lies in the assumption that Arab support for AQ is driven by a belief that AQ will weaken American support for their own governments and make those governments more amenable to reform. I just don't see the basis for that. To me the support is driven more by a rather romanticized vision of AQ as reincarnation of the noble Arab warrior of old, defending the lands of Islam, sticking it to the infidel, and generally avenging generations of abject humiliation at the hands of practically everyone. It is worth recalling that the expulsion of the Soviet Union gave Islam something it has lacked for a long, long, time: a heroic victory. The Arab world, preferring to see one of their own at the head of the parade, nominated Osama (not entirely honestly, but who ever is with these things) as conquering hero. The power of these emotional constructs is very real, though far from eternal, and as long as AQ has an infidel to expel they will have support, regardless of what happens or doesn't happen in the world of domestic governance.

What I am not seeing is the US's similar recognition that we can either break ourselves attempting to enforce a status quo that is increasingly perceived as inappropriate, or we can evolve in how we pursue our interests to ways that are less caustic, less expensive, but equally (or more) effective.

I don't think we are currently attempting to enforce a status quo anywhere, though of course we've little choice but to deal with the status quo in many places.

The big question, of course, is what exactly are these "ways that are less caustic, less expensive, but equally (or more) effective". If that means an overall policy of meddling less, and meddling much less intrusively if we must meddle, I'm on board. If it means trying to counter-meddle our meddlings past by an effort to impose ourselves as advocate for oppressed Muslim populaces or mediator between populaces and governments... that sounds to me like nothing but trouble.

[OUTLAW 09]

As I had in an earlier posting indicated the ME is wrapped up in the final Shia/Sunni clash with the front being Iraq which borders the KSA, Syria with a Sunni majority dominated by a “deviant” Shia minority and a Lebanon which was mainly Sunni/Christain until Hezzbollah extended Khomeini’s/Iranian influence into the country.

Syria is/has been in fact a regional war (yes the US calls it a civil war but it is in reality a regional war) being fought by two “super powers” of that region Iran representing the Shia and KSA representing the Sunni for hegemony of the ME.

This fight has been brewing since Khomeini came to power in 1979 and when he announced the Green Crescent Shia strategy with KSA since then attempting to wall in Iranian influence in SWA and the ME. Who knew in the late 70s that little 15 cent tape cassettes from Khomeini's Friday prayers being smuggled from Paris to Tehran could have changed the ME forever?

I would argue as has Robert argued that in fact it is our policies or lack of policies that is driving the clash much faster than normal as it appears to the ME populations that we have no answer for anything happening in the ME and they as a population are on their own going forward.

There is an interesting comment from the NYTs article that actually sums up US policy in the ME currently "They don’t want to rock the boat. How is this not rocking the boat?”

So our national decision makers feel that "not rocking the boat" can somehow be magically transformed into a ME policy that will work?

Guess what the various ME populations get exactly what our policies have and or have not been as it has impacted them and their families on the ground .

The US in its drive to settle the Iranian (Shia) nuclear question in order to avoid a major war, it’s support for a Shia Iraq which did/still does not protect the Sunni minority, a lack of understanding the impact of the free election of Hamas in Gaza and our hypocrisy to that from us demanded free election , the lack of a coherent concept and understanding of the impact of Hezbollah as part of the Green Crescent in Lebanon, the lack of a coherent understanding of the Arab Spring other than we thought it proved our “democracy” values, the lack of a coherent concept for Syria (Sunni majority under Shia dominance) and feet dragging in Palestine (Sunni) until 2013, and sending US weapons to a Shia country to kill Sunni’s has shown the various ME populations that the US truly does not understand their issues.

I have repeatedly stated it is really all about perception in the ME---strange for rational thinking Americans but nevertheless it is about perception.

Syria has in effect become the defacto “Spanish battleground” for the 21st Century in the ME--and our national level decision makers (with all the contractors, academics, think tanks, media reporting) were so focused in chasing AQ and conducting two unnecessary wars -- they never saw it coming as it goes to what Robert has been saying about populations and policies that drive resistance. I would argue that chasing AQ and fighting in two Muslin countries has actually made us weaker in the eyes of the various ME populations.

