Throughout the Middle East, there are no good guys in the struggle

[MineralMan]

Last edited Thu Sep 5, 2013, 09:53 AM - Edit history (1)

for power. There never have been. The West makes a stupid mistake in arming either side. We should stop doing that at once, and stop meddling in the affairs of that region. We should:

1. Withdraw all Western forces from the region.
2. Stop supplying arms to any faction in any country.
3. Use economic sanctions as our only tool to influence Middle Eastern societies.
4. Assist in peacemaking through diplomacy, but only when asked to do so.
5. Find ways to deal with fluctuating oil supplies.

Will innocent people die? Yes. Innocent people always die in civil in local conflicts. There are no measures we can take to stop that. We do not understand the region, are generally hated by all factions in the region, and should not take sides with any of those factions.

That is my thinking on this. The West has attempted to control what is not the West's affair. It does not work, will not work, and efforts to do so should be abandoned completely. Leave the people there to find solutions. We cannot find solutions for them.

[razorman]

1. I tend to agree. It is the height of arrogance for us to think that

the people in the Middle East (or anywhere else, for that matter) want to (or can)be like us. The so-called "Arab Spring" was not a movement for democracy. The end result of Islamic Jihadist rule was predictable and predicted.
Ghaddafi, Morsi, and now Assad were all dictators and bad guys. But, why is it our responsibility to oust them so even worse guys can take over? Particularly since the Islamists we are helping are our sworn enemies. So, unless there is a direct U.S. interest at stake, we should keep our hands off. We have our own problems.

[Schema Thing]

2. It's the height of bigotry to imagine that "those people" don't want

representative government and that there aren't any "good guys" "over there".

[Niceguy1]

3. they are just changing one brute for

Another .....

[MineralMan]

6. There are no good guys on either side of the warfare.

Tyrants and dictators on both sides. There are plenty of good guys who become victims, though, either way.

[Schema Thing]

12. fuck that bullshit. There are plenty of good guys taking part in rebellions

in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, AND Syria.



Your post and attitude borders on full on racism.

[pampango]

19. "There are no good guys on either side" sounds like Assad's "it's me or the terrorists".

If true you have to give the guy plenty of credit.

The struggle in Syria began peacefully in spring of 2011, but after about half a year it turned violent when the regime deployed tanks and other heavy munitions against the protesters. Some of the latter took up weapons and turned to violence in revenge. Thereafter the struggle spiraled into a civil war, in which the regime showed itself perfectly willing to attack civilian city quarters and kill indiscriminately. The struggle has killed over 100,000 persons. As the regime became ever more brutal, the rebel fighters were increasingly radicalized. Now, among the more important groups is Jabhat al-Nusra or the Succor Front, a radical al-Qaeda affiliate.

http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/attack-syria-prolong.html

It did not start out as a choice between Assad and terrorists, but his strategy (a wise one from a 'how do I stay in power' perspective) of repressing the 'good guys' so that the world's choice boiled down to the 'lesser of two evils' has been very successful.

There have always been good guys in the fight against Assad or any other dictator. I would agree that the increasing level of violence in the struggle has become has played into the hands of the more violent factions in the opposition.

[MineralMan]

21. As usual, the "good guys" are not the armed guys.

So, they have to enlist the aid of the armed guys. The armed guys are rarely "good guys," unfortunately.

The "good guys" end up losing every time, regardless.

[pampango]

29. "...the "good guys" are not the armed guys. ..The "good guys" end up losing every time, regardless."

In the context of enlisting the aid of armed guys, what if the UN had authorized "armed guys" to intervene on behalf of the "good guys" without arms? Would this be one of the "rare" occasions when armed guys are good guys?

I would like to think that the world has more to offer the "good guys" in the Middle East than "You are surrounded by "bad guys" with guns. If you try to stand up for your rights you will 'end up losing every time' and probably die in the process. Surely your rights are not worth that.

[MineralMan]

30. The UN guys might be the "good guys," but it would depend

on what their mission was. See, that's the problem, really. Whoever the UN guys were, and whatever country they came from, they would be from the West. And that's the dilemma.

[Warpy]

4. Dadblast you for making that much sense

and I've said similar things for years. We don't have a clue about the familial and tribal allegiances there. We've got only a hazy idea about the various religious factions.

