“The winners were seen as backwards provincials, dangerous social conservatives who wanted to return the country to a mythical, idealised past. Justifying their stance against a democratic result they detested, they created elaborate conspiracy theories involving malicious foreign actors, which invalidated the election results and justified any action necessary to revoke its results.”
Remind you of anyone, say the Guardian, BBC, Independent, the judiciary, the civil service….
Ethniciodo Rodenydo
11 months ago
“The winners were seen as backwards provincials, dangerous social conservatives who wanted to return the country to a mythical, idealised past. Justifying their stance against a democratic result they detested, they created elaborate conspiracy theories involving malicious foreign actors, which invalidated the election results and justified any action necessary to revoke its results.”
Remind you of anyone, say the Guardian, BBC, Independent, the judiciary, the civil service….
Louise Henson
11 months ago
Western liberal democracy was preceded by centuries of cultural and social change. It’s not something that can be successfully imposed on societies that are still closer to the Middle Ages than the present day. It’s less than 100 years since Britain has had a universal franchise, and far less than that in some European countries. You can’t run when you haven’t even learned to walk.
Louise Henson
11 months ago
Western liberal democracy was preceded by centuries of cultural and social change. It’s not something that can be successfully imposed on societies that are still closer to the Middle Ages than the present day. It’s less than 100 years since Britain has had a universal franchise, and far less than that in some European countries. You can’t run when you haven’t even learned to walk.
Steve White
11 months ago
Brave title, pro-neocon narrative content. After offering up great praise of Aris on his previous big essay, I’m going to say this. You can never tell which Aris is going to show up. The brave, truth at any cost, say what is true, and let the chips fall where they may…or, this one.
Yep. Lots of Syria was looted & devastated. This was not done by 1500 Syrian rebels armed by the West. This was done by many thousands of foreign mercenaries & Jihadists entering Syria via Jordan & Turkey. Various non-Syrian Orthodox monks & nuns attested to this, how, in 2011, gunmen with foreign dialects of Arabic had entered into the country. The Turks themselves looted the industrial capital equipment of Aleppo. Also, while Sunni may have disproportionately comprised of the refugees (I don’t know), the West Military Academy published an internet article (still visible, titled Syria’s Sunnis and the Regime’s Resilience) stating Assad would not fall because 65% of his army was Sunni. In short, it appears to be a propaganda non-sense there was a religious civil war in Syria. It appears, based on the reality, it was a covert international war against Syria, which is why since the Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah defeat of ISIS & Al Qaeda, NATO Turkey continues to protect these fighters in Idlib and why Israel regularly bombs Syria via Lebanese airspace. The bottom line is any reasonable person can travel to Syria now as a tourist and participate in the normal Syrian lifestyle. There is no war in mainstream Syria anymore because ISIS & Al Qaeda were expelled & removed by Russia, Syria and their allies.
Btw, does the article mention the USA itself has invaded NE Syria, now occupying the Syrian oil and wheat fields? The USA now is conducting another type of war, depriving Syria of its domestic oil & wheat production, as well as trying to choke Syria with economic sanctions.
Iran played an important role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, but ISIS in Syria was defeated by the multi-ethnic but predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces with US support. Its remnants there are held in check by the SDF. The SDF also guards camps full of ISIS prisoners whose home countries don’t want them back.
Spot on! I was in Syria in the months before the ‘insurrection’. I went everywhere and Sunni, Shia’, Alawi, and Christian ALL said life under the Assads was infinitely preferable to the only two possible alternatives; either no real freedom under an extremist theocracy or continuous political instability. The women told me it was they who stood to lose most.
‘Please stay out of our country. We have seen the effects of your so-called democratic and humanitarian intervention in Iraq and we do not want them here.’
‘Under the Assads I am free to dress as I choose, not as the religious police choose.’
Even while I was there Saudi and US-backed, mainly foreign, ‘freedom fighters’ were already at work.
When I returned and wrote to William Hague saying that the British TV was offering a false picture of how the vast majority of Syrians felt, all I eventually got in reply was, ‘We are assisting our US allies in bringing democracy to Syria.’
And so, yet again, and then again in Afghanistan, Western commercial and political interests trump local sentiment and not only destroy Syria but create, along with other manifestations of the ‘Arab Spring’, a migrant crisis for Europe.
There was always going to be only two possible victors in Syria – those prepared to last the course – Assad or the Extremists. At no point in the saga did Western political leaders accept the Foreign Office, Regional, and Security Service advice from their respective authorities on the region. The goal was to destabilise another country bordering Israel at any cost: what they did not count on was pigeons which came home to roost.
Iran played an important role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, but ISIS in Syria was defeated by the multi-ethnic but predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces with US support. Its remnants there are held in check by the SDF. The SDF also guards camps full of ISIS prisoners whose home countries don’t want them back.
Spot on! I was in Syria in the months before the ‘insurrection’. I went everywhere and Sunni, Shia’, Alawi, and Christian ALL said life under the Assads was infinitely preferable to the only two possible alternatives; either no real freedom under an extremist theocracy or continuous political instability. The women told me it was they who stood to lose most.
‘Please stay out of our country. We have seen the effects of your so-called democratic and humanitarian intervention in Iraq and we do not want them here.’
‘Under the Assads I am free to dress as I choose, not as the religious police choose.’
Even while I was there Saudi and US-backed, mainly foreign, ‘freedom fighters’ were already at work.
