this may be a really stupid question (about the Middle East)

[ginnyinWI]

I support Pres. Obama and in general think he's doing a good job. But this question is bothering me regarding our presence in the Middle East:

Is the fact that we and our allies are there causing more people to die than if we would just get completely out? If we were not there, sure it would be chaotic for a while, and eventually a strong man would step up, gain power and create some sense of order. Not a democracy, for sure, but he'd prevent a terrorist-ruled region.

Or would he? If we had not ever gotten in there in the first place (Bush invasion of Iraq) it would be better off today. So is it now too late? Am I just being really, really naive? The political fallout would be bad for whoever tries it, probably.

This is a sincere question and it's nagging at me. Maybe better informed people can answer this for me.

[2banon]

1. What do you think?

Would it be too personal to ask how old you are? Or how old were you when Bush invaded Iraq?

I'm trying to get a sense of your general understanding of just the past 14 years, not that the problems with our meddling only began then.

[ginnyinWI]

6. I'm a grandmother.

It is just that we always go on these assumptions--that we are needed in the Middle East so it doesn't fall apart. I'm just wondering--what if we really aren't needed.

I know we meddled. Just trying to think of a way out now--if it is not too late.

[2banon]

18. I'm a grandmother of two..

I'm not sure about the "we" you might be referring to. If you mean the general public, I don't think most Americans believe that we are "needed" in the middle east to keep it from falling apart. In fact, I'm pretty sure most Americans are fairly clear what the agenda is really about and that U.S. policy of invasion, occupation and other kinds of "interventions" are not in the interest of people anywhere, here or there.

Volumes and volumes and volumes of facts and analysis have been written, published and discussed ad nauseum, and most especially since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and since.

We all know now what this is actually all about and who is profiting from it. The way out of this mess was to pull out and stay out. But as you can see from the headlines, that ain't happening.

At this point it's not clear to me if there will ever be a time when the American public's voice on this will finally be allowed to rise above the din of the Military Contractors, Big Oil and their tools in Congress and the media, until it's too late. For the U.S. that is.

[BillZBubb]

2. Yours is not a stupid question. A lot of people wonder the same thing.

The bush invasion of Iraq was the biggest foreign policy disaster in many decades. By ousting Saddam Hussein and throwing Iraq into chaos, bush unleashed pent up passions and grudges that had been kept in check. The post invasion decisions by bush and the neocons made matters even worse by throwing fuel on the fire.

So, the can of worms was opened. (NOTE: I am not calling the Middle Eastern people worms, I am referring to the numerous grievances and ancient animosities.)

Your question goes to how best to get the worms back into the can. My opinion is that it is way too late to find a peaceful way forward. Whether or not the US (or other Western countries) are involved, there will be bloodshed. These groups are going to fight it out until someone wears down. There are external powers supporting each faction for their own ends. The Saudis, Iran, Russia, the US (sometimes as Israel's proxy), and others have directly backed sides. This mess is going to continue to be bloody.

So, even if the US got out, a lot of death and destruction will occur. Maybe even more than now. Other outside parties will keep the fighting going.

[jwirr]

3. I do not have a link for what I am about to say but Ghandi once spoke of a situation like this. He

was talking about WWII and asked what would have happened if we had not opposed Hitler? His answer was that just as many people would have died it would have just been different people. In other words there would have been more victims of the holocaust.

The problem with what Ghandi said was that Hitler would never have stopped. He would have tried for world domination. My daughter and son-in-law were stationed in Germany and visited a building that Hitler had built including a ramp for FDR when they captured him.

The situation in Iraq was different - their government may not have been the best in the world but it controlled a lot of the violence between the factions. Plus as far as I know they were not trying to conquer the world.

[Maedhros]

4. What is transpiring in Iraq and Syria is exactly what was predicted to happen

when we invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein.

Rise of sectarian militias to fill power vacuum? Check
Rush to establish ethnic regions as nation-states (e.g. Kurdistan)? Check
Spreading of sectarian violence to neighboring countries (e.g. Syria)? Check

The roots of the current Mid East crisis are the artificial borders drawn up by Britain and France during their colonial exploits in the region during the early half of the 20th century. Those artificial borders were kept in place by strongmen dictators like Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad, but topple one of them and the house of cards begins to crumble. What we're seeing in Iraq and Syria is the natural re-establishment of tribal, ethnic and religious regions after the artificial borders are taken away. There is certainly a case to be made for allowing this re-establishment process to continue to it's logical end, then deal diplomatically with the nation-states that form out of this chaos.

