4 ms·

Foreign policy recommendations regarding the Middle East: 1) The only winning move is not to play.

M_Grey 10y ago
There is a cost to not playing the game, as Europe is in the early stages of discovering. Just like there was a cost to the US, to let Haiti go to hell, paid for in immigration. The difference is that Haiti is tiny, and the Middle East and North Africa are huge.
- meric 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    There is a cost to playing, there is a cost to not playing; welcome to reality. At some point we've done so much damage for so long, that there is no real winning move left. Zugzwang.
- ocschwar 10y ago
  Here in Boston, we're paying the dreadful cost of letting Haiti go to hell. SOmetimes, I'm in a cab and the driver's confused about directions, and I HAVE TO SWITCH TO FRENCH! THE HORROR! Seriously, we could let them all in and they'd barely be noticed.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    My point is that a relatively tiny number of people couldn't be stopped, and a much much larger number of people in Europe's case certainly won't be. As you say though, the upside is that most people are just... people; average people. The downside is that it appears Europe is in the process of swinging hard to the Right in denial of reality.
- ebfe 10y ago
  Couldn't they just not take in immigrants? This seems like a false dichotomy.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    How are they going to achieve that? Naval blockade? Shoot on site? Millions and millions of highly motivated people are going to overcame anything short of overwhelming violence.
    - nostromo123 10y ago
      And yet, it will come to that: Europe just cannot take in tens of millions of people in a couple of years. Once the social systems start collapsing, even the unthinkable (armed borders and the like) will become an option. Nice? No. But what's the alternative, committing state-level suicide? That's why the first rule of rescue is ensuring the safety of the rescuer: if the rescuer is down, there's no hope left for the victim. And if Europe goes down, that will not help any migrants, either.
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        Europe doesn't have the money or resources to maintain that for the decades and decades it would take. Resisting the inevitable is suicide, not the other way around. Is it going to be pleasant or easy? No, it's going to be difficult and fraught with upheaval, but it's the result of choices we've all made for decades. Time to pay the piper.
  - nostromo123 10y ago
    Well, that's what the common people in Germany are also asking themselves, but our beloved leaders (Merkel) are pushing the immigration over our heads for "humanitarian" reasons. And when I say "humanitarian", I mean "cheap labor for the industry". Any concerns regarding massive immigration, cultural differences, homeland security, etc. are labelled as xenophobic hate-mongering, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
- clarkmoody 10y ago
  I think you're assuming that I meant not playing the game going forward. But if we hadn't been meddling in the Middle East for 40+ years, then perhaps there wouldn't be the amount of chaos we see now. Any time I hear the phrase "national interest" come out of the mouth of a politician, I roll my eyes. It's usually some thinly-veiled excuse to drop bombs on people. And let's not delude ourselves: the giant social welfare states in Europe and the United States act as magnets for refugees and immigrants. The level of cynicism in the world's leaders is breathtaking. How many leaders said anything along the lines of, "We will take as many refugees as our people are willing to feed, house, and clothe, since the people of this nation are the most generous, loving people on earth"? Not a single one. It's always got to be the job of the State when a politician comes up with an idea. And of course the people get to pay for it through coercive taxation no matter if it's a good idea or not ;-)
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    Maybe that's true, although realistically it's not just the US who played in the Middle East; Europe played in the region for about 150 years, the Soviets had their fun, etc. Besides, a lot of the harm we've done is just making some terrible leaders extremely rich, and well armed. Putting that aside, this would be happening in some form without that, because of climate change. The sad fact is that we're entering a period of increasing global instability, as previously livable regions become unlivable, and visa versa. I can't think of a single reason why some desperate Eritrean (for example) would say to themselves, "Oh no, these people who have been central to that process of climate change don't want me to live with them. I guess I'll just stay here and try to make it work. Maybe I'll starve and die, but hey, it's the law."

There is a cost to not playing the game, as Europe is in the early stages of discovering. Just like there was a cost to the US, to let Haiti go to hell, paid for in immigration. The difference is that Haiti is tiny, and the Middle East and North Africa are huge.

meric 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_...
- M_Grey 10y ago
  There is a cost to playing, there is a cost to not playing; welcome to reality. At some point we've done so much damage for so long, that there is no real winning move left. Zugzwang.
ocschwar 10y ago
Here in Boston, we're paying the dreadful cost of letting Haiti go to hell. SOmetimes, I'm in a cab and the driver's confused about directions, and I HAVE TO SWITCH TO FRENCH! THE HORROR! Seriously, we could let them all in and they'd barely be noticed.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  My point is that a relatively tiny number of people couldn't be stopped, and a much much larger number of people in Europe's case certainly won't be. As you say though, the upside is that most people are just... people; average people. The downside is that it appears Europe is in the process of swinging hard to the Right in denial of reality.
ebfe 10y ago
Couldn't they just not take in immigrants? This seems like a false dichotomy.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  How are they going to achieve that? Naval blockade? Shoot on site? Millions and millions of highly motivated people are going to overcame anything short of overwhelming violence.
  - nostromo123 10y ago
    And yet, it will come to that: Europe just cannot take in tens of millions of people in a couple of years. Once the social systems start collapsing, even the unthinkable (armed borders and the like) will become an option. Nice? No. But what's the alternative, committing state-level suicide? That's why the first rule of rescue is ensuring the safety of the rescuer: if the rescuer is down, there's no hope left for the victim. And if Europe goes down, that will not help any migrants, either.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      Europe doesn't have the money or resources to maintain that for the decades and decades it would take. Resisting the inevitable is suicide, not the other way around. Is it going to be pleasant or easy? No, it's going to be difficult and fraught with upheaval, but it's the result of choices we've all made for decades. Time to pay the piper.
- nostromo123 10y ago
  Well, that's what the common people in Germany are also asking themselves, but our beloved leaders (Merkel) are pushing the immigration over our heads for "humanitarian" reasons. And when I say "humanitarian", I mean "cheap labor for the industry". Any concerns regarding massive immigration, cultural differences, homeland security, etc. are labelled as xenophobic hate-mongering, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
clarkmoody 10y ago
I think you're assuming that I meant not playing the game going forward. But if we hadn't been meddling in the Middle East for 40+ years, then perhaps there wouldn't be the amount of chaos we see now. Any time I hear the phrase "national interest" come out of the mouth of a politician, I roll my eyes. It's usually some thinly-veiled excuse to drop bombs on people. And let's not delude ourselves: the giant social welfare states in Europe and the United States act as magnets for refugees and immigrants. The level of cynicism in the world's leaders is breathtaking. How many leaders said anything along the lines of, "We will take as many refugees as our people are willing to feed, house, and clothe, since the people of this nation are the most generous, loving people on earth"? Not a single one. It's always got to be the job of the State when a politician comes up with an idea. And of course the people get to pay for it through coercive taxation no matter if it's a good idea or not ;-)
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Maybe that's true, although realistically it's not just the US who played in the Middle East; Europe played in the region for about 150 years, the Soviets had their fun, etc. Besides, a lot of the harm we've done is just making some terrible leaders extremely rich, and well armed. Putting that aside, this would be happening in some form without that, because of climate change. The sad fact is that we're entering a period of increasing global instability, as previously livable regions become unlivable, and visa versa. I can't think of a single reason why some desperate Eritrean (for example) would say to themselves, "Oh no, these people who have been central to that process of climate change don't want me to live with them. I guess I'll just stay here and try to make it work. Maybe I'll starve and die, but hey, it's the law."