When I returned and wrote to William Hague saying that the British TV was offering a false picture of how the vast majority of Syrians felt, all I eventually got in reply was, ‘We are assisting our US allies in bringing democracy to Syria.’
And so, yet again, and then again in Afghanistan, Western commercial and political interests trump local sentiment and not only destroy Syria but create, along with other manifestations of the ‘Arab Spring’, a migrant crisis for Europe.
There was always going to be only two possible victors in Syria – those prepared to last the course – Assad or the Extremists. At no point in the saga did Western political leaders accept the Foreign Office, Regional, and Security Service advice from their respective authorities on the region. The goal was to destabilise another country bordering Israel at any cost: what they did not count on was pigeons which came home to roost.
Yep. Lots of Syria was looted & devastated. This was not done by 1500 Syrian rebels armed by the West. This was done by many thousands of foreign mercenaries & Jihadists entering Syria via Jordan & Turkey. Various non-Syrian Orthodox monks & nuns attested to this, how, in 2011, gunmen with foreign dialects of Arabic had entered into the country. The Turks themselves looted the industrial capital equipment of Aleppo. Also, while Sunni may have disproportionately comprised of the refugees (I don’t know), the West Military Academy published an internet article (still visible, titled Syria’s Sunnis and the Regime’s Resilience) stating Assad would not fall because 65% of his army was Sunni. In short, it appears to be a propaganda non-sense there was a religious civil war in Syria. It appears, based on the reality, it was a covert international war against Syria, which is why since the Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah defeat of ISIS & Al Qaeda, NATO Turkey continues to protect these fighters in Idlib and why Israel regularly bombs Syria via Lebanese airspace. The bottom line is any reasonable person can travel to Syria now as a tourist and participate in the normal Syrian lifestyle. There is no war in mainstream Syria anymore because ISIS & Al Qaeda were expelled & removed by Russia, Syria and their allies.
Btw, does the article mention the USA itself has invaded NE Syria, now occupying the Syrian oil and wheat fields? The USA now is conducting another type of war, depriving Syria of its domestic oil & wheat production, as well as trying to choke Syria with economic sanctions.
Last edited 11 months ago by Nick Nahlous
Steve White
11 months ago
Brave title, pro-neocon narrative content. After offering up great praise of Aris on his previous big essay, I’m going to say this. You can never tell which Aris is going to show up. The brave, truth at any cost, say what is true, and let the chips fall where they may…or, this one.
Max Price
11 months ago
I had trouble taking the article seriously after “The Arab world is not so different to home.” Nobody really wants the backward results from democratic Arab societies. Stable monarchies are probably the best to be hoped for at present. The problem is religious and cultural not political. The Arab world needs its own enlightenment and it will only come internally.
Max Price
11 months ago
I had trouble taking the article seriously after “The Arab world is not so different to home.” Nobody really wants the backward results from democratic Arab societies. Stable monarchies are probably the best to be hoped for at present. The problem is religious and cultural not political. The Arab world needs its own enlightenment and it will only come internally.
Max Price
11 months ago
The problems in the Arab world are religious and cultural not political.
Exactly. Islam’s holy texts, the Quran and the Hadiths, constitute a political doctrine as well as a religious one. And “believers” are taught to see the doctrine as perfect, irrefutable, and therefore in no need of revision (more’s the pity).
Exactly. Islam’s holy texts, the Quran and the Hadiths, constitute a political doctrine as well as a religious one. And “believers” are taught to see the doctrine as perfect, irrefutable, and therefore in no need of revision (more’s the pity).
There was no USA weakness. While unlike in Libya, the covert operation/war in Syria did not succeed in the desired regime change, both the Libyan & Syrian Interventions were extremely successful, utterly devastating & disempowering these two countries. That is all that really matters to the US Foreign Policy. Since the expulsion of groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda to NATO-Turkey held Idlib, Israel bombs Syria regularly, with complete impunity. Syria is basically defenseless. I would guess Syria returned to the Arab League at the behest of Russia; given Russian diplomacy with Arab countries since the start of the Ukraine Military Operation. It was Arab countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, even Hamas, and particularly Qatar, who were said to have imported &/or funded the Jihadi fighters into Syria. While Bashar pulled no punches in his recent Arab League speech, I guess he personally was loathed to return to the Arab League.
There was no USA weakness. While unlike in Libya, the covert operation/war in Syria did not succeed in the desired regime change, both the Libyan & Syrian Interventions were extremely successful, utterly devastating & disempowering these two countries. That is all that really matters to the US Foreign Policy. Since the expulsion of groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda to NATO-Turkey held Idlib, Israel bombs Syria regularly, with complete impunity. Syria is basically defenseless. I would guess Syria returned to the Arab League at the behest of Russia; given Russian diplomacy with Arab countries since the start of the Ukraine Military Operation. It was Arab countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, even Hamas, and particularly Qatar, who were said to have imported &/or funded the Jihadi fighters into Syria. While Bashar pulled no punches in his recent Arab League speech, I guess he personally was loathed to return to the Arab League.
Last edited 11 months ago by Nick Nahlous
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
US Foreign Policy is predicated on the defence of Israel, rather like 12th and 13th century Europe’s was on the ‘Crusader States’.
Will history repeat itself?
Last edited 11 months ago by Charles Stanhope
Andrew F
11 months ago
How strange that author does not mention Obamas “red lines” in Syria?
