General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLets be completely honest here, Obama's foreign policy in the middle east has failed.
I'm not saying he inherited a particularly good situation, in fact he inherited a horrible situation, but the middle east hasn't been this bad in centuries.
A militant Islamic regime controls half of Syria and Iraq. Our allies in the region no longer trust us and won't go along with our initiatives. The nation we spent a decade trying to prop is up is collapsing into utter civil war between Kurds, Shia and Sunnis. Iran and Saudi Arabia seem to be itching to start a shooting war with each other while engaging in endless proxy wars. Oh and now Saudi Arabia is promising to match Iran pound for pound in terms of anything we allow them to keep in the nuclear agreement. We're on the verge of a nuclear arms race in the most unstable region of the world.
To top it all off, we sat back and watched a modern genocide in the form of the slaughter of the Yazidi by ISIS. We continue to lick the boots of the failed Iraqi Shia dictatorship and allow them to starve one of our closest allies, the kurds, of much needed weaponry. That same weaponry is going to the Iraqi shia warlords of Baghdad who then proceed to lose it when their troops run in terror from ISIS.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but when you're the commander and chief the buck really does stop at your desk. By every objective measure our enemies are growing stronger, our allies are doubting us and our influence is fading.
What could Obama have done differently? I'm not entirely sure myself, I do know that what he did didn't work. The region is in absolute flames. Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen are all burning. Millions are being forced into religious bondage by dark age madmen.
Bush royally screwed up the middle east, but right now we've had nearly 7 years of a Democratic commander and chief. In all likelihood we're going to have 9 more years of a Democratic commander and chief. At some point it is up to us to do something about this mess.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)There are around a million extremely pissed of Yazidi who just lived through an attempted genocide. We should be moving hell and earth to get these guys the guns they need to take revenge of ISIS. Not bowing to the interest of a state that is completely dependent on our support while failing on every possible metric to accomplish the goals or govern effectively.
We also need to threaten to not give Iraq so much as a nail until they form an actual unity government between Sunnis and Shia that can legitimately claim to represent all of Iraq.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Of the RPGs?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)And then we will be pissed we armed them, and have to arm the other guys...
I see a pattern.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)And America needs to give a little more attention to the Serenity Prayer:
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
Two things you can't fix are 1) Stupid, and 2) Ancient Middle Eastern tribal hatreds.
brush
(53,782 posts)The Sunnis and the Shia have been at each other's throats since Muhammad died in terms of who was to be his successor.
IMO Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN NOT COMMITTING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TROOPS THERE.
Too some, not putting American lives at risk in Iraq and Syria is somehow a failure.
I say we need to let the Muslims have their religious civil war just as Christianity and Judaism have had their multiple and violent schisms through history.
They have to fix it themselves. Our presence only inflames the situation.
Who are we to back anyway, the Sunnis or the Shia?
Bush/Cheney/Bremer backed the Shia, got rid of the Ba'aths (Sunni), fired their military who reformed as ISIS.
ISIS captured such huge swaths of land so quickly because their leaders are professional solders, the ex- generals and colonels of the fired Iraqi army.
Some successful policy Bush/Cheney had there. I don't blame Obama for not emulating it. We need to get out but some are beating the war drums louder and louder and although he's resisting, we're slowly being drawn back into it.
Guess the warmongers won't be happy until more Americans are dying there.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)truce, the new regime ... same old stuff, and the US is always in the middle of it. I do think this is the worse I can recall. In corporate negotiations we were taught there are times to walk away, there is no solution, you are only making matters worse. That was from a Stanford prof., I think he was right on. Maybe the US needs to go back to school.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)things get even worse forget the role we played in the mess and demand that more gas be poured on the fire. Rinse and repeat until the world is filled with failed states.
It's funny that the OP mentions Libya as a failure. Libya's a warzone right now to a large extent because of this "people are fighting so we need to send weapons and bomb people" mentality.
Make7
(8,543 posts)[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #bfbfbf inset;"]U.S. directly arming Kurds in Iraq
The Obama administration has shipped weapons directly to Kurdish forces battling ISIS militants in northern Iraq and is considering ways to expand the transfer of arms, U.S. officials told CNN.
