American Foreign Policy in the Middle East

[CoLawman]

To avoid hijacking the "Are We At War With Islam" thread, this question is being posed to those who "understand" or have strong feelings on American foreign policy in the Mid East.

Tk: I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on this. I do not believe that our foreign policy is "mirror image" in the mid east. In fact I would say that we have bent over backwards to avoid Westernizing Iraq and Afghanistan.

Samurai:

I did take your comment of Arab's feelings as being "understandable" to mean that you were in agreement with their concerns. One of the common uses of understandable is agree or to accept. As in " I understand the world is round."

I see in your reply that you said that you were not implying that they "should" be critical of American policy, it is that you understand why they are critical. I have no understanding of the logic employed by that part of the world. One thing I am certain of is that their anger is misdirected. I, like POTUS, believe that all men want freedom. I believe the elections in Iraq support this belief.
All I was asking for was a chance to respond to the validity of their criticism or hatred of the western world. Obviously I misinterpreted your posting and you are not in agreement with their concerns.

If I may, without upsetting you, point out that your classification of Iran as a dictatorship was in error. Iran is in fact a Islamic Repulic. A Theocracy in which Khameni (or whatever the heck the spelling is) is the Supreme Leader. Which makes him the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. He alone has the power to declare war.

Ahmadinejad is the President who was elected (ha). But the Supreme Leader is the authority who approves the candidates for the position.

Again I apologize if I offended you in anyway. I feel awkward bringing this minor error to your attention, having read that your BA was in Political Science and International Studies. Thanks for being Clear!

[tk27]

Sir, I use the term mirror imaging to describe the analytic fallacy that people have whereby they project their values and morals into their analysis of peoples from another part of the world. The fact is not everyone thinks like you or I. Morals and values are obviously a good thing, but we tend to think everyone is the same as us.

Do you see the problems that occur when POTUS says that all men want freedom (something I tend to agree with)? People in other parts of the world may have an entirely different perspective on the word or concept. Whether or not policy is tailored around your values is one thing, but it should influence as little as possible in analysis.

As for the validity of their criticism, yes, they have valid criticism. But so what? Our country and allies have a national interest that needs to be secured. It’s not pretty, but neither is life. The problem then comes from blowback of our policy and emerging resistance to our actions. Do you think Pan-Arab Socialism or AQ emerged in a vacuum? Of course not, for every action there is an equal or greater reaction. Does saying this make me a liberal latte sipper, Un-American, Or siding with the enemy?

Do they hate us for our freedom? No. They hate us for our policy. The question is what do we do about it?

Good call on making this a thread, Sir.

[Patriot]

They hate us for our support of Israel. I think that everything else could be smoothed over even with our cultural differences. But our support for Israel is the one thing that will always wreck any chance we might have of normalizing relations completely with ME nations. It is the one policy they just cannot get over.

[tk27]

I disagree, Arab governments have accepted Israel’s right to exist since Israel made it clear they have nuclear weapons thereby putting an end to another conventional Arab-Israeli war. The issue then shifted to diplomacy over how to draw a map. While diplomacy has stalled, this has been more a result of diplomatic stoppage by the United States on the negotiations in the wake of 9/11 and the launch of a global war on a tactic.

Does this mean that Egypt and Israel will be taking long walks on the beach and warm showers with each other? Nope, but the Egyptians wont be storming over the border anytime soon, not with Mubarak in power.

Even if Israel did not exist, our country would still be supporting Mubarak, the House of Saud and company, as surrogates to protect our interests in the region. This only breeds resentment and criticism of our policy, and creates unintended consequences.

[CoLawman]

We are and will remain the Ugly Americans in the Middle East until all terrorist organizations are defanged, Islamic Theocracies are abolished, and Radical Mullahs are tried for the war crimes they currently sanction.

In my simple mind the Soviet Union was a far superior challenge than the Arab world. Half the battle has already been won in the Middle East. Egypt, of all countries, is a moderate state. Lebanon and Iraq have had legitimate elections. Libya no longer wants to be a rogue nation. Pakistan, it can be argued, is a legitimate partner of ours in the war against terror. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, and Algeria governments are passive in their disllike for American foreign policy.