They've been running that part of the world that way, with periodic donnybrooks, for centuries. Remember the mess in Lebanon and Reagan thinking putting a bunch of Marines there would cool things off? He only succeeded in getting them blown to bits but at least he had the rare good sense to get the hell out with the rest still living.

Obama's a lot smarter than Reagan was. Our only hope is that he rebels against all the hawks trying to push him into a war that will do no one any good.

Let's hope he's smart enough to realize we don't belong there.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Confusing the Syrian civil war (which we should stay out of, IMO) with the use of chemical weapons.

Two separate issues. The proposed attack is to enforce the ban on WMD's, and that has some merit IMO, but arming the rebels is unfortunate meddling.

[MineralMan]

7. If we had not been involved in supplying arms to

both those in power and rebels, there would be no chemical weapons involved. We have enabled expansion of the order of arms throughout the region, through supplying one side, and then the other, with arms. We armed the Taliban so they could fight the Soviet Union, only to find those same arms turned on us when we attempted to interfere in local politics.

Syria has an Air Force made up of Russian planes. Had Russia not sold them planes, they'd have no air force at all. The US has armed other regimes with similar equipment. It's all about ensuring that the oil flows.

If the West supplies no arms, there will be few arms available. It is that simple. If we supply arms, they will be used.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I don't think you can attribute Assad using chem weapons directly to anything we did.

We didn't arm rebels until recently--I disagree with arming them, but our involvement in this conflict had been pretty minimal. Other countries have funneled weapons there (Saudi Arabia), and Russia supplies Assad with arms and equipment. But he obviously found chem weapons too easy and tempting not to use, worth the risk of international punishment--and now, there is no punishment, either, because the UNSC is stalemated and other countries don't have the will to do anything about it.

[MineralMan]

15. I'm attributing it to what the West has done, not just what the US has done.

Look at Syria's order of battle. Where have its major armaments come from? Not the US. They come from Russia.

I'm not just talking about the United States in this thread. I'm talking about the entire West. Syria and Iran don't have the capability of creating those nerve gasses easily without supplies from the West. With those supplies, they do. What jets would any of them have without the West?

I'm not talking about small arms, either.

Think.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I understand the larger "background" point you're trying to make, but

the only question before us is, how do we deal with Assad or any group or leader that uses such weapons? We have turned a blind eye at times in the past, did that help or hurt? If the international community won't dish out more than a "shame on you!", what will happen in the future? If the US doesn't lead, then who leads, in this case?

[MineralMan]

20. No, that isn't the only question before us. Not by a long shot.

The immediate question is just a reflection of many larger questions.

We have sometimes turned a blind eye. Other times, we have directly interfered. In both cases the results have be far from spectacular or useful in pacifying that region.

Should the US lead? I don't think so. I think the UN should lead. I think this is not something that we must solve on our own. We have not done well with our past decisions, and I'm not seeing a good result from making a decision to intervene in this case, either.

We are incompetent in the Middle East. So is the entire West. We should defer to others this time and every time with regard to intereference in Middle Eastern conflicts. That is my opinion.

[TwilightGardener]

22. The UN isn't leading. It's toothless. Putin is insisting that charges of Assad

using chem weapons are "ludicrous". When countries with a UNSC vote deny the obvious, where do we go from there?

[MineralMan]

25. You are correct. The dipomacy we're engaged in should have

as its goal changing the bickering between Western nations. It's not productive.

[KharmaTrain]

8. The "Big Stick"...

...many times the threat of using power is more effective than the actual use of power itself. The world knows the U.S. can bomb Syria or virtually any country "back to the stone age"...but doing so is a sign of weakness. The fact the dubya regime couldn't negotiate and was so entrenched with contractors led to the need to "cook" the intel that led to the disastrous use of military force. I see this President walked himself into picking up the stick and then realizing that he was alone here and needed to "re-calibrate". The hope is this stick is being used behind the scenes in negotiations that will put the screws on ALL the outside parties to get this civil war resolved. The problem isn't the U.S. getting involved, it's the ongoing battles being fought with money and weapons from the Saudis, Iranians and Russians that need to be shut off and that can help reduce the killing and lead to some kind of resolution (a de-facto partisian of the country into areas of influence).

This administration felt it had the high ground...domestically and internationally...with it's "red" line and abruptly found out that wasn't the case. I would hope that if he gets Congressional approval, President Obama will then turn to the U.N. to get some kind of consensus there. The use of the big stick to call attention to the problem is far more productive than lobbing a bunch of missiles at a bunch of fortified sites...