Shipments have so far come from the CIA, two U.S. officials said.
But discussions are underway inside the administration about whether the Defense Department might get involved.
The Pentagon and the State departments do not sell or transfer weapons to non-state entities, but the administration is looking at whether there is a way around that restriction, one official said.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/11/world/iraq-crisis-u-s-arms/
Kurska
(5,739 posts)We're so terrified of the Kurds getting their justly deserved national homeland that we are throwing them to the wolves. It is sickening to watch.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Take out their own trash. We are depriving them of the pride of fighting for their country and cause. No one interfered with our Civil War.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)winning.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)The South had some victories as well, but in the end....you know the rest.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Wash our hands and say "Welp not our business" as we watch a genocide?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Africa is filled with genocide. No drones, no ground troops. I wish we could solve all the worlds problems but we're barely good at solving domestic problems.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Brilliant plan.
What could possibly go wrong?
You should apply for a job as an Obama adviser.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)You wouldn't be so high and mighty if you watched your brothers get slaughtered and your sisters kidnapped.
Make7
(8,543 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)You're the one who thinks America can solve the problems in the Middle East....problems that have been going on for centuries.
Who's the high and mighty one?
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Turn out so well. Pumping arms into war zones to third parties just puts more gas on the fire.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)to poke the soviets in the eye.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To poke them in the eye. If we run around doing dumb things like that, then nothing gets solved.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)The concept of Kurdistan requires a nice chunk out of Turkey, a U.S. ally.
Once they start getting ambitions on Turkish territory is when the Kurds will go from scrappy underdog to villainous terrorist in the oversimplified and imperial American foreign policy view.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Second largest military in NATO. If their sovereign territory is invaded, we, along with every other NATO nation, are bound by treaty to defend them.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Rule #1: Never get involved in sectarian civil war.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Us telling the middle east how to run their countries is like 10 year olds telling parents how to run their household.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)I fail to see how Obama could have 'succeeded'. There are some genies that can't be put back in the bottle. Bush opened Pandoras box & unleashed the maelstrom which begat Isis.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Mubarak are all good representatives of American values.
Unless we control the outcome, the Middle East is a failed foreign policy?
Obama is responsible for all this? Thank you for the right wing perspective.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)That mess was 100% started by Bush, but Obama didn't really do anything to improve it.
Everyone knows it is Bush's fault. Everyone knows the war was a mistake to begin with (except a few GOP candidates). But that's done...it's in the past. The milk has been spilled. The question now is: What do we do about it now?
Not sure this is like Vietnam where we can just pack up and leave. Iraq is in a strategic area that is very unstable, with very ruthless neighbors, a lot of terrorism and sectarian violence, and ISIS is dying to take control of it all.
So we got a big mess and we don't seem to have any clue on how to clean it up without going to war again. Obama still seems completely clueless on what to do with ISIS.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"Obama is clueless"?
You all are really disconnected from reality, and are expounding right wing propaganda.
I would not expect DUers to go along with this absurdity.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)ISIS keeps getting bigger and bigger. They just took over Ramadi. They are recruiting all over the internet.
Whatever Obama's plan is to counter ISIS....it ain't working.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)It's a lose-lose situation, and I don't think any president can "win" in that region.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)uponit7771
(90,344 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)The middle east is a mess and our allies are floundering and failing to deal with emerging threats. How is that anything besides a failure?
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)or whatever the descendents of European colonialists have decided to call it over the past century, has been in perpetual wars for some 3000 years, with an escalation of discord occurring post 632 AD. It's just so arrogant to somehow pluck out one instant in time during which this young nation decided to plop itself in the middle of the undulating give and take in that area of the world (to grab resources, despite already having enough of its own), and insist on an instant resolution to thousands of years of generational war and revenge. It's just silly.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)This idea the the middle east is some unsolvable knot on which we can have no influence, so why even try, is the silly idea.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)There is a difference between "200 years" and "3000" years. Many of the "ancient" (not "modern" wars involved familial dynasties that tied military might into their search for natural resources. Introduce religion in the midst of that, and now you multiply the issue - notably the current situation of Shia versus Sunni (not unlike Catholic versus Protestant).
