The Middle East

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nobody1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

A truly enlightening work by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Essential reading if you want to understand and interpret the roots of the disastrous US foreign policy over the last 25 years.

Brezhinski is a cold warrior and a smart guy, but he's writing about the Cold War; at that time there certainly was a competition between the US and the Soviet Union -- not for "control", but rather to line up nations on "our side".

But none of that has much relevance for the last twenty five years -- because the Soviet Union disappeared in 1991, and with it the Great Game was over. In the Middle East, its been replaced by local historical and strategic forces, principally Sunni vs Shi'a and "status quo" vs revolutionary. Interestingly, there are all combinations of those: Sunni status quo (gulf kingdoms) Sunni revolutionary (al Qaeda, ISIS), Shia status quo (Assad's Alawites), Shia Revolutionaries (Hezbollah, Iranian revolutionaries). One could add "Arab and non-Arab" as well.

Once upon a time, Egypt played the US off against the Soviet Union, for example -- neither Washington nor Moscow had any "control" -- rather Nasser and then Sadat played one off against the other to see who'd offer the best deal. Today, the struggle in Egypt between Sissi and the MB really doesn't have a Great Power dimension-- its about Egypt, and other Arab nations.

Since 1991, the Great Powers competition has largely disappeared. Outside of Syria, Russia doesn't have much of an interest, and China isn't involved. There's the faintest echo of cold war politics in the Russians relationship with Assad, but superpower rivalry isn't a rubric with any contemporary explanatory power.

[Sandi Anderson]

In the Middle East, its been replaced by local historical and strategic forces, principally Sunni vs Shi'a and "status quo" vs revolutionary. Interestingly, there are all combinations of those: Sunni status quo (gulf kingdoms) Sunni revolutionary (al Qaeda, ISIS), Shia status quo (Assad's Alawites), Shia Revolutionaries (Hezbollah, Iranian revolutionaries). One could add "Arab and non-Arab" as well.

Divide these into rich/poor, oil/no oil, US support/US ire, all about money and what it can buy(influence).

[Roger Allott]

The thing that frustrates me most about the current re-engagement in Iraq/Syria is that no one is dealing with the elephant in the room. The Kurds are the world's largest 'nation' that has no state of their own, and they're absolutely vital in providing the ground forces that make air strikes at all worthwhile.

The problem is that Kurdistan would incorporate territory that is currently part of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Their attempts (via the PKK) to gain a homeland have seriously peed off the Turks so much that they've been categorised as a terrorist group, not only in Turkey but by the EU, the US and NATO. Yet we're now deep into an alliance with them without the fact that we have diametrically opposed visions even being discussed.

As we've seen time and time again over the past 20-30 years, forming alliances with states and groups on the my-enemy's-enemy-is-my-friend principle backfires spectacularly.

What is the long term solution in the Middle East envisaged by the US or the UK? How does that compare to what states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar envisage? And how does their vision compare to that of their populations?

No one is even asking these questions, let alone trying to find the answers. I think deep down everyone knows that the answers would be very uncomfortable for everyone, but I fail to see how burying one's head in the sand on such matters is good foreign policy.

.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

The thing that frustrates me most about the current re-engagement in Iraq/Syria is that no one is dealing with the elephant in the room. The Kurds are the world's largest 'nation' that has no state of their own, and they're absolutely vital in providing the ground forces that make air strikes at all worthwhile.

The problem is that Kurdistan would incorporate territory that is currently part of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey.

{snip}

What is the long term solution in the Middle East envisaged by the US or the UK? How does that compare to what states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar envisage? And how does their vision compare to that of their populations?

These are all good questions, and they are asked, though there are more questions than answers.

There's a great deal of sympathy for the Kurds, but at the same time, there's real terror that Turkey could go Islamist. Support for Kurdish nationalism will almost certainly ramp up Turkish nationalism-- and that could go two ways. You could get a more militantly Islamic Erdogan government (kind of like a Turkish Sunni Iran), or you could get a military coup like in Egypt. Neither would be good-- Turkey is part of Europe, and no one wants to see an Egyptian or Syrian type situation in a NATO member.

"What is the long term solution in the Middle East envisaged by the US or the UK?"

-- I wasn't aware that we have any "long term solution" in mind. Bush and the neo-cons did have a model of a Middle East of "free democracies" who would all live in peace. Nobody thinks much of that idea anymore . . .

For the Arab-Israeli conflict, the plan is for separate Palestinian and Israeli states, and we're almost there, but that wouldn't solve anything else.

" How does that compare to what states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar envisage?"

-- Each, very different. Turkey is Turkish, not Arab, and they have a vision of a larger Turkic zone. They have a lot of ties to Turks through central Asia-- as far East as the Uighurs in China. Saudi Arabia's goal is, was, and will be to keep Iran down. Qatar is a wild card-- they're Sunni like Saudi, but they pursue a very different foreign policy. Saudi supported Mubarak, Qatar supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi (as did Turkey), and Saudi basically funded Sissi's coup. You can see the diametrically opposed views by reading al Jazeera (Qatar) and Arabiya (Saudi) coverage of Egypt.

What do "the people" think? I don't think there's any one coherent popular vision. Look at Libya, for example . . . the only thing that people agreed on was "Qaddaffi must go". Once he was gone, it was clear there was no common ground beyond that. . . As near as I can make out, the only thing Libyans agree on is that they'd like to flee to Italy.

[9876543210]

Roger Allott,

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

The thing that frustrates me most about the current re-engagement in Iraq/Syria is that no one is dealing with the elephant in the room. The Kurds are the world's largest 'nation' that has no state of their own, and they're absolutely vital in providing the ground forces that make air strikes at all worthwhile.