[MineralMan]

9. We have a far bigger stick in our economic capabilities.

Look at Syria. Most of it is desert and is essentially unoccupied. Syria cannot support it's own population with the necessities. They must buy them. Economic clubs are far more effective than armaments, whether either is used or not.

[KharmaTrain]

18. Economics Clashing With Tribal/Religious History...

...the Daily Show had a great bit on how Syria is yet another game piece in the post WW1 grab for remnants of the Ottoman Empire by France & Britain. It's only value over the past several decades was being a front-line state in the ongoing wars with Israel. It assured the Assads of power and an ongoing supply of arms and assistance from the Soviets/Russians and the Saudis. It also was involved in the internal politics of Lebanon (and still is)...the Baathists maintained their power through keeping the many different groups inside its broders in check and to remain in a constant state of war to keep the money and weapons flowing in. U.S. influence has been minimal...I'm sure attempts were made to buy the Assads off over the years to make peace with Israel but it just wasn't "good business".

I agree that economic clubs are more effective than arms, but that requires you to have some kind of economic influence to start with. In Egypt we "invest" billions in that country (military) and thus our influence is far greater than in Syria where we've had an adversarial relationship for the past 55 years. We need the stick applied to the proxies who fuel the war...Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia. Of course we can't bomb those countries, but can President Obama find ways to either convince or negotiate the various parties into some kind of U.N. sanctioned peace conference...

[MineralMan]

24. With regard to Syria, the US should be having frank discussions with

Russia about Syria and the rest of the Middle East. The West needs to get together on policy in the region, for the benefit of everyone. That is the answer. Everyone needs to participate in stopping the continuing arming of the region. The Russians just canceled an order from Syria for anti-aircraft missiles. That's a start. We need to work with the entire West to come up with a way to stop increasing the ability of the region to make war.

That's the diplomacy that needs to be used, and I'm sure President Obama is more than aware of that. He will be talking to Putin about all of this.

[KittyWampus]

10. I agree. Especially if we include Israel into the Middle East as a region.

I support Israel but not the Likud party and its policy of settling on land it doesn't legally own.

[MineralMan]

13. Like most of the Middle East, the borders of Israel

were created by the West. Starting after WWII, the west drew borders on a map. Israel was created by the West, too, with borders drawn to suit the West, not the Middle East.

All of that was the beginning of our meddling in the region. Imperialism was another factor, since the days of Rome. The West has pretended that it had some right to control the region. It has no such right, and bumbles whenever it tries to assert that supposed right.

Israel is, more or less, a Western ally, but it is also part of the Middle East and has always been. It is part of the generalized factionalism that has plagued the region for centuries, and that factionalization has nothing to do with the West. We meddle in things we cannot understand or change, and we pay the price for that.

It's all about economics for the West, and always has been. In the Middle East, it is about something else, and always has been. The two don't mix well, and when they are mixed, they created a toxic mess that is far more deadly than binary nerve gas.

[KittyWampus]

14. IMO, there is a faction in the USA that uses Israel for reasons that go beyond economics.

Years ago, DU'ers covered the group that is well funded and heavily embedded in Republican politicians.

I remember during primaries it was brought up some evangelical group that held breakfasts for elected pols in Washington.

FOUND IT!

The Fellowship, also known as The Family,[1][2][3] is a U.S.-based religious and political organization founded in 1935 by Abraham Vereide. The stated purpose of the Fellowship is to provide a fellowship forum for decision makers to share in Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship experiences and to experience spiritual affirmation and support.[4][5]

The organization has been described as one of the most politically well-connected ministries in the United States. The Fellowship shuns publicity and its members share a vow of secrecy.[6] The Fellowship's leader Doug Coe and others have explained the organization's desire for secrecy by citing biblical admonitions against public displays of good works, insisting they would not be able to tackle diplomatically sensitive missions if they drew public attention.[6]

[MineralMan]

16. It doesn't matter. It is still Western meddling.

That is our basic mistake, and has been a mistake since the end of WWII. Before that, there is less effect. After, we attempted to make the Middle East a source of supply for our needs, and paid no attention to the political realities in the region.

Our meddling is the reason we are still trying to enforce the chaos we created in the first place.

The West is stupid and arrogant, generally.

