dagblog - Comments for "How Foreign Policy People Get Things Wrong"

Congressman Charlie Wilson

Beetlejuice — Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:58:10 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy People Get Things Wrong

Congressman Charlie Wilson (R-Tex) was the man behind giving arms to Afgan rebels to fight a proxy war with the Russians. Of course, it was instrumental in empowering bin Laden and opened the doors for the Taliban to take control of the country. But in the short term, we did get what we wanted ... they did an excellent job fighting the Russians for us.

I think the real issue is whomever is controlling the political power in Washington, weaves foreign policy based on their political ideology rather than a national foreign policy agenda that's a compromise of all political factions so it doesn't make knee-jerks turns every 2, 4, 6 or 8 years.

Back in the day, the neocons

moat — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 23:24:12 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy People Get Things Wrong

Back in the day, the neocons talked a lot about how dismantling the "strongman" regimes in the region would ignite a sorting out of differences that was necessary if the place was to ever come up to speed with the integrated world. The process is underway. It is not pretty.

When you start something, it takes on a life of its own. Gelb deserves much credit for the hard reporting he has done over the years. But I think he has started to drink the kool-aid he turned down before. You can't deliberately set things into motion and stop them from moving at same time. Assad will never become a part of what stabilizes Iraq. His place in his time is about a lot more than whether he killed anti-jihadists or not. Gelb knows that better than I ever will. All I can say is WTF.

The above is not an argument to support the hawks who want to put down Assad. It is an argument that foreign policy is not this free adventure where you chase after this and wish for that. It is a process of living with all the other stuff done before.

If one takes as the starting

Elusive Trope — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:18:20 +0000

In reply to How Foreign Policy People Get Things Wrong

If one takes as the starting point the broad question: "what is in America's best interest in the Middle East," then the broad answer is "a stable Middle East which is not hostile to Western interests, politically or economically.

The question that needs to be asked: "is a stable Middle East even possible in the short term?" It seems to me that so much of the banter from all sides is coming from the notion that it is, and if this or that particular approach is used, then one will achieve it. Then the question asked is which side of the hostility towards the West coin this stability lands on."

Obama seems to be coming from the perspective where the answer is that stability in the Middle East is not possible. The old days when dictators could rule for decades without any significant armed threat to their rule are over. But groups such as ISIS cannot control large sections of the map, in part because there enough of the population that don't want to be under the rule of such religious "traditionalists," along with those "strongmen" and their militaries who are not ready to give up power.

Sitting back and watching the various local stakeholders in the Middle East slug it out doesn't seem like a strategy to most pundits whether left or right because we (the US and other Western countries) are not in the driver seat. But for the moment that might be just what we have to do, sticking our finger in here and there from time to time.

Groups like ISIS have as much power as they do in part because there were those who, while not necessarily buying into their agenda, thought ISIS would be help them in their agenda more so than the current status quo. The flipping back and forth in Egypt is a good example of this dynamic. No amount of American involvement would have changed how things have unfolded (except maybe increase anti-Americanism), and it is no more stable than when the Arab Spring began.

In a way it is a kind of cold, Machiavellian approach or strategy. Sit back and wait until the dust settles, then deal with what emerges from the slug fest.