The problem is that Kurdistan would incorporate territory that is currently part of Iraq, Syria, Iran and Turkey. Their attempts (via the PKK) to gain a homeland have seriously peed off the Turks so much that they've been categorised as a terrorist group, not only in Turkey but by the EU, the US and NATO. Yet we're now deep into an alliance with them without the fact that we have diametrically opposed visions even being discussed.

Kind of feel sorry for the Kurds. They've been caught between a rock and a hard place for a long time now. They hated Saddam so he gassed them just for the heck of it. Turkey apparently has a huge area full of Kurds that have to be kept suppressed. Kurdish populations in all of the surrounding countries who aren't exactly welcome.

So yes, they do need a country of their own. But will they get it? Anytime soon? Kind of doubt it. Remember something from a while ago about Turkey threatening to invade northern Iraq if the Kurds decided to break away and form their own state. Don't know if that still true.

I guess if I was a Kurd I'd be doing exactly what they're doing now. Trying to stay in the good graces of the US and stay under our skirts. That may be the only way they survive.

What is the long term solution in the Middle East envisaged by the US or the UK? How does that compare to what states like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar envisage? And how does their vision compare to that of their populations?

Did you happen to catch 60 Minutes tonight? Obama was interviewed about whats happening in the Middle East and, overall, I guess he did OK. But it was pretty clear to me that there really isn't a real long and/or short term solution. Maybe the best way to describe the whole situation is a clusterf@ck. No matter what we do, we're screwed.

Someone was mentioning how we need to find some "moderate" Arabs to fight for us. Really? "Moderate" Arabs already in the middle of a battle zone who are ready to switch from whomever they're currently fighting to someone we want them to? Heh, heh.

And we don't want to support anyone who supports Assad while ISIL is fighting Assad. Wait a minute. Shouldn't we be supporting ISIL?

Nope, that won't work. They're deranged murderers. So who else? Well, Iran is apparently willing to get into the game as they also hate ISIL. But they apparently don't want to work with us as we've been calling them Satan for how long now?

And this logic could go on and on and on. Classic clusterf@ck. Every way you seriously think about the ramifications of this ends in another, possibly even bigger, mess.

I see no way to win here. You don't even really win by supporting the Kurds if Turkey decides to invade. Otherwise, why don't we just support the Kurds. Give them what they need to protect themselves from their southern neighbors and let it be. But no, Turkey would invade.

Clusterf@ck! Classic clusterf@ck!

... but I fail to see how burying one's head in the sand on such matters is good foreign policy.

Beyond somehow supporting the Kurds (and not provoking the Turks to invade) I really see no advantage in us supporting anyone over there.

The current Iraqi government? Because of them we now have ISIL and other similar groups. They did what they could for Shia but little or nothing for Kurds and Sunni. They fired most of their competent military leadership and replaced them with Malaki's buddies. When ISIL invaded they ran as far and as fast as they could. So we want to support these guys?

Stay the heck out. And as far out of the way as possible. Keep a few extremely highly trained invisible groups who can keep an eye on the situation but thats it.

Get out and stay out. Thats the only idea which may not be a "winning" solution, but its also not a "losing" solution.

[9876543210]

One other thing.

Over the weekend I watched Bill Moyers who had a couple of guests that had an interesting take on whats happening in the Middle East. Its about 20 minutes:

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-s..._campaign=isis

[Zidon]

biggest fuck-up of the middle-east IMO is leadership on the expense of the common people, mostly religious leadership.

and the sad thing is that the common people aren't cavemen, they are up to date, they occasionally revolt, yet they keep shooting themselves in the feet, usually with AK-47s

[Wendigo]

Alan Henning 'killed by Islamic State'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405

I had very little time for that particular God forsaken area prior to IS brutally murdering a man whose sole aim in life was to try and enrich the lives of others. There was more humanity in that one individual man than in the whole of IS put together.

The fact is that IS can not be negotiated with so despite lots of pleas from well meaning but totally misguided people not to fight them and to keep talking it is clear they are 100% reliant on terror to achieve their aims and that can not be allowed to succeed.

In an ideal world the Muslim nations should put aside differences and do to IS what the Catholic church did to the Cathars in 13th century France.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Western involvement muddies the waters, they have to be seen to be largely defeated by those they claim to represent otherwise it will just resurface under another name.

Anyone who supports IS in any way supports terror and should not be allowed anywhere near the UK or any other Western country and if that means we ignore any European Court of Human Rights advice then so be it.

RIP Alan

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by Wendigo

Anyone who supports IS in any way supports terror and should not be allowed anywhere near the UK or any other Western country and if that means we ignore any European Court of Human Rights advice then so be it.

'Nurse says she's tired of treating ISIL terrorists'

'We treat them, and they go on to decapitate people. I am sick of treating wounded ISIL militants. E.G. has also written a letter to Parliament and the National Police Department, saying she and her colleagues are extremely disturbed by the fact that they have to treat people who chop off heads.'

http://www.todayszaman.com/_nurse-sa...ts_358992.html

If I remember correctly, Turkey is a NATO member. A NATO member that supports the terrorists of the IS. And not only through free medical services of which poor US citizens can only dream of. And our beloved leader (or Führer) of the 'free' world knows it.

So the best would be to arrest this little crook immediately, right?

[SanteeFats]

Ummm Nobody:
The Turkish army received the go-ahead from the country’s parliament to engage in military action against Islamic State insurgents in Syria and Iraq. Meanwhile, a senior NATO official said the bloc's involvement is “practically” possible.

Who is the little crook??