It was reluctance of Obama to enforce them that persuaded Putin that he can succeed in Syria and elsewhere.
If I recall Israel was not that keen on regime change in Syria.
Better Assad then Iran supported bunch of religious fanatics running Syria.
I agree though that initial support of the West for regime changes in Middle East was terrible idea with terrible long term consequences.
Thinking it was good idea after debacle in Iraq was idiotic.
But since it was done under leadership of Barrack “Saint of woke” Obama, it never gets mentioned.
Andrew F
11 months ago
How strange that author does not mention Obamas “red lines” in Syria?
It was reluctance of Obama to enforce them that persuaded Putin that he can succeed in Syria and elsewhere.
If I recall Israel was not that keen on regime change in Syria.
Better Assad then Iran supported bunch of religious fanatics running Syria.
I agree though that initial support of the West for regime changes in Middle East was terrible idea with terrible long term consequences.
Thinking it was good idea after debacle in Iraq was idiotic.
But since it was done under leadership of Barrack “Saint of woke” Obama, it never gets mentioned.
Charles Hedges
11 months ago
Two issues which are being ignored:the creation of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s and Sunni Islamic Parties in India in the 1940s which rejected western culture, especially emancipation of women and khomeini coming to power in Iran in 1979. Syria and Iraq were run by The Baathist Party which were largely secular arab nationalists. When Grand Ayatollah Khomeini came to power he threatened all Sunni nations whether, republics or monarchies and also inspired Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, the dominant religious group was the Alawites, an offshoot of the Shia version of Islam. The Alawites dominated the Baath Party of Syria and ran a fairly secular nation . The Muslim Brotherhood gained support after defeat of Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and murdered Sadat in 1981. The MB challenged the Baathist Party in Syria resulting in 20,000 of them being murdered by Al Assad senior in the 1980s.
The support of Saudi Arabia for the Afghans in the war with the USSR resulted in many arabs fighting in this conflict and adopting Wahabi version of Islam. It is largely Afghan veterans who returned to Algeria who started the Civil War of the 1990s in this country.
The rise of the Muslim Botherhood/ Wahabi/ Al Quaeda axis threatened Shias, minorities and arabs both Sunni or Christian. Al Quaeda groups formed in Iraq helped already existing Muslim Brotherhood ( Sunni ) fight the largely secular Baathist Party who ran Syria which was dominated by Alawites. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Syria obtained from Shia Iran against a Saudi supported MB/ISIS ( Al Quaeda ) alliance. Saudi support for ISIS may have been an attempt to rid it’s country of Al Quaeda suporters.
The Kurds are Iranians racially but Sunni by religion are are far more secular in outlook than Shia Iranians and Wahabi/MB/ISIS and women had a large measure of freedom compared to other nearby countries.
The slaughter of Christians by ISIS in Iraq persuaded them to support Al Assad in Syria. In Syria, if people did not challenge the Baathist Party they could lead a Christian or secular life which was not possible under MB/ISIS rule.
The USA and Britain had no desire to understand the complexities of Syria which historically we had very few contacts. The USA and Britain also failed to comprehend the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam and between secular middle and upper class Sunni Arabs and the MB/Wahabi/Al Quaeda/ISIS axis which are based on rejection of Western emancipation of women combined with criticism corruption and incompetence of ruling westernised elites. Where Sunni arab countries are ruled by competent largely non corrupt people who understand the moods of the nation: the Wahabi- Salaafi/ MB/ISIS / Al Quaeda axis has minimal power, which is largely in monarchies.
In my view a smart policy for western states would have been to recognise that the values of the Baath party (basically to maintain a secular state) were intrinsically far closer to ours than those of the Arab Spring, and could facilitate the evolution of Syria into a western-oriented society. It should have been possible to support Assad’s secularism and work to detach him from Iran, whereas the policy actually pursued gave Russia a foothold on the Mediterranean.
Russia had a base on the Mediterranean for years. To have any traction with the Baath Party , the West would have had to provide effective military support in defeating Salaafi/MB/ISIS/Al Quaeda I cannot see that could have occurred.I think there is a danger to believe there is an answer to all problems. In the case of Syria, I do not see the West having the expertise, patience or willingness to provide effective military aid in order to achieve a solution.
Russia had a base on the Mediterranean for years. To have any traction with the Baath Party , the West would have had to provide effective military support in defeating Salaafi/MB/ISIS/Al Quaeda I cannot see that could have occurred.I think there is a danger to believe there is an answer to all problems. In the case of Syria, I do not see the West having the expertise, patience or willingness to provide effective military aid in order to achieve a solution.
Very perceptive comment. As I have said elsewhere, the US Administration and its catspaw Blair were never interested in the facts on the ground or local sentiment – despite warnings from their regional experts; and they never planned for the pigeons which came home to roost.
In my view a smart policy for western states would have been to recognise that the values of the Baath party (basically to maintain a secular state) were intrinsically far closer to ours than those of the Arab Spring, and could facilitate the evolution of Syria into a western-oriented society. It should have been possible to support Assad’s secularism and work to detach him from Iran, whereas the policy actually pursued gave Russia a foothold on the Mediterranean.
Very perceptive comment. As I have said elsewhere, the US Administration and its catspaw Blair were never interested in the facts on the ground or local sentiment – despite warnings from their regional experts; and they never planned for the pigeons which came home to roost.