Robert also made some interesting comments concerning KSA and I have as well indicated that the Saudi’s have been greatly disturbed by our lack of a Syria policy so they are moving as fast as they can to establish their own “Syrian policy” using money, troops, and a call to religion.

Actually the NYTs article supports Robert ‘s concept in a number of ways.

Taken from this mornings’ NYT front page article;

“Linking all this mayhem is an increasingly naked appeal to the atavistic loyalties of clan and sect. Foreign powers’ imposing agendas on the region, and the police-state tactics of Arab despots, had never allowed communities to work out their long-simmering enmities. But these divides, largely benign during times of peace, have grown steadily more toxic since the Iranian revolution of 1979. The events of recent years have accelerated the trend, as foreign invasions and the recent round of Arab uprisings left the state weak, borders blurred, and people resorting to older loyalties for safety.”

“Iran and Saudi Arabia have increased their efforts to arm and recruit fighters in the civil war in Syria, which top officials in both countries portray as an existential struggle. Sunni Muslims from Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have joined the rebels, many fighting alongside affiliates of Al Qaeda. And Shiites from Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen and even Africa are fighting with pro-government militias, fearing that a defeat for Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, would endanger their Shiite brethren everywhere.”

“Although the Saudi government waged a bitter struggle with Al Qaeda on its own soil a decade ago, the kingdom now supports Islamist rebels in Syria who often fight alongside Qaeda groups like the Nusra Front. The Saudis say they have little choice: having lobbied unsuccessfully for a decisive American intervention in Syria, they believe they must now back whoever can help them defeat Mr. Assad’s forces and his Iranian allies.”

“As the United States rushed weapons to Mr. Maliki’s government late last year to help him fight off the jihadis, some analysts said American officials had not pushed the Iraqi prime minister hard enough to be more inclusive."

“Maliki has done everything he could to deepen the sectarian divide over the past year and a half, and he still enjoys unconditional American support,” said Peter Harling, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group. “The pretext is always the same: They don’t want to rock the boat. How is this not rocking the boat?”

[OUTLAW 09]

This comment kind of summarizes US policy in Iraq.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003"

Wonder what the new DoS would say now to the problems in Fallujah?

[Bob's World]

The big question, of course, is what exactly are these "ways that are less caustic, less expensive, but equally (or more) effective". If that means an overall policy of meddling less, and meddling much less intrusively if we must meddle, I'm on board.

That is indeed the $64,000 question. It is the conversation that should have been the center of the QDR but was never asked; and it should have been the banner on the wall for the new NSS writing team. I know they are polishing a draft, I fear and hope for what it might say.

Outlaw - Good find on the NYT article, I think they are pretty close. I'll try to contact the author.

We definitely screwed up in Iraq. Iraq was the keystone of the arch running from Shia Iran to Sunni Arabia. We made it all about us and Saddam and blew out the one guy holding everything in check. Ours obsessive paranoia over WMD gets us into a lot of trouble, but Iraq was (hopefully) the worst.

We hate WMD because it is the only check on our ability to do whatever we want. Everyone in the world notices except us that we treat WMD nations with a degree of respect for their sovereignty that we do not lend to those who do not have it. That is why DPRK and Iran have worked so hard to get it. Not to wage physical war on their neighbors, but rather to deter the US from waging policy war against them.

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---what worries me when you write about US polices causing basically unintended consequences is the fact that the various ME populations already have a fixed perception of the lack of US interest in addressing issues raised by the Arab Spring as well as the Shia/Sunni clash.

ALL current US policy moves in the ME lead me to believe there is an actual shift occurring in US policy towards a joint US/Iranian move.

This might be due to US policy makers deciding that the Shia might be a way of controlling the Sunni fundamentalists while not wanting to realize that Iran is just as driven by Shia fundamentalists. Again unintended consequences based on the lack of understanding the populations they are trying to address.

I would have said there is no way the US is shifting as such a shift would indicate a true failure to understand the populations of the ME, but the list of moves made by the US towards open support or presumed open support of Shia over Sunni's has I think forced the KSA to truly rethink their view towards the US--the recent 3B weapons deal with the French is a sure sign of that rethink and their open critiques of the US Syrian policy moves is the second nail in the coffin.

This shift just might happening when one thinks that we the US is no longer tied to oil coming from the ME based on our current production levels and the need for good relations with the KSA are no longer needed in pursuit of containing AQ.