ISIL as it currently exists is effective at seizing territory, but will it be as effective at actually managing affairs of state after the conquest has concluded? Will they moderate in order to co-exist with their neighbors, or take the path of North Korea and isolate? We'll have to react accordingly.

What we're attempting to do with our current strategy is to maintain these artificial borders as long as possible, because doing so is of great benefit to Israel. A Pan-Arabic Islamic (as represented by ISIL) or Socialist (as represented by the Ba'ath Party) State could potentially be a powerful rival, so the status quo must be maintained. Enforcing these colonial borders will only serve to prolong and intensify the sectarian violence - think "Middle East Cage Match."

[ginnyinWI]

7. that makes some sense of it.

I can see that happening--the scrambling for power. Our alliance with Israel is probably the key reason we are in this thing, trying to keep it together.

Deposing Hussein was short-sighted, at best. But we all know how that came about and who the short-sighted players were.

We have a tiger by the tail now; can't let go and can't tame him (without great cost).

[Maedhros]

8. I liken our military adventurism as a gigantic red-hot poker

that we have shoved in the eye of the Middle East.

Nothing is going to get better by repeatedly jabbing with the poker. In order for healing to begin, the poker must first be withdrawn. There will, however, still be a deep, festering wound.

[librechik]

17. they do it on purpose, ginny--because war is very profitable, and we can't stop the warmongers

when our congressional reps--and the President-- are either captive or in their pay. Americans have very little influence on our lawmakers. They are just their to allow their donors to make vast profits and hoard the money.


http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/214857-who-rules-america

[delrem]

5. I think the USA needs to complete its regime change program for Syria,

A program which has bipartisan support, before the USA continues as per the PNAC plan to take out Iran.

But I'm just sayin'....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. We lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror. Get out. Get over it.

Our "help" is just adding kerosene to the fire...as usual.

[ginnyinWI]

10. and the reason they won't:

Israel.

[CK_John]

11. Oil is like our blood, they have it and we need it. When the oil runs out

we'll say, bye, call me we'll do lunch.

[AngryAmish]

12. There is a certain school of thought that this war needs to happen.

ISIL is generally supported by the local population where they have taken over. There are elements of Baathist Party in ISIL along with a smattering of foreign jihadists. The Baathist party is just a name for the Sunni tribes who used to be hegemon over the Shite tribes in Iraq under Saddam. Now, there is a hatred between the Sunni and Shia tribes for a long time. My conjecture is that it is not really a religious war. It is a tribal/race war. There is little interbreeding between Shia and Sunni and very interbreeding period in the Middle East. We are Westerners on a Western Forum. There is a lot of inbreeding in the Middle East, depending upon the tribe it can be over 50% (up to 70%) of people marry their first cousin. There is none of this going to college and meeting a dream spouse. The male son of a father's brother has the first right to marry his female cousin and must consent to her marrying someone else, or else he can kill her. And all religions in the Middle East inbreed as opposed to outbreed.

Please remember inbreeding is the most common way that people form families. It makes sense especially in places where there are a lot of blood feuds. Also, it there is less dilution of inheritance.

What inbreeding does do is promote insularity. Whether this is genetic or cultural, who knows. And it does not matter. There is little Iraqiness felt by the population. There is little or no patriotism that is common in the West.

So why does this war need to happen in some quarters? Let some side win then let them be hegemon over the defeated and leave the rest of the world alone. It isn't pretty. But they don't think like us Westerners.

[flamingdem]

13. I think this is also why it's quite a feat to pull together this coalition

to fight Isis.

Kerry and Obama to be commended, etc.

This is because, and I was told this by a Qatari man, that so many people are related in the Middle East with cousins living in other countries and so on .. that they don't want to fight and possibly kill one another.

[pampango]

14. "..eventually a strong man would step up, gain power and create some sense of order. Not a democracy

for sure, but he'd prevent a terrorist-ruled region. "

I think that most Americans agree that stability and 'a sense of order' are more important in the Middle East than is democracy. Stability is better for the steady supply of their natural resources and the prevention of terrorism directed at the US. I'm not so sure that promoting the stability imposed by a strong man over democracy is a particularly liberal foreign policy but it is a commonly shared one.

[treestar]

15. I think leaving them alone to sort it out might be the thing to do at this point

but for whatever reason, everyone in power down to the Great Elizabeth Warren is on board with protecting Israel, which is the bottom line motivation. Whatever they know about national security makes them believe Israel must be protected. Other countries appear to agree with that without question.

And if we left them alone, the same people condemning it now would be saying Obama is letting people get killed over there and doing nothing.

[ginnyinWI]

16. politics and Israel

The two main reasons. Oil would be the third. Isn't that why the West got involved there in the first place, so many decades ago.