Charles Hedges
11 months ago
Two issues which are being ignored:the creation of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s and Sunni Islamic Parties in India in the 1940s which rejected western culture, especially emancipation of women and khomeini coming to power in Iran in 1979. Syria and Iraq were run by The Baathist Party which were largely secular arab nationalists. When Grand Ayatollah Khomeini came to power he threatened all Sunni nations whether, republics or monarchies and also inspired Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, the dominant religious group was the Alawites, an offshoot of the Shia version of Islam. The Alawites dominated the Baath Party of Syria and ran a fairly secular nation . The Muslim Brotherhood gained support after defeat of Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and murdered Sadat in 1981. The MB challenged the Baathist Party in Syria resulting in 20,000 of them being murdered by Al Assad senior in the 1980s.
The support of Saudi Arabia for the Afghans in the war with the USSR resulted in many arabs fighting in this conflict and adopting Wahabi version of Islam. It is largely Afghan veterans who returned to Algeria who started the Civil War of the 1990s in this country.
The rise of the Muslim Botherhood/ Wahabi/ Al Quaeda axis threatened Shias, minorities and arabs both Sunni or Christian. Al Quaeda groups formed in Iraq helped already existing Muslim Brotherhood ( Sunni ) fight the largely secular Baathist Party who ran Syria which was dominated by Alawites. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Syria obtained from Shia Iran against a Saudi supported MB/ISIS ( Al Quaeda ) alliance. Saudi support for ISIS may have been an attempt to rid it’s country of Al Quaeda suporters.
The Kurds are Iranians racially but Sunni by religion are are far more secular in outlook than Shia Iranians and Wahabi/MB/ISIS and women had a large measure of freedom compared to other nearby countries.
The slaughter of Christians by ISIS in Iraq persuaded them to support Al Assad in Syria. In Syria, if people did not challenge the Baathist Party they could lead a Christian or secular life which was not possible under MB/ISIS rule.
The USA and Britain had no desire to understand the complexities of Syria which historically we had very few contacts. The USA and Britain also failed to comprehend the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam and between secular middle and upper class Sunni Arabs and the MB/Wahabi/Al Quaeda/ISIS axis which are based on rejection of Western emancipation of women combined with criticism corruption and incompetence of ruling westernised elites. Where Sunni arab countries are ruled by competent largely non corrupt people who understand the moods of the nation: the Wahabi- Salaafi/ MB/ISIS / Al Quaeda axis has minimal power, which is largely in monarchies.
Milton Gibbon
11 months ago
Good, long article. Two points I would make. Firstly, Assad has not only secured his regime but more deeply entrenched itself as the guarantor of an independent, plurlistic state.
On the religious aspect one overlooked fact that most commentators didn’t consider at the time and still don’t is the fear of the Sunni majority that Syria was being turned into an Alawite/Shia state. Figures on demographics are notoriously hard to decipher but many sunnis before the war were unhappy about unofficial conversions to shiism (mainstream or alawite) which you could see in Damascus. The uprising which started in the south (sunni and arab funnily enough) was fuelled along sectarian lines – sunnis vs the rest.
Second, what we let happen in Egypt was a disgrace and doomed the possible spring. The Morsi government was failing already, incompetent and unpopular. By promoting a coup we didn’t give people (in the Middle East and further afield) a chance to see islamism fail on its own terms. The Muslim Bortherhood in Egypt were the poster child for restrained, accomodating islamism. By strangling them in their cradle it only made the violent, uncompromising strain more appealing and the only alternative if you were of that bent. It will be viewed in 100yrs as worse than the decision to go into Afghanistan (though maybe not Iraq).
Last edited 11 months ago by Milton Gibbon
Milton Gibbon
11 months ago
Good, long article. Two points I would make. Firstly, Assad has not only secured his regime but more deeply entrenched itself as the guarantor of an independent, plurlistic state.
On the religious aspect one overlooked fact that most commentators didn’t consider at the time and still don’t is the fear of the Sunni majority that Syria was being turned into an Alawite/Shia state. Figures on demographics are notoriously hard to decipher but many sunnis before the war were unhappy about unofficial conversions to shiism (mainstream or alawite) which you could see in Damascus. The uprising which started in the south (sunni and arab funnily enough) was fuelled along sectarian lines – sunnis vs the rest.
Second, what we let happen in Egypt was a disgrace and doomed the possible spring. The Morsi government was failing already, incompetent and unpopular. By promoting a coup we didn’t give people (in the Middle East and further afield) a chance to see islamism fail on its own terms. The Muslim Bortherhood in Egypt were the poster child for restrained, accomodating islamism. By strangling them in their cradle it only made the violent, uncompromising strain more appealing and the only alternative if you were of that bent. It will be viewed in 100yrs as worse than the decision to go into Afghanistan (though maybe not Iraq).
Last edited 11 months ago by Milton Gibbon
John Tumilty
11 months ago
I am not convinced its US weakness. US is now energy independent so does not need to control that part of the world in the same way. However US is still the dominant military power and will protect its key interests.
I think Putin mistook the US’s disinterest and is now paying the price. The US will step in and win when its key allies and/or interests are threatened. The Eastern border of Europe is still a key interest.
I think “dominant” and “win” need definition. The USA’s overseas expeditions have a poor track record, neither dominating or winning.
Trillions spent invading and occupying Afghanistan has left that country in the strategic orbit of China, and has left Western influence in Pakistan more marginalised than ever.
The failures in Iraq, Syria and Libya have emboldened Iran and seen Saudi Arabia officially begin decoupling from the USA.