If one looks at the four policy points that the US NCA recently released---it simply stated--deter any threats coming from that region---it did not define those threats. Sunni fundamentalism is one such threat.

This small comment came out of a 30 Nov 2013 article written by a well respected Arab commenter on the ME backed up by a comment from Brookings which has some good analysts regardless of what one thinks of them---and it is rather worrying at the least if the shift is in fact true because to lock out two other regional players ie Israel and the KSA is a disaster waiting to happen---unless the shift ie working the Palestinian issue and the Iranian approach is to isolate the KSA?

"So is the US in fact changing sides in the contest between Iran and those regional forces seeking to contain and turn back its advance?

Michael Doran of the Brookings Institute suggested this week that Washington is in the first phase of seeking a "strategic partnership" with Iran, an "entente cordiale" which would see a US-Iranian alliance forming a lynchpin of regional stability.

If this is truly what the welter of evidence detailed above portends, then the Middle East is headed into a dangerous period indeed. As Doran also notes, there is no reason at all to think that Iranian designs for regional hegemony have been abandoned.

The effect of US overtures to Tehran and undermining of allies will be to build the Iranians' appetite. This will serve to intensify their continued efforts at expansion.

The corresponding efforts by other regional powers, Israel and Saudi Arabia chief among them, to resist this process will also increase."

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---your WMD comment is interesting---the concept of mutual destruction tends to keep things in check regardless of the countries involved, politics, partners, ideology, and religions---but with the Shia and Sunni there is nothing to keep them in check as it is hard when dealing with two true believers---there are some solutions but the US is not creative enough to use them due to internal US political/religious pressures.

"We hate WMD because it is the only check on our ability to do whatever we want. Everyone in the world notices except us that we treat WMD nations with a degree of respect for their sovereignty that we do not lend to those who do not have it. That is why DPRK and Iran have worked so hard to get it. Not to wage physical war on their neighbors, but rather to deter the US from waging policy war against them."

[Bob's World]

Hopefully we do not "change sides," but rather move to a posture that is far more neutral and pragmatic across all of the governments and populations of the region. Great Britain thought "changing sides" was the answer at the turn of the 20th century, and it led to dropping old allies and picking up new ones; the alliances that collided in what came to be known as WWI...

The outdated belief that one exercised their interests best through fixed relationships with specific countries, and making their enemies our enemies needs to go.

But Corporations love dictators. And these Dictators have big money, or big Zionist lobbies. So big money from corporations, Arab and Jewish groups skew our politics and policy to keep contracts in place, to keep Israel as a "Jewish state" and to keep certain families in power on the Arabian Peninsula. I don't know if we can break free from the inertia of those forces. We do not need to "abandon" any allies, but we do need to refresh all of these relationships and repair or build new relationships with those we have been sideways with for reasons that are really the interests of our partners or corporations, and not our nation and our people writ large.

Iran is a true nation, and perhaps the most geostrategically important country and population in the entire Middle East - for us to be sideways with them is not in our interests. Other geostrategic enduring nations are Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Turkey. That does not mean the rest are unimportant, it just means their importance rose quickly and will wane even faster as the energy dynamics of the globe eventually transition to whatever comes next.

Governments come and go.

"threats" come and go.

But the people are enduring, as is geography.

We need to be more grounded in geography, and we need to be far more conscious of how our polices affect people, rather than just governments.

And if we want to truly be a "global leader" we need to stop allowing small, but important and powerful, interest groups lead us on fool's errands. Oh and stop initiating so many of our own fool's errands as well, as NO ONE wanted us to invade Iraq, except AQ, of course.

[AmericanPride]

Bob,

Often insanely outrageous foreign policy begins with very logical and reasonable intent.

I don't think there's anything "insanely outrageous" about US foreign policy. I think at times foreign policy is miscalculated due to a variety of causes. My point is that "occupation by policy" is a 'natural' outcome of the current organization of global power structures. Structural violence, the kind that breeds "resistance" insurgency, is an inherent and basic feature of international order.

The concept of "occupation by policy" is about when foreign policy falls out of step with those it affects thereby generating a resistance insurgency effect, much as a physical occupation does. This does not mean don't have foreign policy and don't affect people, it means that one must have mechanisms to honestly appreciate the effects one's governance has (intended or accidental) on various populations, and mechanisms to fine tune that governance to be as appropriate as possible.