By my calculations that leaves Iran, Syria, and Somalia aligned against us and the western world.

I understand that this is still a formidable problem, but not as desperate a situation as MSM makes it out to be. I like our odds of winning this war.

In the good old days we would all meet at the park for a football game. Two captains were selected and they picked their team, one player at a time. (Sorry Firebeef, did not mean to bring up bad memories from your youth) Anyway look at the countries standing there. You darn right.... I would take Israel and Britain with my first two picks. And remember I am America.

Now the other captain is (fill in your choice) Ooooh they are going to pick Iran and Syria.

Does not matter that we will be playing on their home field. Does not matter that the stands will be filled with their fans. At the end of the game all of that won't matter. What matters is the score.

Does not matter what they think while we are kicking their ars. Of course they don't like us or the reality of getting their ars kicked. Do we quit playing the game because they are calling us names, or yelling about us being cheaters or bullies. Heck no.....we keep kicking their ars.

[tk27]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

We are and will remain the Ugly Americans in the Middle East until all terrorist organizations are defanged, Islamic Theocracies are abolished, and Radical Mullahs are tried for the war crimes they currently sanction.

Sir, I disagree with the notion that we will be liked only if something were to change, if we could only change the lense in which we are viewed. Our country is exceptional in that we have such a strong liberal Judeo-Christian value of accepting everyone. But in the history of the world are we the exception or the rule? Has the success of this experiment called America blinded us to the ugly reality of human natures ability to hate? Especialy hatred of outsiders who wield extordinary influence and power.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

In my simple mind the Soviet Union was a far superior challenge than the Arab world. Half the battle has already been won in the Middle East. Egypt, of all countries, is a moderate state. Lebanon and Iraq have had legitimate elections. Libya no longer wants to be a rogue nation. Pakistan, it can be argued, is a legitimate partner of ours in the war against terror. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, UAE, and Algeria governments are passive in their disllike for American foreign policy.

Again, respectfuly I disagree. The Cold War was a game of nations in balance of power politics. It was simple by comparison. I would say the analogy between the two does not fit, and is not a good model to use.
In the thread that spawned this there was discussion of the movie Syriana, while the movie holds little more then entertainment value IMHO (Baer's Sleeping with the Devil and to a lesser extent See No Evil of which the movie was based off of are excellent), the tagline "Everything is Connected" was spot on. This is the fusion of religion, history, politics, energy, politics and nature all together, and they are all connected.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I understand that this is still a formidable problem, but not as desperate a situation as MSM makes it out to be. I like our odds of winning this war.

It is desperate, this is a life and death struggle for the future of the modern world. Oil is the life blood that allows for industrialization, that allows for industrial agriculture, what is needed to keep the extra 5 billion people the world has added since we harnessed oil and moved subsistence agriculture.
I do not think this is a war, the term war implies somekind of endgame, a victor, a parade. I think this is a struggle, that nobody is going to win, I am sorry I do not share your optimism.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

In the good old days we would all meet at the park for a football game. Two captains were selected and they picked their team, one player at a time. (Sorry Firebeef, did not mean to bring up bad memories from your youth) Anyway look at the countries standing there. You darn right.... I would take Israel and Britain with my first two picks. And remember I am America.

I consider myself fortunate to have lived through the peace and prosperity of the tail end of the Cold War and the illusion of Pax Americana in the 90's. This, this keeps me up at night.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Does not matter that we will be playing on their home field. Does not matter that the stands will be filled with their fans. At the end of the game all of that won't matter. What matters is the score.

Does not matter what they think while we are kicking their ars. Of course they don't like us or the reality of getting their ars kicked. Do we quit playing the game because they are calling us names, or yelling about us being cheaters or bullies. Heck no.....we keep kicking their ars.

While I dont think zero-sum thinking applys well to the situation, you will never find me objecting to kicking ass. We have no choice.


I'm sorry I am being longwinded here, I've been doing alot of thinking on the mater recently and this kind of allows me to tie it all together. CoLaw, I enjoy this conversation and ones like it on PS, I am looking forward to hearing what others have to say on the matter. My current occupation of mixing cocktails for tourists is not conductive to intelligent conversation, so I appreciate being allowed to participate.