For all the countless operations in Central and South America, the USA has failed to cultivate a strong ally that can contribute to US hegemon abroad as part of NATO.
The USA’s self interested capture of European energy markets has only served to quicken the industrial and economic demise of NATO countries, America’s closest strategic military alliance.
And the most key interest of all, defending the dollar’s global reserve status, has been undermined by the USA’s poor preparation and decision making in Ukraine. The grab of Russian assets and botched attempt at cutting trading has only expedited the global demand for dollar alternatives, most notably Saudi Arabia.
The stock answer from those who defend this and previous US administrations is the Middle East is no longer so strategic thanks to its energy independence, South America isn’t globally significant, Europe is old and finished, and Africa is too poor to matter. That’s 4/5th of the world the USA has given up protecting its interests.
Having 300 million Americans peacefully spending over 100% of their incomes on goods and services, re-electing the same crooked politicians over and over, while slowly growing the size and scope of the government bureaucracy is an example of competence.
‘They’ managed to persuade ‘us’ to send ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles to the Ukraine, and thus put our good selves at the top of Mr Putin’s hit list. Bravo!
Having 300 million Americans peacefully spending over 100% of their incomes on goods and services, re-electing the same crooked politicians over and over, while slowly growing the size and scope of the government bureaucracy is an example of competence.
‘They’ managed to persuade ‘us’ to send ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles to the Ukraine, and thus put our good selves at the top of Mr Putin’s hit list. Bravo!
Actually, I believe it is! ..or at least that one begets the other.. if enough countries get sufficiently pissed off with the US, and grow a pair they may form an alternative reserve currency.. we’re well past the trickle phase, into the flow, and may well see a flood of anti US from the BRICS+ with support from awakened, post colonial African and Asian States; and even South America (Brazil well advanced already within its BRICS home). How long before we see a BRICS+ army as a rival to NATO? If we’re smart we’ll move away from a losing USA and embrace an emerging BRICS+.
For now it seems we’re far too stupid with idiots like Sunak and Von derLayen backing a losing horse. Maybe Macron is smarter? Let’s hope so.
I don’t wish the USA to be weak. Questioning some obviously awful policy choices made by the USA isnt the same as supporting the enemies of the USA.
You don’t answer the points made:
– How can American interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria be described as competent defences of American interests when they demonstrably damaged American interests?
– How is scaring unaligned countries and allied countries such as Saudi from using the dollar a defence of American interests when it undermines the very thing that makes the dollar the world’s reserve currency?
Actually, I believe it is! ..or at least that one begets the other.. if enough countries get sufficiently pissed off with the US, and grow a pair they may form an alternative reserve currency.. we’re well past the trickle phase, into the flow, and may well see a flood of anti US from the BRICS+ with support from awakened, post colonial African and Asian States; and even South America (Brazil well advanced already within its BRICS home). How long before we see a BRICS+ army as a rival to NATO? If we’re smart we’ll move away from a losing USA and embrace an emerging BRICS+.
For now it seems we’re far too stupid with idiots like Sunak and Von derLayen backing a losing horse. Maybe Macron is smarter? Let’s hope so.
I don’t wish the USA to be weak. Questioning some obviously awful policy choices made by the USA isnt the same as supporting the enemies of the USA.
You don’t answer the points made:
– How can American interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria be described as competent defences of American interests when they demonstrably damaged American interests?
– How is scaring unaligned countries and allied countries such as Saudi from using the dollar a defence of American interests when it undermines the very thing that makes the dollar the world’s reserve currency?
The trillions ‘spent’ by the US were simply printed with gay abandon so the money doesn’t really matter.. plenty more where that came from! Just look at the debt ceiling circus.. what is it now, $32,000,000,000,000 and it seems it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that the obscenely rich get richer and all other anti US regimes get smashed..
But maybe, just maybe with unrest at home, a dying democracy, hungry and frustrated Americans and crazy politicians the looming de-dollarisation will herald in an end of the US Empire? Will that possibility will come to pass. I recommend each way bets..
Haha! Perhaps the yanks should have let you all become Germans a few decades ago? How quickly some forget. I’m sure the post US world will be nirvana for most Europeans.
Haha! Perhaps the yanks should have let you all become Germans a few decades ago? How quickly some forget. I’m sure the post US world will be nirvana for most Europeans.
The trillions ‘spent’ by the US were simply printed with gay abandon so the money doesn’t really matter.. plenty more where that came from! Just look at the debt ceiling circus.. what is it now, $32,000,000,000,000 and it seems it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that the obscenely rich get richer and all other anti US regimes get smashed..
But maybe, just maybe with unrest at home, a dying democracy, hungry and frustrated Americans and crazy politicians the looming de-dollarisation will herald in an end of the US Empire? Will that possibility will come to pass. I recommend each way bets..
I think “dominant” and “win” need definition. The USA’s overseas expeditions have a poor track record, neither dominating or winning.
Trillions spent invading and occupying Afghanistan has left that country in the strategic orbit of China, and has left Western influence in Pakistan more marginalised than ever.
The failures in Iraq, Syria and Libya have emboldened Iran and seen Saudi Arabia officially begin decoupling from the USA.
For all the countless operations in Central and South America, the USA has failed to cultivate a strong ally that can contribute to US hegemon abroad as part of NATO.
The USA’s self interested capture of European energy markets has only served to quicken the industrial and economic demise of NATO countries, America’s closest strategic military alliance.
