1
1
0
From "The New York Times"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-method-to-obamas-middle-east-mess.html
The Method to Obama’s Middle East Mess
LET’S recap the state of America’s commitments in the Middle East. Our military is fighting in a tacit alliance with Iranian proxies in Iraq, even as it assists in a campaign against Iranian-backed forces in Yemen. We are formally committed to regime change in Syria, but we’re intervening against the regime’s Islamist enemies. Our strongest allies, officially, are still Israel and Saudi Arabia, but we’re busy alienating them by pushing for détente with Iran. And please don’t mention Libya or Al Qaeda — you’ll confuse everyone even more.
Is there a method here? A Metternichian master plan discernible only to President Obama and his advisers? Not exactly: This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments, and its self-justifications alternate between the exasperated (why don’t you try it if you’re so smart?) and the delusional (as soon as we get the Iran deal, game changer, baby!).
But there is a strategic element in how the Obama White House ended up here. Haltingly but persistently, this administration has pursued a paradigm shift in how the United States relates to the Middle East, a shift from a Pax Americana model toward a strategy its supporters call “offshore balancing.”
In a Pax Americana system, the United States enjoys a dominant position within a network of allies and clients; actors outside that network are considered rogues and threats, to be restrained and coerced by our overwhelming military might. Ideally, over time our clients become more prosperous and more democratic, the benefits of joining the network become obvious, and the military canopy both expands and becomes less necessary.
In an offshore balancing system, our clients are ...
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Is this sort of like changing from a strategy that you know how to use but also know doesn't work to a strategy that you don't know how to use and don't know if it works?
Face it, the time to "sort out" the Middle East with the least disruption and best results was someplace back around 1920.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/29/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-method-to-obamas-middle-east-mess.html
The Method to Obama’s Middle East Mess
LET’S recap the state of America’s commitments in the Middle East. Our military is fighting in a tacit alliance with Iranian proxies in Iraq, even as it assists in a campaign against Iranian-backed forces in Yemen. We are formally committed to regime change in Syria, but we’re intervening against the regime’s Islamist enemies. Our strongest allies, officially, are still Israel and Saudi Arabia, but we’re busy alienating them by pushing for détente with Iran. And please don’t mention Libya or Al Qaeda — you’ll confuse everyone even more.
Is there a method here? A Metternichian master plan discernible only to President Obama and his advisers? Not exactly: This administration has been persistently surprised by Middle East developments, and its self-justifications alternate between the exasperated (why don’t you try it if you’re so smart?) and the delusional (as soon as we get the Iran deal, game changer, baby!).
But there is a strategic element in how the Obama White House ended up here. Haltingly but persistently, this administration has pursued a paradigm shift in how the United States relates to the Middle East, a shift from a Pax Americana model toward a strategy its supporters call “offshore balancing.”
In a Pax Americana system, the United States enjoys a dominant position within a network of allies and clients; actors outside that network are considered rogues and threats, to be restrained and coerced by our overwhelming military might. Ideally, over time our clients become more prosperous and more democratic, the benefits of joining the network become obvious, and the military canopy both expands and becomes less necessary.
In an offshore balancing system, our clients are ...
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- Is this sort of like changing from a strategy that you know how to use but also know doesn't work to a strategy that you don't know how to use and don't know if it works?
Face it, the time to "sort out" the Middle East with the least disruption and best results was someplace back around 1920.
Middle East
War on Terror
Barack Obama
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
0
0
0
Americans need to understand that the people in the Middle East hate us period, so there is no good way to befriend them other than a position of strength. Iran only shows what they want they presently have major economic issues that the majority of citizens there demonstrate against their leaders only issue there is their leaders don’t believe in freedoms we enjoy like speech. They will rise up against their leaders if they know we will back them up unlike past administration. In a nut shell they will continue to fight amongst themselves over their religious beliefs as they have for thousands of years.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I have to wonder what the couple $ trillion invested in the region would have bought toward energy independence. They've been killing each other over there for a couple thousand years so there's not much likelihood we're going to stop that now. Tell AMCITs and enterprises to stay at their own risk and let the locals sort it out. We stand by and remain prepared to assist with the cleanup effort. Honor our alliances as they apply to the conflict spreading from the region. The "we'd better stop (insert major power) from gaining a foothold" argument last proved successful in WWII. Everything after that cost much blood and treasure and either ended with a cease-fire or retrograde. We are slow learners.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
COL Ted Mc
SSG (Join to see) - Staff; The article actually outlines what the strategy is (and also points out the problems with it). It also points out the problems with the strategy that the US has been using since WWII AND the problems with that strategy.
IF what you have been doing for 60 years doesn't work, wouldn't it be a good idea to, at least, consider a different approach?
PS - Please define "our enemies". I sometimes get confused by the term because many people seem to define it as "NON Americans" and I like to be able to understand what people are talking about when they use labels rather than concrete terms.
IF what you have been doing for 60 years doesn't work, wouldn't it be a good idea to, at least, consider a different approach?
PS - Please define "our enemies". I sometimes get confused by the term because many people seem to define it as "NON Americans" and I like to be able to understand what people are talking about when they use labels rather than concrete terms.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There is no such thing as a successful strategy in the middle east, I do not envy any person tasked with leading our country through this.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen - Spec; We could always try something completely different and let the inhabitants of the Middle East chose their own national borders, form of government, and leaders while supporting only those countries which implement and actually practice the forms of government of which we approve in our public statements about what our country stands for.
[NOTE - That wouldn't mean that the Middle Eastern countries would have to get rid of their monarchies, but it would mean that they would have to convert them to the type of monarchy we approve of "Constitutional Monarchy".]
[NOTE - That wouldn't mean that the Middle Eastern countries would have to get rid of their monarchies, but it would mean that they would have to convert them to the type of monarchy we approve of "Constitutional Monarchy".]
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Rory J. Mattheisen - Spec; Considering that that is what the people of the Middle East have been trying to achieve for (roughly) 150 years, a declaration of "You're right. You should be able to do that and we'll lend you what assistance we can so that you can achieve it for yourselves." would be so well received that no one other than "the party out of power in the US" would accuse "the party in power in the US" of backing down.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google