Again, to cherry-pick what is a tiny slice of modern time within the depth and breadth of a long period of warring ancient kingdoms and "empires", is just silly.
uponit7771
(90,344 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Bush left office 7 years ago. As badly as bushed messed up the middle east to continue to throw our hands up and claim there is nothing Obama possibly could have done to have made things go any better than absolutely catastrophic is simply untrue.
Two Democratic presidents from now, we will still be talking about Bush? At some point the commander and chief has to be the commander in chief.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It never fails. I watch wingnut sites and the memes can even make it here moments after they first show up in the wingnut-o-sphere.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)Bush did that. Obama supports Kurds, but Congress wont follow through
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Congress had drafted multiple bills to try and arm the Kurds directly. Obama is stone walling them and sending more and more tanks to the Iraqi government that will inevitably fall into the hands of ISIS.
On this one issue, congress is acting more rationally than Obama. What Obama sees in the current Iraqi government that no one else on the planet sees remains an utter mystery to me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Apparently the only airports in Iraq are located in Baghdad, who knew?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)over Iraqi airspace, for which we would need permission; 3) the Kurds have been overrun themselves on several occasions; 4) they almost lost Erbil, the place with the airport where you would recommend flying US transport planes; 5) US transport planes would be sitting ducks for ISIS guys with STA missiles.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)These problems exist only in your head.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)moreover, Germany started arming the kurds AFTER the US did.
And then there's the teeny-tiny question as to which Kurds one would be arming. Presumably, it would be the Kurds who control the airports.
And, at the end of the day, arming the Kurds isn't going to prevent ISIS from taking cities outside Kurdistan.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Recognition of Kurdistan in return for retaking Mosul. If Iraq has a problem with that they we can threaten to stop arm shipments to them all together. It is about bloody time we start asserting ourself in the region.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Hoo boy.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)reality. Like the idea that ISIS was about to take Baghdad.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)I am fairly critical of the guy but he is making the most long sighted decision out of a selection of bad choices. Making the Kurds overly strong will destabilize the region further when (yes, when) they start getting ambitions of taking Kurdish majority territory from Turkey, which is a U.S. ally.
Personally? I would rather have Kurdistan as an ally than Turkey, but from the perspective of Obama preserving U.S.-Turkish relations by disempowering the Kurds is a rational decision from his perspective.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Which they refuse to use to do anything to stop the thousand pound gorilla next door in the form of ISIS.
The KRG isn't going to attack turkey just because they have new tanks and modern machine guns. It will however allow them to retake Mosul.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)But kurdish factions have waged asymmetrical war in Turkey in the past and a powerful state that has been given plenty of resources could easily do that again and with better results.
Even if it is not effective, it would still strain U.S.-Turkish relations that we directly aided a thorn in their side at the very minimum.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Yeah that'll work great.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)What do you think asymmetrical war means, exactly? You do realize that Turkish Kurdistan is some of the most rugged terrain in the middle east, yes?
Spazito
(50,349 posts)The border lines drawn during WWI, 1916 are the reason the Middle East has been and continues to be in turmoil.
Why border lines drawn with a ruler in WW1 still rock the Middle East
By Tarek Osman (@TarekmOsman) Presenter: The Making of the Modern Arab World
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25299553
Foreign intervention in the Middle East began in the 19th century and continues today.
But, hey, let's just dump the responsibility for the mess the Middle East has been and continues to be on Obama's shoulders, easy peasy. Geez.
1939
(1,683 posts)"A Line In The Sand: The Anglo-French Struggle for the Middle East, 1914-1948" by James Barr
A really good read on the origins of the borders, tribes, and movements in the ME which continue to plague us today.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)look to the past, centuries past. The Crusades, French and English colonialism, WWI/WWII just to name a few pivotal periods in time.