And the most key interest of all, defending the dollar’s global reserve status, has been undermined by the USA’s poor preparation and decision making in Ukraine. The grab of Russian assets and botched attempt at cutting trading has only expedited the global demand for dollar alternatives, most notably Saudi Arabia.
The stock answer from those who defend this and previous US administrations is the Middle East is no longer so strategic thanks to its energy independence, South America isn’t globally significant, Europe is old and finished, and Africa is too poor to matter. That’s 4/5th of the world the USA has given up protecting its interests.
It’s not borders that interest the US, it’s what’s inside those borders, ie oil and other resources!
John Tumilty
11 months ago
I am not convinced its US weakness. US is now energy independent so does not need to control that part of the world in the same way. However US is still the dominant military power and will protect its key interests.
I think Putin mistook the US’s disinterest and is now paying the price. The US will step in and win when its key allies and/or interests are threatened. The Eastern border of Europe is still a key interest.
“The winners were seen as backwards provincials, dangerous social conservatives who wanted to return the country to a mythical, idealised past. Justifying their stance against a democratic result they detested, they created elaborate conspiracy theories involving malicious foreign actors, which invalidated the election results and justified any action necessary to revoke its results.”
Remind you of anyone, say the Guardian, BBC, Independent, the judiciary, the civil service….
“The winners were seen as backwards provincials, dangerous social conservatives who wanted to return the country to a mythical, idealised past. Justifying their stance against a democratic result they detested, they created elaborate conspiracy theories involving malicious foreign actors, which invalidated the election results and justified any action necessary to revoke its results.”
Remind you of anyone, say the Guardian, BBC, Independent, the judiciary, the civil service….
Western liberal democracy was preceded by centuries of cultural and social change. It’s not something that can be successfully imposed on societies that are still closer to the Middle Ages than the present day. It’s less than 100 years since Britain has had a universal franchise, and far less than that in some European countries. You can’t run when you haven’t even learned to walk.
Western liberal democracy was preceded by centuries of cultural and social change. It’s not something that can be successfully imposed on societies that are still closer to the Middle Ages than the present day. It’s less than 100 years since Britain has had a universal franchise, and far less than that in some European countries. You can’t run when you haven’t even learned to walk.
Brave title, pro-neocon narrative content. After offering up great praise of Aris on his previous big essay, I’m going to say this. You can never tell which Aris is going to show up. The brave, truth at any cost, say what is true, and let the chips fall where they may…or, this one.
Yep. Lots of Syria was looted & devastated. This was not done by 1500 Syrian rebels armed by the West. This was done by many thousands of foreign mercenaries & Jihadists entering Syria via Jordan & Turkey. Various non-Syrian Orthodox monks & nuns attested to this, how, in 2011, gunmen with foreign dialects of Arabic had entered into the country. The Turks themselves looted the industrial capital equipment of Aleppo. Also, while Sunni may have disproportionately comprised of the refugees (I don’t know), the West Military Academy published an internet article (still visible, titled Syria’s Sunnis and the Regime’s Resilience) stating Assad would not fall because 65% of his army was Sunni. In short, it appears to be a propaganda non-sense there was a religious civil war in Syria. It appears, based on the reality, it was a covert international war against Syria, which is why since the Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah defeat of ISIS & Al Qaeda, NATO Turkey continues to protect these fighters in Idlib and why Israel regularly bombs Syria via Lebanese airspace. The bottom line is any reasonable person can travel to Syria now as a tourist and participate in the normal Syrian lifestyle. There is no war in mainstream Syria anymore because ISIS & Al Qaeda were expelled & removed by Russia, Syria and their allies.
Btw, does the article mention the USA itself has invaded NE Syria, now occupying the Syrian oil and wheat fields? The USA now is conducting another type of war, depriving Syria of its domestic oil & wheat production, as well as trying to choke Syria with economic sanctions.
Iran played an important role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, but ISIS in Syria was defeated by the multi-ethnic but predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces with US support. Its remnants there are held in check by the SDF. The SDF also guards camps full of ISIS prisoners whose home countries don’t want them back.
Precisely, and thus a jewel of classical civilisation, the desert city of Palmyra, has been destroyed by a bunch ignorant Philistines.
However at least good old Mr Assad seems to have triumphed at the end of the day, as he richly deserved to.
Spot on! I was in Syria in the months before the ‘insurrection’. I went everywhere and Sunni, Shia’, Alawi, and Christian ALL said life under the Assads was infinitely preferable to the only two possible alternatives; either no real freedom under an extremist theocracy or continuous political instability. The women told me it was they who stood to lose most.
‘Please stay out of our country. We have seen the effects of your so-called democratic and humanitarian intervention in Iraq and we do not want them here.’
‘Under the Assads I am free to dress as I choose, not as the religious police choose.’
Even while I was there Saudi and US-backed, mainly foreign, ‘freedom fighters’ were already at work.
When I returned and wrote to William Hague saying that the British TV was offering a false picture of how the vast majority of Syrians felt, all I eventually got in reply was, ‘We are assisting our US allies in bringing democracy to Syria.’
And so, yet again, and then again in Afghanistan, Western commercial and political interests trump local sentiment and not only destroy Syria but create, along with other manifestations of the ‘Arab Spring’, a migrant crisis for Europe.
There was always going to be only two possible victors in Syria – those prepared to last the course – Assad or the Extremists. At no point in the saga did Western political leaders accept the Foreign Office, Regional, and Security Service advice from their respective authorities on the region. The goal was to destabilise another country bordering Israel at any cost: what they did not count on was pigeons which came home to roost.
Iran played an important role in the defeat of ISIS in Iraq, but ISIS in Syria was defeated by the multi-ethnic but predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces with US support. Its remnants there are held in check by the SDF. The SDF also guards camps full of ISIS prisoners whose home countries don’t want them back.
Precisely, and thus a jewel of classical civilisation, the desert city of Palmyra, has been destroyed by a bunch ignorant Philistines.
However at least good old Mr Assad seems to have triumphed at the end of the day, as he richly deserved to.
Spot on! I was in Syria in the months before the ‘insurrection’. I went everywhere and Sunni, Shia’, Alawi, and Christian ALL said life under the Assads was infinitely preferable to the only two possible alternatives; either no real freedom under an extremist theocracy or continuous political instability. The women told me it was they who stood to lose most.
‘Please stay out of our country. We have seen the effects of your so-called democratic and humanitarian intervention in Iraq and we do not want them here.’
‘Under the Assads I am free to dress as I choose, not as the religious police choose.’
Even while I was there Saudi and US-backed, mainly foreign, ‘freedom fighters’ were already at work.
When I returned and wrote to William Hague saying that the British TV was offering a false picture of how the vast majority of Syrians felt, all I eventually got in reply was, ‘We are assisting our US allies in bringing democracy to Syria.’
And so, yet again, and then again in Afghanistan, Western commercial and political interests trump local sentiment and not only destroy Syria but create, along with other manifestations of the ‘Arab Spring’, a migrant crisis for Europe.
There was always going to be only two possible victors in Syria – those prepared to last the course – Assad or the Extremists. At no point in the saga did Western political leaders accept the Foreign Office, Regional, and Security Service advice from their respective authorities on the region. The goal was to destabilise another country bordering Israel at any cost: what they did not count on was pigeons which came home to roost.
Yep. Lots of Syria was looted & devastated. This was not done by 1500 Syrian rebels armed by the West. This was done by many thousands of foreign mercenaries & Jihadists entering Syria via Jordan & Turkey. Various non-Syrian Orthodox monks & nuns attested to this, how, in 2011, gunmen with foreign dialects of Arabic had entered into the country. The Turks themselves looted the industrial capital equipment of Aleppo. Also, while Sunni may have disproportionately comprised of the refugees (I don’t know), the West Military Academy published an internet article (still visible, titled Syria’s Sunnis and the Regime’s Resilience) stating Assad would not fall because 65% of his army was Sunni. In short, it appears to be a propaganda non-sense there was a religious civil war in Syria. It appears, based on the reality, it was a covert international war against Syria, which is why since the Syrian-Russian-Iranian-Hezbollah defeat of ISIS & Al Qaeda, NATO Turkey continues to protect these fighters in Idlib and why Israel regularly bombs Syria via Lebanese airspace. The bottom line is any reasonable person can travel to Syria now as a tourist and participate in the normal Syrian lifestyle. There is no war in mainstream Syria anymore because ISIS & Al Qaeda were expelled & removed by Russia, Syria and their allies.
Btw, does the article mention the USA itself has invaded NE Syria, now occupying the Syrian oil and wheat fields? The USA now is conducting another type of war, depriving Syria of its domestic oil & wheat production, as well as trying to choke Syria with economic sanctions.
Brave title, pro-neocon narrative content. After offering up great praise of Aris on his previous big essay, I’m going to say this. You can never tell which Aris is going to show up. The brave, truth at any cost, say what is true, and let the chips fall where they may…or, this one.
I had trouble taking the article seriously after “The Arab world is not so different to home.” Nobody really wants the backward results from democratic Arab societies. Stable monarchies are probably the best to be hoped for at present. The problem is religious and cultural not political. The Arab world needs its own enlightenment and it will only come internally.
I had trouble taking the article seriously after “The Arab world is not so different to home.” Nobody really wants the backward results from democratic Arab societies. Stable monarchies are probably the best to be hoped for at present. The problem is religious and cultural not political. The Arab world needs its own enlightenment and it will only come internally.
The problems in the Arab world are religious and cultural not political.
You say that as if politics is not downstream of religion and culture, you can’t ignore average IQ either
But their religion is their politics. The two are one and the same.
Exactly. Islam’s holy texts, the Quran and the Hadiths, constitute a political doctrine as well as a religious one. And “believers” are taught to see the doctrine as perfect, irrefutable, and therefore in no need of revision (more’s the pity).
Exactly. Islam’s holy texts, the Quran and the Hadiths, constitute a political doctrine as well as a religious one. And “believers” are taught to see the doctrine as perfect, irrefutable, and therefore in no need of revision (more’s the pity).
You say that as if politics is not downstream of religion and culture, you can’t ignore average IQ either
But their religion is their politics. The two are one and the same.
The problems in the Arab world are religious and cultural not political.
US Foreign Policy is predicated on the defence of Israel, rather like 12th and 13th century Europe’s was on the ‘Crusader States’.
Will history repeat itself?
