17 ms·

It is very interesting that Yemen may have developed their own missile, or possibly a variation on an Iranian missile which was reverse engineered from a Soviet

It is very interesting that Yemen may have developed their own missile, or possibly a variation on an Iranian missile which was reverse engineered from a Soviet missle. What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. The U.S. has now been at war continuously for 18 years, which is the longest stretch ever. I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war. I felt a small surge of hope when Bolton was canned (or resigned, what does it matter really as long as he's gone), but then Trump tweeted that he was waiting to see what the Saudis want us to do, which is frankly ass backwards. Here's hoping for the end of American soldiers dying in other people's wars in my lifetime, which would make the subject of this article seem like something less than a provocation for yet more strikes by the U.S.

shmerl 7y ago
Figure out what exactly, the spread of IRGC backed fascism in the region? So far they didn't manage to figure it out even with external help. I doubt they'll do it any time soon. Those who actually advocate such approach, are most likely interested in that fascism spreading for whatever ulterior motives.
dmix 7y ago
The second one in a row to promise the US would leave (three if you count terms). I look forward to the next one who promises the same, I'm sure it will be different! Although I find the bipartisan and widespread media backlash that happens every time either tried to be revealing of the greater DC agenda as opposed to what they've found useful to say during campaigning. It's a damned if you do type situation, which is a game politicians don't like playing. Kicking it down the road continues to be the standard political option. Not to mention the middle east will no doubt continue to have a never ending series of incidents to make that option easy to justify.
RandomTisk 7y ago
I'm not so optimistic about what would happen if the US completely packed up and went home. It seems to me that the logical result would be a return to pre-WW1 conditions, except the munitions are much more powerful.
- anarazel 7y ago
  The rise of ISIS certainly suggests that basically just packing up from a military POV may have very significant unintended consequences...
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    Well, ideally you haven't destroyed the relatively stable states in the region before packing up...
donavanm 7y ago
“I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something like Max Boots _The Savage Wars of Peace_. The short of it is that the US has been engaged in near constant active armed conflict since the earliest days of the republic. Post tonkin, and especially the last 2-3 decades, the size and scale of that engagement has certainly turned up. And putting media first (like cnn on the beach during landings in somalia) has changed the public visibility. But we’ve always had men and women dying overseas in service to the country.
- wahern 7y ago
  You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.
wahern 7y ago
> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. Well, that's partly what the Iran nuclear deal was about. While not necessarily intentional, the fact that Iran was free to go about building their conventional weaponry was a feature--it prevented a power vacuum from opening up. You want a detente between the Iranian and Saudi Arabian spheres of power. Power imbalances create instability. Not just because the more powerful will try to grab more resources, but because (as here) the weaker are politically incentivized to antagonize the stronger powers.
- solatic 7y ago
  > Power imbalances create instability Citation needed. Generally accepted wisdom is that power balances create instability (albeit one in which rational players can manage the instability to provide the illusion of stability, if so incentivized), and imbalances create stability (albeit one that is fragile and under threat from asymmetric players). This is a separate issue from the values of fairness, equality, and justice, which are far more concordant, on the surface level, with a balance of power between players, even as they are only secured through the institution of an unbalanced, central power. On a domestic level, a strong federal government provides political stability. Legacy rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which attempt to create a "balance" of power between citizens, result in violence. On an international level, Pax Romana and Pax Americana. Global stability has been worsening with the decline of American power.
  - wahern 7y ago
    Great power imbalances can permit one power to conquer another. But that's not necessarily stability; at best it's a guarantee that you get to write the history. Ask the Uighurs how stable and secure things are for them. Or Ukrainians. Or the lands that Rome conquered as they were being conquered. Do you think the Middle East would be more stable if Saudi Arabia were powerful enough to conquer Iran? Power imbalances are almost by definition how violence arises as it means that forces are out of equilibrium. If you want to avoid all violence, even at the outset, you have to constructively arrange for a balance of powers. It's odd you single out the U.S. because the tripartite (4-part if you include Federalism) structure of American government is renowned for having the foresight to vest powers in distinct branches in a manner designed to maintain a balance through tension. The structure of American government wasn't particularly novel; what was truly novel was the recognition of the utility of constructively leveraging opposing domains of power to build something as sophisticated as a national government.
michaelt 7y ago
> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. If you find that interesting, you might be interested in reading about the withdrawal of colonial forces from Africa. In his book "War, Guns, and Votes" Paul Collier suggests French military interventions in their former colonies have actually been pretty good for the countries; he argues a 'forces-over-the-horizon guarantee' promising foreign troops will show up to support the government during a war reduced the chances of civil war over 5 years from 10% to 3%.
- denton-scratch 7y ago
  Sounds like the promise of foreign troops reduces the chances of civil war, but increases the chances of tyrannical despots. Figures, I suppose.

shmerl 7y ago

Figure out what exactly, the spread of IRGC backed fascism in the region? So far they didn't manage to figure it out even with external help. I doubt they'll do it any time soon. Those who actually advocate such approach, are most likely interested in that fascism spreading for whatever ulterior motives.

dmix 7y ago

The second one in a row to promise the US would leave (three if you count terms). I look forward to the next one who promises the same, I'm sure it will be different! Although I find the bipartisan and widespread media backlash that happens every time either tried to be revealing of the greater DC agenda as opposed to what they've found useful to say during campaigning. It's a damned if you do type situation, which is a game politicians don't like playing. Kicking it down the road continues to be the standard political option. Not to mention the middle east will no doubt continue to have a never ending series of incidents to make that option easy to justify.

