5 ms·

Ha ha ha ... ha ... The 'Arab World' was never together. Ever. All of the 'Anti-American Imperialism' kids here should remember that the bulk of the 'Arab Wor

Ha ha ha ... ha ... The 'Arab World' was never together. Ever. All of the 'Anti-American Imperialism' kids here should remember that the bulk of the 'Arab World' is 'Arab By The Sword'. Arabic is spoken across North Africa, in particular because of Arab Colonialism of the 9th-12th centuries. Not since then has the 'Arab World' been anything resembling 'together'. The Turks kept them (and there was not much of them) under the thumb, after that the Europeans tried to maintain some degree of balance, now the Americans. The most recent and damaging decision by the US was Obama's withdrawl of troops in Iraq. Of course, invading in the first place - but Obama simply by virtue of having 10K soldiers sitting on a base 'behind the wire' doing nothing, could have kept forcing Malaki to play nice with the Sunnis. The moment Obama withdrew, Malaki purged Iraq of Sunnis, and the Sunni tribes decided that ISIS was 'less worse' than their own government and there you have it. As far as Syria ... this is a function of the 'Arab Spring' more than anything, and I don't think anyone can say anyone else is directly responsible for that. Other than the standard: Assad, Saudis, Iran etc... Once things stabilize in Syria, maybe things can start to settle down.

jomamaxx 10y ago
Didn't finish that sentence: 'of course invading Iraq was a huge mistake' ...
- icebraining 10y ago
  I'm still surprised at how people let them off with "a mistake". Cheney himself detailed very clearly what would happen, just a few years back. How can it be a mistake when you predict that some action will have a certain consequence, you do the action, and you're right in your prediction? https://archive.org/details/youtube-6BEsZMvrq-I https://archive.org/details/youtube-6BEsZMvrq-I
reitoei 10y ago
> Once things stabilize in Syria, maybe things can start to settle down. OT, but do you see this happening soon? The only way it seems that Syria can stabilize is for the regime to retake control. That's beginning to look like the most likely outcome. Could there ever be a path back to pre-Spring peace? Anything is better than what they have now :(
- return0 10y ago
  290.000 deaths later and 1/3 of the population fleeing the country. Even if the US knows that the return of Assad's tyranny is the only quick path to peace, they (US) will not be willing to bear the blame of the damage created.
  - nickik 10y ago
    US is not really to blame directly in this case. The US by now is willing to accept Assad for a limited time. Russia has also shifted and might accept that Assad has to go in the middle to long term. Their is a chance that they could agree. However local powers, Turks, Saudis, Iranians are not that flexible. Iran really needs Assad in power, they really want to crush ISIS. The Turks don't want the Kurds to form their own country. The Saudis want Assad gone and don't want ISIS completely destroyed.
- tim333 10y ago
  I'm guessing that now Erdogan and Putin are friendly again things could stabilize quite quickly probably with the old regime still in charge.
k__ 10y ago
Does the west and especially the US have anything from stability? I think they also would do, what they did to the "arab world" to Russia or China if they could. The parts of the world that advance faster can dictate more rules, so everyone needs to get ahead. One way to ensure that this is the case is to slow other parts down.
- nickik 10y ago
  Yes, stability would be good for them and everybody. War and fighting is not good for business in general. The instability we see is definitely not a function of design. If you have studied any of it you will quickly realise that this is situation that has many actors that act based on their own interest and absolutely nobody has control over it. Those that attempt to control it usually end up creating a hole host of unintended consequences even if they sometimes manage to achieve their main goal. Its however true, that in some limited cases, creating more chaos can potentially help you. Such cases definitely exist but they are not the majority of strategies used. Syria releasing of Jihadist to split the rebels is a interesting example of such a strategy. It usually is a strategy of the weak, not the strong. The strong prefer control, not chaos. The idea that it would be best to throw everything in chaos is completely wrong and even the leaders of the super powers understand that. Only if you assume that their is some sinister conspiracy that has completely different values thats operating under our institutions, could such a policy be explained. I see 0 evidence for such a conspiracy.
  - k__ 10y ago
    But if they throw people into war, they have control. I mean, yes these people are now uncontrollable, but they also in a state of chaos that prevents them from getting so advanced that they would be a real problem for first world countries on a global scale.
    - hx87 10y ago
      You don't need to be that "advanced" to cause real trouble to other countries around the world, and strong countries generally have more stake in the international and are less likely to rock the boat, which in turn favors other strong, status quo powers. From the US point of view, Putin isn't a friendly guy, but today's Russia is far better for the US than a weak, divided one full of Russian Orthodox extremist groups bent on exporting the traditionalist revolution across the world. Likewise, it's not like even the strongest possible Syria would pose a "real problem" for the likes of US, Russia, the EU or China.
return0 10y ago
The snark at the beginning of your comment may be causing downvotes.
nickik 10y ago
First of all, stop being so cocky. I wager a great many people know a hole lot about the history of the region. That said, I agree, the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a huge mistake. The horrible handling of the early occupation was a total disaster. I also agree that the withdrawal of the last troupes was a problem, however its understandable because the population in the US wanted out, and its not clear for how many more years they would have to stay, possible a 1-2 generations. As far as Syria, its true that the 'Arab Spring' was the initiator but its also true that the insertion of ISIS into Syria made the hole conflict a hole lot more complicated (and ISIS could only exist in post Saddam world). Syria is now the most complicated war I have ever seen, you have multiple local, regional and global powers all actively fighting against some other party that is also fighting. With regards to Syria their is absolutely no change of some kind of resolution, except if some side manages to carry the field militarily. I fear that the war just has to burn itself out. This process will radically change the middle east. I would not be surprised if the Kurds had their own state in the end.