I don't think the incentives exist for those that make policy to genuinely care for "those it affects". By genuine, I mean independent of whatever interest exists to accommodate those populations. The US is the biggest fish in the pond in a pond with very well defined parameters - military and economic power trumps ideology, ethics, and even at times the very law meant to justify the exercise of military and economic power in the first place. The relevant actors know the rules of this game, which is why the Saudis have no problem allying with the Israelis, why the US played games with defining the word coup, and so on. Everyone is a realist pretending to be a liberal while living in a marxist world.

What I am not seeing is the US's similar recognition that we can either break ourselves attempting to enforce a status quo that is increasingly perceived as inappropriate, or we can evolve in how we pursue our interests to ways that are less caustic, less expensive, but equally (or more) effective.

Why do you expect to see that recognition? The US more or less built the current international system and its power is heavily invested in its continuation. The proliferation of globally active political players makes the game more complicated but not necessarily different at its core. Selecting "occupation by policy" is a rational and deliberate choice within this context. "Occupation by policy" is a structural problem, not a strategy problem.

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert---the core problem with a shift towards Iran is that the various Shia sects make up no more than 7-12% of the total 1.8B Muslims worldwide the rest are Sunni with a small amount of Sufi.

Since 1979 Shias have become more politically aware under Khomeini which was what Sunnis have always been interested in---but at the same time far more fundamental in order to match Sunni fundamentalists.

I do not see the fundamentalists in Iran ie the Revolutionary Guards and others wanting to compromise with the "great Satan"---and really the moderates are not so moderate when one reads what they write and say within Iran.

In the end they will not give up their nuclear program for as you know it is a deterrent--even the Israelis understand that. If the Iranians are allowed to stay with their nuclear program it will only drive the Saudis towards the nuclear option as well.

The real internal debate within Islam will in the end be between the secularist and fundamentalist and the US cannot hold back that debate nor should it as Islam really does need a Reformation in order to allow the populations to settle down and move forward.

[OUTLAW 09]

AP--would be curious as to what you think the current US strategy is in the ME?

[OUTLAW 09]

Robert----noticed a Reuters report from Israel today with comments from the DoS and second comment from a Sunni fighter in Syria in the same article that goes to a degree in verifying the NYTs article about a shift in US policy towards Iran that is targeting the curbing of Sunni influence in the ME.

Should be interesting to see how the KSA responds in the next few days especially if the word is the KSA will not be "invited" as the Iranians will be---if one analyzes the media reports about a split between the US and KSA one will notice about every six months for the last two years articles indicating the rising tensions between the US and the KSA.

Taken from the Reuters article:

"U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Tehran still should not take formal part in the peace conference scheduled to start on Lake Geneva on January 22 because it had not endorsed a 2012 accord calling for a new Syrian leadership. But he said there might be ways that Iran could "contribute from the sidelines".

There is little prospect of a rapid end to the Syrian conflict but the resurgence in Iraq of mutual enemy al Qaeda, and a recent rapprochement with the new Iranian president, have raised speculation about a common effort between the United States and Tehran to contain instability in the region.

In the eastern Syrian province of Raqqa, Sunni Islamist activist Khaled Abu Alwalid said that the presence of Iraqi Shi'ite militia fighters in Syria was galvanising a common front against them by ISIL and other Islamist factions.

"This is a religious war encompassing Iraq, Syria and Lebanon," Alwalid said.

Like Iraq, Lebanon has seen violence linked to the Syrian war, and its Hezbollah militia, backed by Iran, has sent fighters into Syria to help Assad. There were clashes on Sunday in the Lebanese city of Tripoli between Sunnis and members of the Shi'ite-linked Alawite sect to which Assad belongs."

[carl]

No, wrong to say Christians are more worthy of being saved than any of the other endangered people we might choose to save.

And another way of saying if you can't do it all, don't do anything.

[carl]

Outlaw,

You know the answer to your own question. It is about governance, not religion.

You've seen the movie Gandhi, and how the illegitimate external (resistance insurgency) influence of Britain was removed, and how Muslims and Hindu then worked a subsequent split that gave all a chance to live in a country dominated by governance of one flavor or the other. Do Pakistan, India and Bangladesh all still wrestle with internal revolutionary issues? Certainly they do. But AQ's Saudi-centric revolutionary message does not resonate in that region, nor in Afghanistan for that matter.