[CoLawman]

[

Again, respectfuly I disagree. The Cold War was a game of nations in balance of power politics. It was simple by comparison. I would say the analogy between the two does not fit, and is not a good model to use.
In the thread that spawned this there was discussion of the movie Syriana, while the movie holds little more then entertainment value IMHO (Baer's Sleeping with the Devil and to a lesser extent See No Evil of which the movie was based off of are excellent), the tagline "Everything is Connected" was spot on. This is the fusion of religion, history, politics, energy, politics and nature all together, and they are all connected.

The analogy was not supposed to fit. I was comparing the Cold War to the GWOT. There was no simplicity to the Cold War, being a baby boomer, I can assure you that anxiety levels were considerably higher during the Cold War than they are now. Anxiety was brought about by mutually assured destruction, arms race, Communism, nuclear proliferation, the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Viet Nam, The Assasination of JFK, Watergate, Kent State, The oil embargo and on and on and on. Having taken part in Air Raid practices while in elementary school..........there was no simplicity during those times. I sat beside the radio listening to the Cuban Missile Crisis play out.

As my previous post stated we are dealing with terrorists who ply their trade through the killing of civilians by gruesome means. This is nothing new, we just did not understand the threat, or we chose to ignore the threat. Presidents from both parties failed to respond appropriately to the early indications of this growing menace. The loss of our Marines in Beirut, The attack and occupation of our embassy in Iran, The Achille Lauro, Somalia, Lockerbie, World Trade Center I, et al. Being asleep at the switch at Pearl Harbor pales in comparison to our slumber over the past two decades.

President Bush was the first to take the appropriate action. He appropriately identified the Axis of Evil. He made appropriate promises that action would be taken against terrorists throughout the world. Has he lived up to the historical speech he made before congress after 9/11? Somewhat, but I applaud his efforts, knowing that MSM and the Democrats have no vision, no stomach, and no spine, it is surprising he has been able to do what he has done.

Iran, Syria, and the radical mullahs hardly compare to the old Soviet Union, China, and Korea. They are just better at using the OMG factor. You want a guage to judge the significance of their accomplishments, look at the economy and the DOW. Look at interest rates. Check out the cost of living index comparing now to then.

It is desperate, this is a life and death struggle for the future of the modern world. Oil is the life blood that allows for industrialization, that allows for industrial agriculture, what is needed to keep the extra 5 billion people the world has added since we harnessed oil and moved subsistence agriculture.
I do not think this is a war, the term war implies somekind of endgame, a victor, a parade. I think this is a struggle, that nobody is going to win, I am sorry I do not share your optimism.

It is not desperate!!! Armageddon is not upon us........it is upon those rogue nations that support terrorism. Oil is the life blood as it was during the oil embargo. We survived then and we are in better position to survive now. Agriculture is doing just fine. As you stated everything is connected. You think those terrorists can grown their own food. They live in the damn desert! They are as dependent if not more so on exports than we are. We may not be able to drive our SUV, but we will have bread and butter on our table.

This is a stuggle that WE will win. Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War was a scenario where no one wins.

I will share something with you that drives my optimism. America! Siimple but that says it all. America........is what insures the sun will rise in the morning.

This, this keeps me up at night.

I have a son who is surely going to war soon. DennisW and 18Xdad have sons going to war soon, as do others on this board. That keeps me up at night. QP's on this board are going to war soon, or already in the fight, that should keep us up at night. What allows me to sleep at night is there is not a terrorist that can match the American soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

We have no choice.

Absolutely correct. Keep beating the drums while serving your customers, make sure they "get it." Because we might need all the support on the home front if we finally pull the trigger on Iran.