jomamaxx 10y ago

Didn't finish that sentence: 'of course invading Iraq was a huge mistake' ...

icebraining 10y ago
I'm still surprised at how people let them off with "a mistake". Cheney himself detailed very clearly what would happen, just a few years back. How can it be a mistake when you predict that some action will have a certain consequence, you do the action, and you're right in your prediction? https://archive.org/details/youtube-6BEsZMvrq-I https://archive.org/details/youtube-6BEsZMvrq-I

reitoei 10y ago

> Once things stabilize in Syria, maybe things can start to settle down. OT, but do you see this happening soon? The only way it seems that Syria can stabilize is for the regime to retake control. That's beginning to look like the most likely outcome. Could there ever be a path back to pre-Spring peace? Anything is better than what they have now :(

return0 10y ago
290.000 deaths later and 1/3 of the population fleeing the country. Even if the US knows that the return of Assad's tyranny is the only quick path to peace, they (US) will not be willing to bear the blame of the damage created.
- nickik 10y ago
  US is not really to blame directly in this case. The US by now is willing to accept Assad for a limited time. Russia has also shifted and might accept that Assad has to go in the middle to long term. Their is a chance that they could agree. However local powers, Turks, Saudis, Iranians are not that flexible. Iran really needs Assad in power, they really want to crush ISIS. The Turks don't want the Kurds to form their own country. The Saudis want Assad gone and don't want ISIS completely destroyed.
tim333 10y ago
I'm guessing that now Erdogan and Putin are friendly again things could stabilize quite quickly probably with the old regime still in charge.

k__ 10y ago

Does the west and especially the US have anything from stability? I think they also would do, what they did to the "arab world" to Russia or China if they could. The parts of the world that advance faster can dictate more rules, so everyone needs to get ahead. One way to ensure that this is the case is to slow other parts down.

nickik 10y ago
Yes, stability would be good for them and everybody. War and fighting is not good for business in general. The instability we see is definitely not a function of design. If you have studied any of it you will quickly realise that this is situation that has many actors that act based on their own interest and absolutely nobody has control over it. Those that attempt to control it usually end up creating a hole host of unintended consequences even if they sometimes manage to achieve their main goal. Its however true, that in some limited cases, creating more chaos can potentially help you. Such cases definitely exist but they are not the majority of strategies used. Syria releasing of Jihadist to split the rebels is a interesting example of such a strategy. It usually is a strategy of the weak, not the strong. The strong prefer control, not chaos. The idea that it would be best to throw everything in chaos is completely wrong and even the leaders of the super powers understand that. Only if you assume that their is some sinister conspiracy that has completely different values thats operating under our institutions, could such a policy be explained. I see 0 evidence for such a conspiracy.
- k__ 10y ago
  But if they throw people into war, they have control. I mean, yes these people are now uncontrollable, but they also in a state of chaos that prevents them from getting so advanced that they would be a real problem for first world countries on a global scale.
  - hx87 10y ago
    You don't need to be that "advanced" to cause real trouble to other countries around the world, and strong countries generally have more stake in the international and are less likely to rock the boat, which in turn favors other strong, status quo powers. From the US point of view, Putin isn't a friendly guy, but today's Russia is far better for the US than a weak, divided one full of Russian Orthodox extremist groups bent on exporting the traditionalist revolution across the world. Likewise, it's not like even the strongest possible Syria would pose a "real problem" for the likes of US, Russia, the EU or China.

return0 10y ago

The snark at the beginning of your comment may be causing downvotes.

nickik 10y ago

First of all, stop being so cocky. I wager a great many people know a hole lot about the history of the region. That said, I agree, the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a huge mistake. The horrible handling of the early occupation was a total disaster. I also agree that the withdrawal of the last troupes was a problem, however its understandable because the population in the US wanted out, and its not clear for how many more years they would have to stay, possible a 1-2 generations. As far as Syria, its true that the 'Arab Spring' was the initiator but its also true that the insertion of ISIS into Syria made the hole conflict a hole lot more complicated (and ISIS could only exist in post Saddam world). Syria is now the most complicated war I have ever seen, you have multiple local, regional and global powers all actively fighting against some other party that is also fighting. With regards to Syria their is absolutely no change of some kind of resolution, except if some side manages to carry the field militarily. I fear that the war just has to burn itself out. This process will radically change the middle east. I would not be surprised if the Kurds had their own state in the end.