[HappyMe]

23. I agree.

There are too many factions, groups, sub-groups.....some of which could be a front for a different group entirely. There are feuds and hatreds there that get passed down from one generation to the next. I truly think that there will never, ever be peace in the ME. There may be periods of uneasy quiet, but that's it. We just need to get the hell out of there.

[MineralMan]

28. Many of the conflicts go back to Biblical times.

The Old Testament is full of wars and conflicts in the region. We haven't helped.

[L0oniX]

26. I don't like you ...but I agree with you on all 5. n/t

[MineralMan]

27. OK. It's not required that you like me.

I don't know you, and you don't know me, either.

[Romulox]

31. You said it. nt

[totodeinhere]

33. Well I like you, and I also agree with you. But we all know that

as long as the Israeli lobby has the strength and influence that it has we will never become disengaged from the Middle East.

But saying that doesn't mean that I am anti-Israel. If we adhered to the five points that you mentioned, Israel would be just fine. In fact I think we would be doing Israel a favor because they would have a greater incentive to make peace with their neighbors since they would know that we would not be there to bail them out militarily.

[L0oniX]

39. That may be why Israel has not attacked Iran yet. They want us with them on it. n/t

It also may be that they are hoping the US attacks Assad so as to inflame the Iran connection and possibly provoke an attack by Iran ...which would draw the US into a joint war with Israel against Iran. Thank God for Russia stepping up to the plate to counter this.

[Snake Plissken]

32. Yeah but isn't it supposed to be the Holy Land or some shit like that?

so since we're playing for team Jesus, we have to defend it.

[MineralMan]

34. It's lots of people's Holy Land.

And there's a big part of the problem. Religion has played a large part in the conflicts there, and since Biblical times. Later, as the old religions died, Islam replaced many of them. But Jews, Christians, and Muslims all claim the region as their Holy Land. To some degree, all dislike each other for one reason or another.

Religions reflect cultures, to a large degree, so the old conflicts from Old Testament times live on. Read the Old Testament, and you'll find issue after issue throughout the region, and many of the place names you'll read will be familiar in Old and New Testament times.

When the West became Christian, it, too, claimed the region as a Holy Place, and entered the conflict. Rome was there. The Crusades were there. It goes back that far.

Economics, religion, and more are part of the conflicts, and have been for a very, very long time.

Today, the population of the entire region is overwhelmingly Muslim. Pockets of the other two major religions exist, too, throughout the region, and are concentrated in a few areas.

But, even Islam is not a unified religion. It, like both Judaism and Christianity, is rife with sects who believe that they, along, hold the true beliefs. So, the religions dispute with each other and with themselves. It's an ugly mix.

Sadly, religion is always a source of conflict. That's one of its worst aspects.

[L0oniX]

40. God bless America <---hmmm ...sounds like holy land to me. n/t

[elleng]

35. Yes, my thinking has been heading in this direction too.

Complicating matters, of course: MIC and oil, but you are correct. These matters just make it more difficult.

[MineralMan]

36. Thanks for your response.

[NRaleighLiberal]

37. oil. n/t

[MineralMan]

38. Yes. That's a big part of it, for sure.

Not so much in Syria, but in lots of other places. It's all part of the same mess.

Another problem is that, for the West, the Middle East has become the place where we play out our own conflicts. Rivalries between nations and blocs of nations are part of the issue, and we conduct proxy wars in the region to avoid fighting them at home.

We in the West don't actually care that much about the people living in the region. We don't know them, so we don't really give much a crap about them, in general. They're just pawns in the game.

Israel is sort of a special case, of course. We do appear to care about them, but for our own reasons, which differ, depending on whom you talk to. The Fundamentalist Christian Right believes that certain things must happen in the region before they can all get taken up in the Rapture, so they pretend to love Israel. Much of the rest of the West supports Israel out of guilt for not supporting Judaism in Europe when it was under attack.

Islam isn't much liked in the West, and that dates back to the times of the Crusades, which still persist in some ways.

The Middle East is our chessboard. Personally, I think the game should be called a draw and everyone go back to their other business. It's an ugly game, with no winner in sight.

[Bluenorthwest]

41. The Crusades came long after the invasion of Hispania by the Muslim Moors, an occupation

that lasted from 710 to 1492 I think. So strife between Christian and Muslim nations did not start with the Crusades. I agree with lots of what you are saying, but there is a tendency to start with the Crusades when it is older than that and also a tendency to forget about Ottoman incursions into 'Christendom' which came later and went as far as Vienna in 1683.