4 ms·

Here's a great overview of the how and a complete absence of the why which is more central to "success in the middle east". But I also understand why there woul

Here's a great overview of the how and a complete absence of the why which is more central to "success in the middle east". But I also understand why there would be no political will for US deciders to start asking themselves "why" 15 years into an ongoing conflict. It's kind of how a crackhead never asks himself "why am I doing this" mid-hit.

dforrestwilson1 11y ago
Well getting into the why is more political than process, and I don't have insight there. I can't explain why we're friends with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States and I can't explain why we aren't on better terms with Iran. I have spent many hours arguing with conservative friends on why we should cut ties with Saudi Arabia in particular, but they trot out some arguments about oil and fears of ME instability (as though the status quo is fine). It's funny because the Sauds have convinced us to help stabilize the region, but it's hard to impose stability when your regional allies shank you every chance they get. There's no reason we should be encouraging Wahhabism. I'm all for pulling back from the region, and will be voting for Bernie given the chance to.
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  I can't say I disagree with anything you've said there. I believe a lot of foreign policy also consists of trying to salvage or redirect the previous administrations' policies no matter how disastrous they've proven thus far, purely for the sake of saving face and refusing to admit them as mistakes (although Iraq is now certainly accepted as a mistake by most people). I believe the bigger problem is the insistence on projecting US power overseas no matter the cost or consequences. It's like there's some underlying belief that if you don't use it you lose it (which might be true in itself I don't really know)
- jerf 11y ago
  "I have spent many hours arguing with conservative friends on why we should cut ties with Saudi Arabia in particular, but they trot out some arguments about oil and fears of ME instability (as though the status quo is fine)." As I like to say, you can make anything look good by only considering the positives, and make anything look bad by only considering the negatives. I think we're hard-wired to generally consider the positives of the status quo and the negatives of any possible change, as part of our general hard-wiring to be loss-averse. Even when the status quo is already pretty bad, it's hard for most people to rationally contemplate change. I'm not targeting that at politicians in particular, it's hard for all of us, across all fields. I often find myself contemplating it in a professional context when I see a team struggling with very poor processes (no automated testing, no CI, poor source control, etc., not necessarily "Process with a capital P"), but they can't contemplate any changes because all they see are the costs of the transition as well as the possible costs of failure, even as, objectively, the position that they currently are in is "deep in a hole and still digging". It is, arguably, not as bad as it sounds; a constantly shifting foreign policy always chasing changes that we probably poorly understand is not necessarily a good idea either. In fact I'd suggest that the way the United State's foreign policy predictable and hugely shifts on a four-year cycle has always been a problem for us. (Though, again, not necessarily all bad; at least it prevents us from creating too many glorious Five Year Plans.)
- zo1 11y ago
  Obama was all about "pulling-out" too, and yet it seems that the US is still meddling in the middle-east. At first I was in disagreement with the root-poster, and generally I am opposed to the entire notion of war and paying people to do it. But, on some other level I really wish that politicians would either just go all in or pull-out completely.

dforrestwilson1 11y ago

Well getting into the why is more political than process, and I don't have insight there. I can't explain why we're friends with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States and I can't explain why we aren't on better terms with Iran. I have spent many hours arguing with conservative friends on why we should cut ties with Saudi Arabia in particular, but they trot out some arguments about oil and fears of ME instability (as though the status quo is fine). It's funny because the Sauds have convinced us to help stabilize the region, but it's hard to impose stability when your regional allies shank you every chance they get. There's no reason we should be encouraging Wahhabism. I'm all for pulling back from the region, and will be voting for Bernie given the chance to.

mladenkovacevic 11y ago
I can't say I disagree with anything you've said there. I believe a lot of foreign policy also consists of trying to salvage or redirect the previous administrations' policies no matter how disastrous they've proven thus far, purely for the sake of saving face and refusing to admit them as mistakes (although Iraq is now certainly accepted as a mistake by most people). I believe the bigger problem is the insistence on projecting US power overseas no matter the cost or consequences. It's like there's some underlying belief that if you don't use it you lose it (which might be true in itself I don't really know)
jerf 11y ago
"I have spent many hours arguing with conservative friends on why we should cut ties with Saudi Arabia in particular, but they trot out some arguments about oil and fears of ME instability (as though the status quo is fine)." As I like to say, you can make anything look good by only considering the positives, and make anything look bad by only considering the negatives. I think we're hard-wired to generally consider the positives of the status quo and the negatives of any possible change, as part of our general hard-wiring to be loss-averse. Even when the status quo is already pretty bad, it's hard for most people to rationally contemplate change. I'm not targeting that at politicians in particular, it's hard for all of us, across all fields. I often find myself contemplating it in a professional context when I see a team struggling with very poor processes (no automated testing, no CI, poor source control, etc., not necessarily "Process with a capital P"), but they can't contemplate any changes because all they see are the costs of the transition as well as the possible costs of failure, even as, objectively, the position that they currently are in is "deep in a hole and still digging". It is, arguably, not as bad as it sounds; a constantly shifting foreign policy always chasing changes that we probably poorly understand is not necessarily a good idea either. In fact I'd suggest that the way the United State's foreign policy predictable and hugely shifts on a four-year cycle has always been a problem for us. (Though, again, not necessarily all bad; at least it prevents us from creating too many glorious Five Year Plans.)
zo1 11y ago
Obama was all about "pulling-out" too, and yet it seems that the US is still meddling in the middle-east. At first I was in disagreement with the root-poster, and generally I am opposed to the entire notion of war and paying people to do it. But, on some other level I really wish that politicians would either just go all in or pull-out completely.