User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Learning From Failure: Formulating A New U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy

  1. #1
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496581
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,591x in 94,420 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Learning From Failure: Formulating A New U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy

    Learning From Failure: Formulating A New U.S. Middle East Foreign Policy

    Here is an interesting opinion piece by someone who warned (in a congressional hearing) prior to 2003 that there were no Iraqis inside Iraq and the plain to bring them democracy was a fools errand. Iraq has Shiite Iraqis, Sunni Iraqis, and Kurdish Iraqis, all of which don't get along and don't have democratically elected leaders.

    A commentator recently complained that President Trump does not have a “Syria strategy” and therefore awful Assad is winning. Countless Op-Ed writers before him likewise commented that President X “did not have a [insert the name of any country from Morocco to India] strategy,” and therefore awful Z was winning.

    That sort of writing is still today considered honest work by Op-Ed editors, who studiously ignore what happened when US Presidents did have “a strategy”—and not just in 2003 when the awful Saddam Hussein was removed to allow the Iraqi people to advance towards democracy.


    It was only upon entering the country that the absence of any actual Iraqis was discovered, as opposed to rival Shi’a, Kurdish, and Sunni factions, in none of which the leaders are chosen democratically, thereby making an Iraq-wide democracy impossible twice over, intra-factionally as well as inter-factionally.


    Yet when I testified to that effect in a Senate Foreign Relations hearing before the 2003 invasion, the pro-Administration witness easily prevailed, by pointing out that I had just said that Iraqis were incapable of democracy, which was “racist” he said. I immediately confessed that it was culturalist, but failed to note that anyone who is not is a total fool would not expect Neapolitans to behave like Japanese, or vice versa.


    No strategy for any country can possibly succeed if intersectional American inhibitions preclude the acceptance of its simplest cultural realities, thereby allowing a country like Iraq to be confused with, say, Norway or Denmark, whose 1945 liberation was indeed followed by democratic elections.


    Unfortunately, such confusions and even greater ones are the norm rather than the exception: Afghanistan, for example, was judged ripe for Scandinavian feminism when its constitution was drawn up: it mandates a higher quota of female parliamentarians than the proportion of female members in the U.S. Congress or the Canadian parliament. Naturally, they count for nothing in an assembly dominated by warlords and their lieges.


    In another Afghan example, in June 2017 Secretary of Defense Mattis overcame strong resistance from President Trump to send out 4,000 more U.S. troops to serve as instructors for the Afghan Army, to enable it to resist the Taliban, which was winning, as it still is.


    The mystery is why Afghan soldiers needed training from very expensive American NCOs no less, while the Taliban do not. But the answer of course is that individual skill levels have nothing to do with it: the Afghan Army cannot be trained to fight by definition, because it can only exist as a lucrative business for its bosses and as a form of welfare for their underlings, and not as a fighting army in the absence of an Afghan national identity on which cohesion can be built.


    For much less money, the U.S. could have built up a formidable army of separate Tadjik, Uzbek, Hazara, Aimaq, and selected tribal-Pathan regiments that would have smashed the Taliban. But any such proposal would have horrified Secretary Mattis, who of course knows that ethnic regiments served the British in both Asia and Africa very well indeed (and a Gurkha regiment still does), but who evidently felt compelled by political correctness to scrupulously eschew even the most elementary of Afghan realities in framing his policies: the non-existence of an Afghan identity, except among some expatriates.


    Science advances because erroneous theories are refuted, but in forming U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, nothing whatever has ever been learned even from total failures.
    We see this today in Afghanistan when the neocons insist the Taliban will never rule, as if they have a say in such an outcome or a way to achieve it.

    So yes there really is a “strategy” that will work successfully every single time, that every President should adopt and rigorously follow: when invited to intervene in the Middle East, don’t.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  2. #2
    Points: 56,719, Level: 58
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,631
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17597
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Living in Oaxaca, Mexico, born in Memphis and worked in Colorado
    Posts
    11,977
    Points
    56,719
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    916
    Thanked 5,009x in 3,481 Posts
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was asked to mediate a conflict between two groups of Saudis. We met at a neutral location. The mosque didn't want to host the meeting for fear people would think they were taking sides. I prepared for the meeting with a lot of quotes from the Prophet. For an hour and a half I struggled trying to get the two sides to agree. It was hopeless and I got irritated.

    I said, "I've listened to all I'm going to listen to. Here's what you are going to do or you can continue your argument in jail." I then laid down the law. They all nodded. When I finished they all shook my hand and left.

    The host of the meeting, Zee, said, "I wondered when you were going to get to that part."
    "What part?"
    "Where you told them what to do. They will never agree with each other or see the other sides point but at home they would present their case to an Imam and after listening he'd tell them what to do. And, they'll do it. It's how it works."

    They won't agree but with help, they can quit killing each other.

    My favorite moment was when one Saudi was yelling in a rage and I said, "The Prophet said it's a wise man who holds his temper." The Saudi stopped and said, "But, the Prophet didn't mean you should hold your temper when a man calls your mother that name."

    "It's nice to see Muslims can rationalize just like Christians." After a moment of everyone glaring, everyone laughed.

    Not everyone thinks like Americans. We have Democrats.
    Last edited by patrickt; 04-01-2020 at 09:12 AM.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (04-01-2020)

  4. #3
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496581
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,591x in 94,420 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by patrickt View Post
    I was asked to mediate a conflict between two groups of Saudis. We met at a neutral location. The mosque didn't want to host the meeting for fear people would think they were taking sides. I prepared for the meeting with a lot of quotes from the Prophet. For an hour and a half I struggled trying to get the two sides to agree. It was hopeless and I got irritated.
    Were both groups Sunnis, or was it Sunni v. Shia groups?
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  5. #4
    Points: 56,719, Level: 58
    Level completed: 19%, Points required for next Level: 1,631
    Overall activity: 0.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience PointsTagger Second Class
    patrickt's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    17597
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Living in Oaxaca, Mexico, born in Memphis and worked in Colorado
    Posts
    11,977
    Points
    56,719
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    916
    Thanked 5,009x in 3,481 Posts
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Were both groups Sunnis, or was it Sunni v. Shia groups?
    I suspect it was one of one and one the other but the conflict was the city slickers versus the hillbillies. Most Saudis are Sunni but I didn't ask.

    Our small city had one mosque. Most of the guys were moderates but the mosque was very fundamentalist. I asked a friend once why that was and he said, "If there was just one Christian church in a town the very fundamental Christians would run it because they absolutely will not and cannot compromise. It has to be their way. So, the moderates put up with them. Some day we'll have two mosques and this one will be very small."

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to patrickt For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (04-01-2020)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts