OPINION_ A New Game in the Middle East

A New Game in the Middle East

U.S. foreign policy needs some new direction in the hopelessly volatile region.



Editorial cartoon on the Middle East
A New Game in the Middle East

U.S. foreign policy needs some new direction in the hopelessly volatile region.

By Daniel J. Gallington
Aug. 5, 2014 | 10:00 a.m. EDT + More
USnews.com

Last year, I predicted the large-scale political implosions and religion-based struggles in the Middle East. And while I have been reasonably accurate with past such predictions – some more than 10 years ago, and especially concerning Syria – this latest one was right on the money.

OK, mister smart guy, you might say, what’s going to happen now and what should we be doing? Again, because this seems so easy to predict, I have always wondered why we have had such a difficult time doing it, at least from the standpoint of our nation’s official foreign policies.

Because it seems so easy to many of us, and because our State Department gets it so wrong most of the time, I have concluded that two separate effects of political Force majeure motivate our foreign policymakers to most always get it wrong. First, they’re reluctant to tell the truth because it’s so awfully negative, and second, the big and dirty money in the region, on all sides, most with hugely funded lobbies here, won’t let us be so negative. They want to keep us involved and keep us pouring our money into their mostly private coffers – the more the better.

[SEE: Cartoons on the Middle East]

Both political forces work very hard to keep us in the game in the Middle East, or better perhaps, simply to keep our big money on the table, even though the situation there, for most intents and purposes, is and always has been hopeless, and most probably always will be hopeless.

Intrigued by this thesis? Let’s look at these two powerful policy motivational forces more carefully.

First, because the prognosis is so negative, State can’t or won’t tell the truth. Here are the likely influences for that:

Because the Middle East is politically configured as a result of the Western powers drawing Western-style borders post-World War I and the insertion of a Jewish state into the region post-World War II, there is simply no way for the various indigenous tribal and religious cultures to live in any condition, for long, other than a state of war. They are now in the process of redrawing their own borders, especially in Iraq. Recall that we probably could have done this – by establishing three semi-autonomous regions, Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite – when we were there, but chose to implement a “democracy” policy instead. As we learned, there is no chance for real democracy in most any part of the turbulent Middle East. It just won’t happen.

The region is – other than it’s oil resources – virtually worthless in its ability to support most any kind of thriving or productive economy. The exceptions, since the 1950’s, are mostly oil-money driven; however, that money mostly goes directly into the hands of totally corrupt families (royal or otherwise), tribes and corrupt political regimes. In short, they all are politically dirty, always have been and always will be. Until the oil runs out that is, and the moneyed elite move to the south of France, Switzerland or London, where most of them have educated generations of their children and have palatial estates.

[MORE: Cartoons on Syria]

Second, is the influence of big money in Washington. Here’s how that operates, and has since the late 1940’s:

To keep the sad status quo going for as long as possible, the State Department is played like an organ by every Middle East leader, dictator, regime and diplomat, and the name of the tune is “just give us the money.” Any way is OK, but the preferred method for them is simply crates of cash. Next would be the expensive, high-tech military weapons and gear – also free, of course – that operates to keep the latest crooked leader in power as long as possible.

The respective Middle East regimes hire lots of expensive lobbyists in Washington to plead their case for more and more money, and to the extent our aerospace and military equipment producers are beneficiaries of contracts to build them airplanes, tanks and guns, they lobby for these programs as well.

The case for or against Israel is also deeply interwoven into the programmatic aspects of all of our Middle East policy and has been since 1948. And that reality is, at a minimum, often seen as mutually inconsistent with our dealings with the rest of the Middle East regimes, who of course, hate the Israelis and always will. The Israelis, of course, have their own large cadre of policy and program advocates in Washington and advocate that we limit our support to the regimes that hate them – which makes complete sense from their standpoint. At the same time, they attempt, very successfully, to influence our policies toward them and to enhance the military logistic support for them. In fact, because of this, some have argued that they are, indirectly of course, effectively in charge of most of our Middle East policy. Whatever the case, they have gotten used to special treatment from us since they were created, and this works against any other policy or engagement we attempt with most any other Middle East country. In fact, it is this dynamic that seems to be at the root of the current tensions between Israel and the United States. However, the bottom line is that Israel is our long-time ally and our relationship with them is special, and always will be, regardless of the internal political direction of our country.

So, now what - or in other words - what should we do now?

[SEE: Cartoons on Iraq]

Clearly, we need some new basic policies – more like rules – if we are to emerge with any future standing at all for our actions in the Middle East. Here are the core rules that we should apply in our new approach there:

  * Pick the winners: This appears to be (big surprise) moderate Sunnis and the Israelis. I have long argued the Sunni part of this rule.

  * Let them kill each other: I have also long advocated this, provided the fight doesn’t directly threaten us.

  * Take out the leadership of the winner if he poses a threat to us: This will have a positive impact on future leadership selections and policies of local factions.

  * Don’t give money to any one person: This is just plain stupid, unless we are paying for critical insider intelligence and selfless loyalty.

  * No longer bow to the Saudi royal family: The oil connection is drying up and the Saudis know this better than anyone. In fact, the Saudis are very worried about their longer-term economic future and for good reason.

  * Take out Syrian President Bashar Assad: Nothing much is going to change in the Middle East until he and his regime are gone. He is pure evil and a clear terrorist threat to the U.S.

  * Pray for the children: The various radical Middle East religious factions will always kill each other without regard to the international rules of the law of war, or the more formalized law of armed conflict, and have done so for centuries based on their interpretations of the same Islamic texts. Most of these radical factions are trapped in a religious time warp, and are at a stage that most of the rest of the world passed in the 12th century. However, we must also understand that their radical teachings are simply pure evil, and that thousands of young kids born after 9/11 are already indoctrinated to blow themselves up and kill us all, because they have been programmed to believe that we are the "Great Satan." Sorry, but if there is any "Great Satan" in the world, it’s these pseudo-religious and factional terrorist leaders who teach 10-year-olds to blow themselves up and shoot young girls for going to school.

Will these new rules have a positive impact on how we deal with, or in, the Middle East? I think so. However, we really have no choice but to embark on a new path, because our policies so far have only helped sustain the religious-based violence that permeates and paralyses the region. In short, Americans are simply tired of dealing with the Middle East and its tinhorn leaders – and it’s time for structural changes in our approach.

__________

Let them kill each other: I have also long advocated this, provided the fight doesn’t directly threaten us.

What do you think???


Chân thành cám ơn Quý Anh Chị ghé thăm "conbenho Nguyễn Hoài Trang Blog".
Xin được lắng nghe ý kiến chia sẻ của Quý Anh Chị trực tiếp tại Diễn Đàn Paltalk: 1Latdo Tapdoan Vietgian CSVN Phanquoc Bannuoc . 
Kính chúc Sức Khỏe Quý Anh Chị . 



conbenho
Tiểu Muội quantu
Nguyễn Hoài Trang
06082014
___________
Cộng sản Việt Nam là TỘI ÁC
Bao che, dung dưỡng TỘI ÁC là đồng lõa với TỘI ÁC