[gaijinsamurai]

COlawman,
Sorry for the belated response, but I only recently stumbled across this thread.
First of all, am "in agreement" with the concerns of the Arabs, as you suggest? Well, with some, yes. That does not mean that I necessarily take their side, but having an interest in the Middle East, i find it absolutely necessary to try to take a view of the conflict through their eyes, and to try to see what motivates them.
As far as the Islamic fundamentalists who view the conflict as inevitable, there isn't really much we can do to negotiate with them. They will probably always be our enemies, and like Hezbollah and Hamas, with Israel, any truce they offer or accept will, in their eyes, only be temporary.
However, what we can do is to try to diminish the support they receive from the Muslim masses. We'll probably never win their hearts and minds, but the West and Middle East haven't always been enemies, and there is nothing that says we can't have a non-adversarial relationship in the future.
Part of this entails recognizing their valid concerns. Palestinians whose land has been confiscated to make room for more Israeli settlements in the West Bank have very legitimate concerns, as do Palestinians who lost their homes in 1948.
Does that mean I think they should have "right of return?" No, that is no more realistic than asking the US to "give back" the Black Hills to the Sioux. It aint gonna happen.
Are you familiar with the ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu? A central theme to his classic "The Art of War" is to KNOW YOUR ENEMY. I don't necessarily think the Palestinians, nor the Arabs as a whole are our enemies, but some of them are, and it is important to see what motivates them. Another theme of Sun Tzu's writings is that it is generally advantageous to avoid war when possible. Numerous conflicts have erupted due to a failure on one or both sides to accurately grasp the motives and concerns of the other side.
Finally, you wrote that I claimed Iran is a dictatorship. I did not. I wrote that Iran is "dictatorial". Before you correct me, you should recognize the subtle differences in the words. "Dictatorial" means that it has elements of a dictatorship, or is lacking in democracy. I am fully aware that the current leader of Iran was elected by the Iranian people, and has much popular support. However, it has to be recognized that the previous leader, who was a moderate, pro-West, and wanted a more secular, democratic government, was hampered by the Ayatollahs, who limited his power to carry out reforms. As long as ultimate power rests in the hands of the non-elected, all-powerful religious leaders, who regularly shut down the press, arrest dissenters, limit freedoms of speech, religion, and perpetuates a climate of fear in the country, I will choose to describe their government as "dictatorial".

[tk27]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

The analogy was not supposed to fit. I was comparing the Cold War to the GWOT. There was no simplicity to the Cold War, being a baby boomer, I can assure you that anxiety levels were considerably higher during the Cold War than they are now. Anxiety was brought about by mutually assured destruction, arms race, Communism, nuclear proliferation, the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, Viet Nam, The Assasination of JFK, Watergate, Kent State, The oil embargo and on and on and on. Having taken part in Air Raid practices while in elementary school..........there was no simplicity during those times. I sat beside the radio listening to the Cuban Missile Crisis play out.

Sir, IMHO you are confusing feelings-anxiety with the complexity of the problem. The fact is that the Cold War was subject to the Westphalian order. It was rooted in reason on both sides, and strategy could thus be applied. Ultimately, George’s Kennan’s containment policy allowed for the ruskies to kill themselves, while Thomas Schelling’s mutual assured destruction ensured that things would never turn hot.

By contrast we are dealing with non-state entities not subject to the world order, in a time when technology permits an unprecedented lethality to such groups. The two are apples and oranges, the Cold War allowed for at least some certainty. This breeds nothing but uncertainty, this is why terrorism works when conducted effectively, rather then attack on a wholesale level it spurs a process of internal collapse.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

It is not desperate!!! Armageddon is not upon us........it is upon those rogue nations that support terrorism. Oil is the life blood as it was during the oil embargo. We survived then and we are in better position to survive now. Agriculture is doing just fine. As you stated everything is connected. You think those terrorists can grown their own food. They live in the damn desert! They are as dependent if not more so on exports than we are. We may not be able to drive our SUV, but we will have bread and butter on our table.

We survived the oil embargo due to complex maneuvering in the international market by re-routing supply around the world. Global demand was also not as high then. Industrialization and industrialized agriculture which has allowed the global to expand far beyond its natural carrying capacity, is a direct result of access to cheap oil. It is naïve to say that this only affects how big of a truck we drive and we do ourselves a great disservice by making light of oils importance. I believe that this naivety is exemplified by people on the left who say we shouldn’t go to war for oil and neo-conservatives who say we didn’t go to war for oil.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

This is a stuggle that WE will win. Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War was a scenario where no one wins.