It isn't about ideology. It isn't about religion. It is about governance and it is about the higher order aspects of Maslow's hierarchy. People under governance they believe has no right to govern them (illegitimacy); people under governance that acts in a manner seen as inappropriate in their culture (exceeding sovereignty); people under a rule of law they do not perceive as just (injustice); people treated differently than other similarly situated populations (disrespect); and populations who perceive they have no effective legal means available to them to seek the changes to fix any or all of the above (disempowered).

As JFK said: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable."

Equally, those who are perceived as helping to sustain in power or enable those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will find themselves confronted with acts of transnational terrorism.

It is that simple.

I've been thinking about this and then this morning appeared this article in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/04/wo..._20140105&_r=0

It is about anit-Muslim rioting in India. This particular time dozens were killed. That kind of rioting isn't unusual in India, it goes back many years, to the time of the country's founding just after WWII. These are serious riots in which thousands can be and have been killed.

So maybe one of the reasons for lack of AQ, or similar groups, appeal in India is the Muslim population's precarious position. If they were to too closely embrace that kind of thing, it may result in deadly communal riots. That would be consistent with groups in other countries laying low. The Christians in Pakistan can't do anything or deadly riots may ensue. I imagine the Russian Jews in the time of the Czars had to lay low no matter how badly they were treated for fear of pogroms.

So yes, the policies of the Indian government undoubtedly play a part in keeping AQ and AQ like groups out, but so does the deadly threat of communal violence being directed at the Muslim population if they play their cards wrong. Some people too would say that the threat of communal violence is part of Indian government policy, at least on a local and state level, therefore being a component of the governance that keeps the lid on.

[Dayuhan]

And another way of saying if you can't do it all, don't do anything.

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.

[Dayuhan]

Syria is/has been in fact a regional war (yes the US calls it a civil war but it is in reality a regional war) being fought by two “super powers” of that region Iran representing the Shia and KSA representing the Sunni for hegemony of the ME.

Possibly so, but where is it written that the US must be involved in every conflict on the planet?

I would argue as has Robert argued that in fact it is our policies or lack of policies that is driving the clash much faster than normal as it appears to the ME populations that we have no answer for anything happening in the ME and they as a population are on their own going forward.

Our policy is not to get involved. That's not a lack of policy, it's a quite reasonable policy, and under the circumstances I suspect the best one we could adopt. I see absolutely no way in which US involvement could make that situation better, and a whole lot of ways for US involvement to make it worse.

Given that ME populations have spent a few decades vocally demanding that the US stay out of their affairs, can't see why they'd be upset that "they as a population are on their own going forward". Why would they not want to be on their own? No reason why they'd want us in there telling them what to do.

There is an interesting comment from the NYTs article that actually sums up US policy in the ME currently "They don’t want to rock the boat. How is this not rocking the boat?”

Less about not rocking the boat than about not getting in the boat. Given that the boat is (a) sinking, and (b) filled to the brim with screaming a-holes who hate our guts, that seems to me a quite reasonable plan.

So our national decision makers feel that "not rocking the boat" can somehow be magically transformed into a ME policy that will work?

A policy that works is one that achieves the goals it was intended to achieve. I think we've finally figured out that we are not going to "fix" the Middle East or any part thereof, and efforts we make to "fix" things generally make them worse. Is staying out of the mess an unreasonable policy goal?

The US in its drive to settle the Iranian (Shia) nuclear question in order to avoid a major war, it’s support for a Shia Iraq which did/still does not protect the Sunni minority

Protecting the Sunni minority in Iran is not our business. Protecting the Shi'a minority in Saudi Arabia is not our business. The domestic politics of Middle Eastern nations are not our business. What do we gain by meddling in any of the above?

I have repeatedly stated it is really all about perception in the ME---strange for rational thinking Americans but nevertheless it is about perception.

Yes, perception matters, but it's largely beyond our control. No matter what the US does, somebody will put a negative spin on it, and somebody will believe it. If we stay out of Syria, we're abandoning our nonexistent "friends", if we go into Syria we are imperialist aggressors and hired thugs for the Saudis. Can't win that game, best to do what's best for us and let the perception chips fall where they may. Designing policy based on what someone else might or might not think of it is a one way road to madness.

