How do you spell i.nterventionist? L-O-S-E-R

[boneyard bill]

Libyan rebels are now paddling around in the US embassy's swimming pool in Tripoli. The US-backed government forces have been all but eliminated, and the US policy there is obviously in a complete shambles. Yemen seems to be little better. The US-backed regime appears to be all but gone there now. Afghanistan is still holding out, but US troops are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of the year. The Afghan army doesn't appear to be any better trained than the Iraqi army, but it probably doesn't matter much since we don't really know whose side they're on. In Iraq, the government forces there fled at the first sign of conflict thus allowing their expensive US-supplied armor and artillery to fall into enemy hands.

And then there's Ukraine where the US-backed junta's neo-Nazi forces were recently routed with an estimated 10,000 men either killed, captured, or deserted. The Eastern rebels now control Eastern Ukraine and are besieging Mariupol, the last government outpost in the South. This is not counting the weaponry and materiel that they have left behind. Rebels now have the best equipment, and Kiev is forced to draw WW II tanks and artillery out of mothballs. Poroshenko is forced to plead with European government's for donations of modern weaponry since, of course, the Ukrainian government is out of money.

In short, we've poured out a lot of blood and treasure and have nothing to show for it. We are worse off in the regions that we were before and the people of these regions are far, far worse off than before we intervened and they all hate us.

Back during the Cold War we had a policy of intervention as well, but at least we only intervened in only one country at a time! Even then those interventions didn't turn so well, especially in Vietnam. But most of those interventions at least had a national security justification even if it was misguided one. But we have no national security interests in the Middle East. "Iran is only two years away from a nuclear weapon!" Right. We've been hearing that claim for 15 years! "The people of Ukraine want democracy!" Right again. That's why they overthrew their legally-elected government in favor of a guy hand-picked by the US State Department and backed by neo-Nazis.

Let's face it. Presidents don't run foreign policy with the advice of skilled foreign policy experts. The policy is foisted upon them by wealthy men or corporate interests in order to defend the dollar, build pipelines, win oil contracts, or expand and assist the drug trade. Their advisers are sold out to the same interests that the president has sold out to.

We do not need all these interventions and we, and the world, would be far better off without them.

 

[untermensche]

You said it. This is done because corporate power both has a measure of control over the government and wants it.

Corporate influence on the government is the problem.

The problem is not the wrong people are in office. There is little chance of getting the right people in when the cost of the game keeps rising.

 

[boneyard bill]

You said it. This is done because corporate power both has a measure of control over the government and wants it.

Corporate influence on the government is the problem.

The problem is not the wrong people are in office. There is little chance of getting the right people in when the cost of the game keeps rising.

I think I agree with you if you mean that the problem is systemic. In other words, you aren't going to solve it with something as simplistic as campaign finance reform. Nor are you going to solve it with socialism. That would merely make the state and industry and finance even more in bed with each other than they are now as we saw in the Soviet Union. But before we do anything about it, we have to recognize that it exists.

 

[untermensche]

You said it. This is done because corporate power both has a measure of control over the government and wants it.

Corporate influence on the government is the problem.

The problem is not the wrong people are in office. There is little chance of getting the right people in when the cost of the game keeps rising.

I think I agree with you if you mean that the problem is systemic. In other words, you aren't going to solve it with something as simplistic as campaign finance reform. Nor are you going to solve it with socialism. That would merely make the state and industry and finance even more in bed with each other than they are now as we saw in the Soviet Union. But before we do anything about it, we have to recognize that it exists.

You fix it by lowering the cost of participation in the democratic process.

Why should a person have to raise huge sums of money first to serve in the government?

It makes absolutely no sense.

It is merely a method of controlling the system with money.

 

[funinspace]

And here I thought L-O-S-E-R spelled "light oscillation by stimulated emission of radiation"

Anywho, how could any diatribe about US foibles not include the latest Syria-ISIS fiasco?

 

[funinspace]

Libyan rebels are now paddling around in the US embassy's swimming pool in Tripoli. The US-backed government forces have been all but eliminated, and the US policy there is obviously in a complete shambles. Yemen seems to be little better. The US-backed regime appears to be all but gone there now. Afghanistan is still holding out, but US troops are scheduled to be withdrawn by the end of the year. The Afghan army doesn't appear to be any better trained than the Iraqi army, but it probably doesn't matter much since we don't really know whose side they're on. In Iraq, the government forces there fled at the first sign of conflict thus allowing their expensive US-supplied armor and artillery to fall into enemy hands.