That was the brilliance of MAD, to prevent conventional war, a zero-sum solution whereby one’s lose is another’s gain, pursue a policy that ensures nobody gains in conflict, this ensures rational actors seek peace. We are not dealing with rational actors here or even states that we can target for such a policy.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I will share something with you that drives my optimism. America! Siimple but that says it all. America........is what insures the sun will rise in the morning.

Sir, I love my country, but I know we are not indestructible, and I know nothing in life is guaranteed; to do so would be hubristic. How much of our exceptionalism in the past and present is tied to access to cheap oil? Think systematically on this, connect things.

Originally Posted by CoLawman

I have a son who is surely going to war soon. DennisW and 18Xdad have sons going to war soon, as do others on this board. That keeps me up at night. QP's on this board are going to war soon, or already in the fight, that should keep us up at night. What allows me to sleep at night is there is not a terrorist that can match the American soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

I will never doubt the prowess of the American fighting man. The problem is that it is not a conventional fight; for the most part forces do not meet on the fields of battle or a steel octagon. We can only send our nations finest up against an enemy that we know; IMHO our country knows little of what we are facing.
Please thank your son for me, I wish him the best. You must be very proud Sir.

[Patriot]

tk27, just to clarify my previous. My comments about why "they" hate us refered to radical muslims, not governments.

I in fact, agree with some of your assessment on this topic.

I will endeavour to be clearer in future statements.

[tk27]

Patriot, No problem. To what extent do you think Islamic fundamentalists level of hate goes? Is it pure anti-semitism or objection to the State of Israel? Is there a difference?
What is the role of Arab governments in the mix? It seems as though they have two different messages, one foreign policy message in which they are relunctantly willing to playball w/ Israel after they got their ass-kicked and Israel got nukes, and another domestic message in which Israel is used as a scapegoat for their own incompetence. Is such a balancing act possible in an age of globalization whereby messages cannot be contained inside geographic boundaries?

[Patriot]

Originally Posted by tk27

Patriot, No problem. To what extent do you think Islamic fundamentalists level of hate goes? Is it pure anti-semitism or objection to the State of Israel? Is there a difference? Both, there certainly isn't a consensus among ME nations on the issue of Israel, some would settle for peaceful coexistance, others a return to pre 1967 borders and still others have called for the utter destruction of Israel.
What is the role of Arab governments in the mix? It seems as though they have two different messages, one foreign policy message in which they are relunctantly willing to playball w/ Israel after they got their ass-kicked and Israel got nukes, and another domestic message in which Israel is used as a scapegoat for their own incompetence. Is such a balancing act possible in an age of globalization whereby messages cannot be contained inside geographic boundaries? IMO, you answered your own question, because thats exactly the situation. Radical Islam is a powerful grass roots movement capable of toppeling governments and the governments know it, thus, they play both sides of the issue. One policy for world consumption, another for domestic. And still, once in awhile we get wind of a frustrated population of younger muslims that think democracy and Islam are compatible and the mullahs fear this. It is an internal struggle that we will not help solve with violence alone.

Sometimes it appears to be a race against time. Progress is inevitable, and the mullahs fear it. So, it seems to me that they might see a window of opportunity for dealing a death blow to Israel closing, and I do beleive that there are radicals in Syria, Iran, even Saudi Arabia who would jump on the chance to be the martyr that killed hundreds of thousands of kaffirs, infidels and Zionists in one grand conflagration. And there seem to be a generation of younger muslims who beleive that entering the modern world, embracing technology and joining the ranks of the international community would be the answer to the problems of unemployment and general backwardness that plagues them. Who will win the race? Who can see beyond the propaganda and lies remains to be seen.

We have been stomping out fires, but what we have to do is obvious. We have got to face reality, make the tough decisions and deal with the cause of this problem, and that is to somehow marginalize the mullahs and radical imams at the same time convincing Israel to cease fire for awhile. If anyone knows someone that can figure out how to do that, please give them the directions to the White House.

One things for sure, there is no shortage of opinions. And I probably sound whacked out to some people and make perfect sense to others. It is complicated isn't it?