Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
... The second area you addressed which is we have limited means to compel any government to actually govern more effectively. At the end of the day it seems that understanding the failures and the consequences of poor governance are important to gain understanding/context, but if is there is something that threatens our interest that resides in that country, improving governance is seldom going to reduce that threat in a timely manner....
My English is not good enough to describe the following in an as eloquent fashion, and my style seems to appear rather 'aggressive' although there's no intention to be such: yet, it is indeed so that I cannot but wonder about some expressions here.

Are you sure that it's 'seldom' that the US can change the way some of its allies are governed? Or isn't it so that this is next to never attempted?

Then when it's attempted, then there is 'no problem' to change things.

Let's consider the latest (known to me) example of an 'intervention' (of sort) in one of countries in question: removal of famous Prince Bandar from his post as Chief of Saudi Intel.

Frustrated by Obama's indecision on Syria, Bandar became a vocal propagator of the idea 'Saudis are going to do all it on their own'. I'm too lazy to search for all the possible links, but '5 minutes of googling' should be enough to find out that as of autumn 2012 and through early 2013, certain papers were full of statements by various Saudi ambassadors essentially stating the same, plus reports about massive Saudi purchases of specific arms for insurgents (usually such that could be obtained only from one source, which was motivated with the idea that should any end in 'wrong hands', these wrong hands couldn't get spares and ammo for them).

Then there was that issue of the FBI's report on 9/11...and bam! Because Sauds are such valuable friends one couldn't ruin relations with them: thus, Obama made it clear to Abdullah that the US are a 'senior partner' in that relationship - and Bandar has to go. In exchange for this, parts of the 9/11 report damning Saudis for their support and involvement were 'weakened' or even deleted.

If it's 'so easy' to kick out an important and highly influential minister, why to hell should there be a problem to force them to do many other things too? Except it is so that there is _no_ interest to force them to change anything, because that would jeopardise own interests?

For example because dictatorships are easier to control than pluralist societies...?

Of course, there are better - or, should I say, 'more humane' - examples from the past too, like imposing a parliament upon the emir of Kuwait in exchange for liberating his sheikdom, back in 1990. Why is it so that nobody recalls that?

But then, that's only 'one more indicator' that it's really anything but 'seldom' that certain 'friends' can be forced into specific decisions.

We certainly have the means to make quick work of any ISIL/ISIS conventional capability and probably should, but then what?
Then you'll have to offer 'them' - all those presently more than happy to join the ISIS - more attractive alternatives than the ISIS could.

Otherwise, you'll have another al-Qaida, another ISIS, another whatever else - at latest in another 10-15 years. Otherwise, this war of which you're tired, is never going to end.

Yet the fact is: you can't offer such alternatives while upholding bigot, corrupt, and oppressive regimes.