3 ms·

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reas

by seszett 11y ago

Yeah, I also didn't really agree with this: > Whack-a-mole is a game, not a plan. Leave the Middle East alone. Stop creating more failed states. For some reason, I have difficulty thinking that just "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on its own and the Syrian government/Syrian rebels/Kurds/various fundamentalist islamist groups to magically arrive to some peaceful balance. Especially with ISIS having the stated goal of world domination (yeah, just leaving alone those who want to dominate the world rarely works, we tried that for a while before 1939). The truth is, human society and civilization isn't a fundamentally stable system that's being thrown off by US or European interventions. Intervention is sometimes useful, sometimes bad, and it seems difficult for everyone to estimate whether interventions will be good or not.

Retric 11y ago
The natural progression for 'lawless' areas is for stronger country's to attack and take land. They don't necessarily take over the whole country just the valuable pieces. Then repeat after that has been assimilated. Western intervention has stalled this process by imposing arbitrary borders on huge landmasses. ISIS only works because larger state actors have been held in check. But, a true hands off policy would likely lead to some regional wars which would quickly crush ISIS or see it evolve into a more traditional nation state. PS: Of course the other way this breaks down is when a large and mostly stable nation contains lawless regions. But, that does not really describe the region involved.
dmix 11y ago
> "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on This is a strawman attack. The author never stated that ISIS or terrorists will disappear or that a non-interventionist position by the west is a solution to a century of middle eastern conflicts. The article is about reevaluating failed strategies and exploring other strategies which might help minimize the negative externalities of the middle easts constant turmoil. Not fanning the flames is a very valid position to take in this context.
minimuffins 11y ago
How do we know leaving the Mideast alone would not work? We've literally never tried it. Not since then end of World War II anyway. Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.
- LoSboccacc 11y ago
  Well there's egypt. They went their own road didn't they? With "democratic unelections" and all that. I lost count of the coup there, but seems more stable now, even if less free.
  - minimuffins 11y ago
    The US propped up the Mubarak regime for decades. That was instrumental in creating the conditions for their revolution. The US only stopped its intervention when supporting Mubarak was obviously not viable anymore. Sadly it seems like they're back to a somewhat "stable" authoritarianism in spite of it all. In tech parlance, revolutions are hard.

by seszett 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

The natural progression for 'lawless' areas is for stronger country's to attack and take land. They don't necessarily take over the whole country just the valuable pieces. Then repeat after that has been assimilated. Western intervention has stalled this process by imposing arbitrary borders on huge landmasses. ISIS only works because larger state actors have been held in check. But, a true hands off policy would likely lead to some regional wars which would quickly crush ISIS or see it evolve into a more traditional nation state. PS: Of course the other way this breaks down is when a large and mostly stable nation contains lawless regions. But, that does not really describe the region involved.

dmix 11y ago

> "leaving the Middle East alone" will somehow lead ISIS to disappear on This is a strawman attack. The author never stated that ISIS or terrorists will disappear or that a non-interventionist position by the west is a solution to a century of middle eastern conflicts. The article is about reevaluating failed strategies and exploring other strategies which might help minimize the negative externalities of the middle easts constant turmoil. Not fanning the flames is a very valid position to take in this context.

minimuffins 11y ago

How do we know leaving the Mideast alone would not work? We've literally never tried it. Not since then end of World War II anyway. Human civilization may not be a naturally "stable system" but Western intervention in the Mideast or anywhere has an extremely poor track record.

LoSboccacc 11y ago
Well there's egypt. They went their own road didn't they? With "democratic unelections" and all that. I lost count of the coup there, but seems more stable now, even if less free.
- minimuffins 11y ago
  The US propped up the Mubarak regime for decades. That was instrumental in creating the conditions for their revolution. The US only stopped its intervention when supporting Mubarak was obviously not viable anymore. Sadly it seems like they're back to a somewhat "stable" authoritarianism in spite of it all. In tech parlance, revolutions are hard.