More seriously, on Iraq...this fleeing wasn't so much about poor training as it involved long standing ethnic/religious-political issues. A decade of training will not fix divisions between Shia and Sunni Iraqis. The US pretty much ignored Maliki's long running favoritism for his fellow Shia's to the detriment of the Sunni's. The Kurds have fought to protect their own semi-autonomous lands, and have done so fairly well. Never mind foreign powers maneuvering based on their own interests. Though Afghanistan faces similar very divisive issues, and they don't have any oil riches either.

 

[dismal]

While I'm not a particular fan of interventionism and the often bogus reasons by which it is sometimes justified, I find these arguments that blame everything that goes wrong everywhere on the US to be a bit tiresome.

My sense is Libya would be a pretty screwed up place even without our gentle humanitarian bombing of it. Many of these countries have been scrabbling internally or with each other since before the US existed.

 

[untermensche]

While I'm not a particular fan of interventionism and the often bogus reasons by which it is sometimes justified, I find these arguments that blame everything that goes wrong everywhere on the US to be a bit tiresome.

My sense is Libya would be a pretty screwed up place even without our gentle humanitarian bombing of it. Many of these countries have been scrabbling internally or with each other since before the US existed.

The point is all the US intervention, especially the intervention that began when the Bush administration came to town, has not created anything pretty anywhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the US isn't much involved in Syria and we didn't do the right thing. US mildly involved in Libya and we didn't do the right thing. US not really involved at all in Ukraine and we aren't doing the right thing. US trying to keep at arms length in Iraq (because the long-term solution requires a mainly Arab response) and we aren't doing the right thing. US really uninvolved in Mubarak falling and Obama is blamed for supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm not certain what the US can do in these situations and not be extolled as foreign policy failures.

 

[untermensche]

So the US isn't much involved in Syria and we didn't do the right thing. US mildly involved in Libya and we didn't do the right thing. US not really involved at all in Ukraine and we aren't doing the right thing. US trying to keep at arms length in Iraq (because the long-term solution requires a mainly Arab response) and we aren't doing the right thing. US really uninvolved in Mubarak falling and Obama is blamed for supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm not certain what the US can do in these situations and not be extolled as foreign policy failures.

Hard to include Iraq as a place the US was mildly involved.

Before the US/UK invasion of 2003 there was next to no sectarian violence and Baghdad had mixed neighborhoods.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the US isn't much involved in Syria and we didn't do the right thing. US mildly involved in Libya and we didn't do the right thing. US not really involved at all in Ukraine and we aren't doing the right thing. US trying to keep at arms length in Iraq (because the long-term solution requires a mainly Arab response) and we aren't doing the right thing. US really uninvolved in Mubarak falling and Obama is blamed for supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

I'm not certain what the US can do in these situations and not be extolled as foreign policy failures.

Hard to include Iraq as a place the US was mildly involved.

Not post Occupation.

 

[untermensche]

Hard to include Iraq as a place the US was mildly involved.

Not post Occupation.

The US was the cause of the sectarian split.

It lit the flame and walked away. That is not the same as not being involved.

 

[dismal]

While I'm not a particular fan of interventionism and the often bogus reasons by which it is sometimes justified, I find these arguments that blame everything that goes wrong everywhere on the US to be a bit tiresome.

My sense is Libya would be a pretty screwed up place even without our gentle humanitarian bombing of it. Many of these countries have been scrabbling internally or with each other since before the US existed.

The point is all the US intervention, especially the intervention that began when the Bush administration came to town, has not created anything pretty anywhere.

You've got to be joking. To respond to that point by laying the problems in the Middle East in Bush is unbelievable. Do you actually think that the Middle East was going pretty well before Bush? Doo you actually think that if Bush had not been President they'd all be getting along fine over there now?

 

[Sarpedon]

Saddam Hussein was going to die one of these days anyway. If your country's social problems are painted over by a brutal dictator, you can't really blame the one who gets rid of the dictator for the cracking that follows.

 

[dismal]

Not post Occupation.

The US was the cause of the sectarian split.

It lit the flame and walked away. That is not the same as not being involved.

Unbelievable. In your world Iraq was a happy place that had no sectarian violence and never had wars internally or with its neighbors before Bush came along?

 

[untermensche]

The point is all the US intervention, especially the intervention that began when the Bush administration came to town, has not created anything pretty anywhere.

You've got to be joking. To respond to that point by laying the problems in the Middle East in Bush is unbelievable. Do you actually think that the Middle East was going pretty well before Bush? Doo you actually think that if Bush had not been President they'd all be getting along fine over there now?

That of course was not the point.

Look at what Bush did. Look at Iraq. ISIS can definitely be laid at his doorstep.

Where has US intervention done any good since 1960?

 

[untermensche]

The US was the cause of the sectarian split.

It lit the flame and walked away. That is not the same as not being involved.

Unbelievable. In your world Iraq was a happy place that had no sectarian violence and never had wars internally or with its neighbors before Bush came along?

There was next to no sectarian violence and mixed neighborhoods.

It was only after the invasion that many turned to long dead sectarian identity and segregation.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The point is all the US intervention, especially the intervention that began when the Bush administration came to town, has not created anything pretty anywhere.

You've got to be joking. To respond to that point by laying the problems in the Middle East in Bush is unbelievable. Do you actually think that the Middle East was going pretty well before Bush? Doo you actually think that if Bush had not been President they'd all be getting along fine over there now?

I do believe that things would be better and the region would be more stable if we had invaded in 2003 and stuck to fighting Al Quiada. Anyone who could not see this as the most likely outcome in 2003 is ignorant of history.

 

[dismal]

Unbelievable. In your world Iraq was a happy place that had no sectarian violence and never had wars internally or with its neighbors before Bush came along?

There was next to no sectarian violence and mixed neighborhoods.

It was only after the invasion that many turned to long dead sectarian identity and segregation.

Wow. You should read a little more. Quote your religious beliefs a little less.

 

[funinspace]

Unfortunately, life is usually far more complicated than a few pithy comments...and the below is still way too short.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the UK and France carved up much of the ME upon their really stupid whims.
Iraq was born after WWI with 3 major religious-ethnic groupings generally out of 3 Ottoman administrative divisions.
Post WWII, there was a string of dictators, culminating in Saddam as the long lasting top dog. He also dared to embrace socialist language. His Sunni-Bathist regime was in control of a country where Shia's were far larger in number.
Saddam was a brutal dictator, though he had his egalitarian moments. He was barbaric against the Kurds when it suited him.
In the 1970's, the US used the Kurd’s against Saddam via the US Iranian puppet as Saddam was playing footsie with the USSR, then the US dumped them later and let Saddam have his fun.
The US then coddled Saddam as he waged war with Iran, including the US turning a purposeful blind eye to his use of chemical weapons.
Then Saddam really blew it by invading Kuwait, totally misreading how the US would react. After the US repelled Iraq out of Kuwait, we ran an international embargo on Iraq, helping to impoverish the people further.

This seems like a reasonable summary of Baath-Sunni treatment of the Shia majority:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/religion-shia-baath.htm

Since the 1980's, the Baath Government reportedly attempted to eliminate the senior Shi'a religious leadership (the Mirjaiyat) through killings, disappearances, and summary executions.

Despite supposed legal protection of religious equality, the Baath regime repressed severely the Shi'a clergy and those who follow the Shi'a faith. Forces from the Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat), General Security (Amn al-Amm), the Military Bureau, Saddam's Commandos (Fedayeen Saddam), and the Ba'ath Party have killed senior Shi'a clerics, desecrated Shi'a mosques and holy sites (particularly in the aftermath of the 1991 civil uprising), arrested tens of thousands of Shi'a, interfered with Shi'a religious education, prevented Shi'a adherents from performing their religious rites, and fired upon or arrested Shi'a who sought to take part in their religious processions. Security agents reportedly are stationed at all the major Shi'a mosques and shrines, and search, harass, and arbitrarily arrest worshipers.

Reports of military operations against Shi'a civilians also increased notably in the summer of 1998 after the killings of Ayatollahs Ali al-Gharawi and Sheikh al-Borojourdi. In numerous incidents during 1998, security forces injured and summarily executed Shi'a civilians, burned Shi'a homes, confiscated land belonging to Shi'a, and arbitrarily arrested and detained scores of Shi'a.

With the US invasion, we knocked out a strongman who had kept the country somewhat secular and stable in an Orwellian sort of fashion (unless you were a Kurd of course). The US stupidly dismantled the Iraqi military, and propped up a "democratic" process on a country that had been ruled by either occupiers or dictators for generations.
During our occupation, religious-ethnic cleansing kicked up in both directions even as some parties also fought with the occupiers. The US ignored the Malaki Shia favoritism. Iran and the Saudis also probably aided their religious sides in the grand game.
When the US pulled its dick out and its buckets of millions sloshing about at the end of 2011, things started crumbling within 6 months. "Oh wait" says the priest; "I stopped raping the boy when he was 16; why is it my fault he's fucked up at age 18?"

This short summary ignores all the other foibles the US has partaken in over the last half century in the ME from installing a dictator in Iran, to coddling any dictator that would whistle the US tune, among other things that has been a part of shaping the current ME dynamics. I also mostly left out the never ending shifting of whose side the US was on, depending on what decade it was. This does not mean that the USSR wasn't playing in the sand box as well. Nor does it mean that other powers haven't been exercising their power and influence in the region, like Iran, SA, Qatar, Syria, Israel, et.al. The problem seems to be, that when one joins orgy of bloodletting, it is kind of hard to get the red stain out of the 3 piece suite.