RandomTisk 7y ago

I'm not so optimistic about what would happen if the US completely packed up and went home. It seems to me that the logical result would be a return to pre-WW1 conditions, except the munitions are much more powerful.

anarazel 7y ago
The rise of ISIS certainly suggests that basically just packing up from a military POV may have very significant unintended consequences...
- SiempreViernes 7y ago
  Well, ideally you haven't destroyed the relatively stable states in the region before packing up...

donavanm 7y ago

“I'm starting to feel like my generation may be the last American generation to remember a time when we weren't at war.” I suggest taking a look at something like Max Boots _The Savage Wars of Peace_. The short of it is that the US has been engaged in near constant active armed conflict since the earliest days of the republic. Post tonkin, and especially the last 2-3 decades, the size and scale of that engagement has certainly turned up. And putting media first (like cnn on the beach during landings in somalia) has changed the public visibility. But we’ve always had men and women dying overseas in service to the country.

wahern 7y ago
You can say that of any major power throughout the entirety of written history. What distinguishes the United States is a comparative aversion to military adventurism, especially given its means and interests. I think the OP has a point: since 9/11 we've internalized an ethos and logic of security matters that necessitate our perpetually making war in the Middle East. Other than Vietnam, nothing in our history is comparable. I've said it before: President Obama's decision not to invade Syria was one of the most respectable and admirable decisions of any president in our history. He made the correct decision within a political culture that demanded he do the opposite. Every leader domestically, across party lines; all his advisors; and all of America's allies demanded and even attempted to shame him publicly into invading, despite it being obvious and beyond dispute it could not have possibly turned out any better than Iraq; indeed, that it was precipitated by Iraq. And he made the correct decision despite the fact that he had already, unwisely drew a red line committing the U.S. to intervention. Not since Khrushchev and (in the American narrative) JFK has someone proven that kind of leadership--to recognize your mistake and own up to it in the most consequential way possible. Of course, choosing not to invade Syria meant condemning thousands to die. But it was going to be a slaughter either way. The sin of leaving Syrians to their deaths had been committed more than a decade prior, and revisited every time someone demanded more military intervention.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Not to mention Hillary Clinton running away from Secretary of State right before Syria and Iraq blew up in her face. Leaving John Kerry to clean up the mess.

wahern 7y ago

> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. Well, that's partly what the Iran nuclear deal was about. While not necessarily intentional, the fact that Iran was free to go about building their conventional weaponry was a feature--it prevented a power vacuum from opening up. You want a detente between the Iranian and Saudi Arabian spheres of power. Power imbalances create instability. Not just because the more powerful will try to grab more resources, but because (as here) the weaker are politically incentivized to antagonize the stronger powers.

solatic 7y ago
> Power imbalances create instability Citation needed. Generally accepted wisdom is that power balances create instability (albeit one in which rational players can manage the instability to provide the illusion of stability, if so incentivized), and imbalances create stability (albeit one that is fragile and under threat from asymmetric players). This is a separate issue from the values of fairness, equality, and justice, which are far more concordant, on the surface level, with a balance of power between players, even as they are only secured through the institution of an unbalanced, central power. On a domestic level, a strong federal government provides political stability. Legacy rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which attempt to create a "balance" of power between citizens, result in violence. On an international level, Pax Romana and Pax Americana. Global stability has been worsening with the decline of American power.
- wahern 7y ago
  Great power imbalances can permit one power to conquer another. But that's not necessarily stability; at best it's a guarantee that you get to write the history. Ask the Uighurs how stable and secure things are for them. Or Ukrainians. Or the lands that Rome conquered as they were being conquered. Do you think the Middle East would be more stable if Saudi Arabia were powerful enough to conquer Iran? Power imbalances are almost by definition how violence arises as it means that forces are out of equilibrium. If you want to avoid all violence, even at the outset, you have to constructively arrange for a balance of powers. It's odd you single out the U.S. because the tripartite (4-part if you include Federalism) structure of American government is renowned for having the foresight to vest powers in distinct branches in a manner designed to maintain a balance through tension. The structure of American government wasn't particularly novel; what was truly novel was the recognition of the utility of constructively leveraging opposing domains of power to build something as sophisticated as a national government.

michaelt 7y ago

> What would be even more interesting (to me at least) is to see the United States withdraw all our combat personnel from the region and let the players in the region figure it out for themselves. If you find that interesting, you might be interested in reading about the withdrawal of colonial forces from Africa. In his book "War, Guns, and Votes" Paul Collier suggests French military interventions in their former colonies have actually been pretty good for the countries; he argues a 'forces-over-the-horizon guarantee' promising foreign troops will show up to support the government during a war reduced the chances of civil war over 5 years from 10% to 3%.

denton-scratch 7y ago
Sounds like the promise of foreign troops reduces the chances of civil war, but increases the chances of tyrannical despots. Figures, I suppose.