Thanks for the referral, I will look for the book, sounds interesting and educational.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)was an excellent treatise and summary of that whole period. A recent interview below:
Spazito
(50,349 posts)renewed my interest in the history of the Middle East.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)in the early '90s, and believe it or not, I think the interview was on the (then) " John) Batchelor and (Paul) Alexander" show on 770 WABC. I immediately went out and bought the book that week. The man was just so fascinating.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)it may have even been part of a documentary done by a show called The Passionate Eye.
I agree, I found him fascinating. I may have read his book but I'm not sure as I try to pass on my books to others who are interested. I need to check it out to see if it was one of the ones that helped increase my understanding of the complexity of the Middle East and the outside influences that have shaped it over time.
BumRushDaShow
(129,053 posts)(and several others) thanks to my trusty shortwave radio! Great interviews.
Spazito
(50,349 posts)CBC News television channel is turned on in my home first thing in the morning and the CBC News website is my home page. I love the BBC documentaries as well, well researched and informative.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Here I thought it was to benefit the US.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)We go through this stupid shit every fucking time we have a new president. "President XXX has failed in the Middle East."
Bullshit.
There is no solving a problem for people who have no desire for a solution.
PERIOD.
Can we stop this endless loop?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)I know you and others will be skeptical, but what the hell, nothing else has worked and getting the fuck out of there has the virtue of having never been tried. Not to mention, it leaves the region free to pursue the freedom we keep trying to cram down their throats....oh, wait. Different kind of freedom. My bad.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,575 posts)the middle east was this bad only 100 years ago...........
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)the fruits of over a hundred years of colonial rule breaking down and there is absolutely nothing a dictator could do about it, much less the elected leader of a complex government.
I'm no expert on the Middle East (who is?) but the only thing that makes sense to me is let the factions fight it out and eventually settle down into some arrangement that they develop themselves.
Borders may be moved, some factions will win some stuff, some will lose some stuff, but the more we interfere the more we give hopeless causes hope the longer the mess will last.
ISIS and the other crazies will burn themselves and become pariahs. Power will drift toward where the people want it to.
It will take time and will be a mess, but the way we've been doing it doesn't seem to work.
MerryBlooms
(11,769 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)none of it can be lain at President Obama's feet. The dick and little boots yes. The republiCONs in congress YES but not Obama. So don't try to rewrite history. You're not talking to a bunch of kids who aren't paying attention or wasn't even born yet
beaglelover
(3,486 posts)soon to be completely out of Afghanistan. About friggin' time. We should just keep our noses out of their business and let them sort it out amongst themselves. I'm 100% against spending another dime of the USA money on that shithole.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)has crumbled, and the cockroaches we couldn't kill in 2005 are back to take advantage of the turmoil. That's really all it is. We either re-invade, and spill American blood while the Iraqis run away, or we do what we're currently doing, trying to help Iraq fight off the menace mostly from the air and with intel/advising. There's really no other options. The Kurds aren't going to fight all over Iraq, they're busy enough defending their own territory. It's funny that people are paying attention to this war again, seemed it went on the backburner for everyone, including the administration, since the last hostage was killed. They even gave up on retaking Mosul. Now they have TWO big cities to take back. Who's running the war now?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)We're out of two wars so it's a win for the USA as far as I'm concerned.
If people in the Middle East can't get along, I don't see it as our problem. I suggest we un-ass the area of operations and let them fight it out. If ISIS gets a navy and approaches our shores, we can nuke them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)quadrature
(2,049 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)and the very same outcome. We had "democracy" in Egypt only to have a military coup and the elected President now on death row. Because you can't end centuries old sectarian wars or force Israel to do the right thing is not the fault of any of our Presidents.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)200,000 dead
8 million internally displaced peoples
.............
are there other potential bad spots
that need encouragement
to turn into disasters?
tabasco
(22,974 posts)not the policeman of the world.
pnwmom
(108,978 posts)Last edited Tue May 19, 2015, 10:25 PM - Edit history (2)
I'm glad he got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and has NOT gotten us into any more wars. I don't expect him to solve a problem in 7 years that has existed for millennia.
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)since they have clearly morphed into isis. We should also stop givng weapons to the Saudis. Quit allowing pro-israelis to dominate our foreign policy and allow the Shia in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran take care of Isis. 90% of the mess would be over.