Robert also made some interesting comments concerning KSA and I have as well indicated that the Saudi’s have been greatly disturbed by our lack of a Syria policy so they are moving as fast as they can to establish their own “Syrian policy” using money, troops, and a call to religion.

Of course the Saudis have their own Syria policy. Why wouldn't they? No need for them to follow our policies, no need for us to follow theirs. Different nations, different perceived interests, different policies.

“Iran and Saudi Arabia have increased their efforts to arm and recruit fighters in the civil war in Syria, which top officials in both countries portray as an existential struggle. Sunni Muslims from Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere have joined the rebels, many fighting alongside affiliates of Al Qaeda. And Shiites from Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen and even Africa are fighting with pro-government militias, fearing that a defeat for Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s president, would endanger their Shiite brethren everywhere.”

Ok, so we have Saudi-backed Wahhabi extremists and Irani/Hezbollah trying to kill each other instead of trying to kill us... and we need to jump in between and make them stop? Why?

What would you have the US do in Syria, and why?

[Dayuhan]

But Corporations love dictators. And these Dictators have big money, or big Zionist lobbies. So big money from corporations, Arab and Jewish groups skew our politics and policy to keep contracts in place, to keep Israel as a "Jewish state" and to keep certain families in power on the Arabian Peninsula. I don't know if we can break free from the inertia of those forces. We do not need to "abandon" any allies, but we do need to refresh all of these relationships and repair or build new relationships with those we have been sideways with for reasons that are really the interests of our partners or corporations, and not our nation and our people writ large.

I don't think the US has any real role in maintaining the internal status quo on the Arabian Peninsula, or for that matter in Israel. Perhaps the State-vs-State status quo, but not the State-vs-populace status quo. Neither the Saudis nor the Israelis need any help from us to keep their populaces in line, and neither give a rat's ass what we think of their domestic policies. We have no leverage over their policies and no means to change them. We and the corporations deal with the status quo because it exists... not like there's anything they can do about it.

We do not need to "abandon" any allies, but we do need to refresh all of these relationships and repair or build new relationships with those we have been sideways with for reasons that are really the interests of our partners or corporations, and not our nation and our people writ large.

Any specific suggestions on how that might be done?

[OUTLAW 09]

Dayuhan---then your policy is what?---stand on a chair in the middle of a flowing river and claim what?---the river is not flowing or even worse you are not standing on a chair?

One can debate all day long but the fact that one stands on a chair and the river is flowing is reality these days.

It is all about perception as others will even deny the river/chair exists.

It is all in how one frames the problem and our current policies seem to have no real definition of what the problem even is nor do we offer solutions that make sense to specific populations.

According to the just completed Palestinian/Israeli talks we cannot even get it right in the Jordan Valley offer that the DoS made during the talks if one listens to Israeli radio broadcasts---notice the comment that the US does not understand the ME made by no one other than the Israeli Intelligence Minister.

Remember---- It is all about perception as others will even deny the river/chair exists.

So again just what is your policy for the ME stand on the chair and deny the river is flowing or admit the river is flowing and you are standing on a rock OR neither is correct as you were just daydreaming as you really live in China and speak Russian?

Denial (of reality) is not a river in Egypt.

As the comment in the NYTs article today indicated neither is "not rocking the boat".

Comment from radio broadcast:

"Security must remain in our hands. Anyone who proposes a solution in the Jordan Valley by deploying an international force, Palestinian police or technological means ... does not understand the Middle East," Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz told Israeli public radio.

[Dayuhan]

We are not on a chair in the middle of the river. We are on the bank, looking at the river, deciding whether or not to jump in and try to swim across. As far as I can see the water is filthy, it's filled with parasites and aggressive carnivores of multiple descriptions, the current is nasty and filled with hazardous obstacles, and there's nothing we want or need on the opposite side. Given those conditions, I see no special reason to take a dive.

At a bare minimum, before intervening in other people's fights we need a clear, practical, achievable objective and an action plan that has a reasonably good chance of achieving that objective without blowing up in our faces. A bit of popular support on the home front is also useful. Do we have any of those?

Again, what would you have us do in Syria, and why?