There was no USA weakness. While unlike in Libya, the covert operation/war in Syria did not succeed in the desired regime change, both the Libyan & Syrian Interventions were extremely successful, utterly devastating & disempowering these two countries. That is all that really matters to the US Foreign Policy. Since the expulsion of groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda to NATO-Turkey held Idlib, Israel bombs Syria regularly, with complete impunity. Syria is basically defenseless. I would guess Syria returned to the Arab League at the behest of Russia; given Russian diplomacy with Arab countries since the start of the Ukraine Military Operation. It was Arab countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, even Hamas, and particularly Qatar, who were said to have imported &/or funded the Jihadi fighters into Syria. While Bashar pulled no punches in his recent Arab League speech, I guess he personally was loathed to return to the Arab League.
There was no USA weakness. While unlike in Libya, the covert operation/war in Syria did not succeed in the desired regime change, both the Libyan & Syrian Interventions were extremely successful, utterly devastating & disempowering these two countries. That is all that really matters to the US Foreign Policy. Since the expulsion of groups such as ISIS & Al Qaeda to NATO-Turkey held Idlib, Israel bombs Syria regularly, with complete impunity. Syria is basically defenseless. I would guess Syria returned to the Arab League at the behest of Russia; given Russian diplomacy with Arab countries since the start of the Ukraine Military Operation. It was Arab countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, even Hamas, and particularly Qatar, who were said to have imported &/or funded the Jihadi fighters into Syria. While Bashar pulled no punches in his recent Arab League speech, I guess he personally was loathed to return to the Arab League.
US Foreign Policy is predicated on the defence of Israel, rather like 12th and 13th century Europe’s was on the ‘Crusader States’.
Will history repeat itself?
How strange that author does not mention Obamas “red lines” in Syria?
It was reluctance of Obama to enforce them that persuaded Putin that he can succeed in Syria and elsewhere.
If I recall Israel was not that keen on regime change in Syria.
Better Assad then Iran supported bunch of religious fanatics running Syria.
I agree though that initial support of the West for regime changes in Middle East was terrible idea with terrible long term consequences.
Thinking it was good idea after debacle in Iraq was idiotic.
But since it was done under leadership of Barrack “Saint of woke” Obama, it never gets mentioned.
How strange that author does not mention Obamas “red lines” in Syria?
It was reluctance of Obama to enforce them that persuaded Putin that he can succeed in Syria and elsewhere.
If I recall Israel was not that keen on regime change in Syria.
Better Assad then Iran supported bunch of religious fanatics running Syria.
I agree though that initial support of the West for regime changes in Middle East was terrible idea with terrible long term consequences.
Thinking it was good idea after debacle in Iraq was idiotic.
But since it was done under leadership of Barrack “Saint of woke” Obama, it never gets mentioned.
Two issues which are being ignored:the creation of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s and Sunni Islamic Parties in India in the 1940s which rejected western culture, especially emancipation of women and khomeini coming to power in Iran in 1979. Syria and Iraq were run by The Baathist Party which were largely secular arab nationalists. When Grand Ayatollah Khomeini came to power he threatened all Sunni nations whether, republics or monarchies and also inspired Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, the dominant religious group was the Alawites, an offshoot of the Shia version of Islam. The Alawites dominated the Baath Party of Syria and ran a fairly secular nation . The Muslim Brotherhood gained support after defeat of Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and murdered Sadat in 1981. The MB challenged the Baathist Party in Syria resulting in 20,000 of them being murdered by Al Assad senior in the 1980s.
The support of Saudi Arabia for the Afghans in the war with the USSR resulted in many arabs fighting in this conflict and adopting Wahabi version of Islam. It is largely Afghan veterans who returned to Algeria who started the Civil War of the 1990s in this country.
The rise of the Muslim Botherhood/ Wahabi/ Al Quaeda axis threatened Shias, minorities and arabs both Sunni or Christian. Al Quaeda groups formed in Iraq helped already existing Muslim Brotherhood ( Sunni ) fight the largely secular Baathist Party who ran Syria which was dominated by Alawites. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Syria obtained from Shia Iran against a Saudi supported MB/ISIS ( Al Quaeda ) alliance. Saudi support for ISIS may have been an attempt to rid it’s country of Al Quaeda suporters.
The Kurds are Iranians racially but Sunni by religion are are far more secular in outlook than Shia Iranians and Wahabi/MB/ISIS and women had a large measure of freedom compared to other nearby countries.
The slaughter of Christians by ISIS in Iraq persuaded them to support Al Assad in Syria. In Syria, if people did not challenge the Baathist Party they could lead a Christian or secular life which was not possible under MB/ISIS rule.
The USA and Britain had no desire to understand the complexities of Syria which historically we had very few contacts. The USA and Britain also failed to comprehend the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam and between secular middle and upper class Sunni Arabs and the MB/Wahabi/Al Quaeda/ISIS axis which are based on rejection of Western emancipation of women combined with criticism corruption and incompetence of ruling westernised elites. Where Sunni arab countries are ruled by competent largely non corrupt people who understand the moods of the nation: the Wahabi- Salaafi/ MB/ISIS / Al Quaeda axis has minimal power, which is largely in monarchies.
In my view a smart policy for western states would have been to recognise that the values of the Baath party (basically to maintain a secular state) were intrinsically far closer to ours than those of the Arab Spring, and could facilitate the evolution of Syria into a western-oriented society. It should have been possible to support Assad’s secularism and work to detach him from Iran, whereas the policy actually pursued gave Russia a foothold on the Mediterranean.
Russia had a base on the Mediterranean for years. To have any traction with the Baath Party , the West would have had to provide effective military support in defeating Salaafi/MB/ISIS/Al Quaeda I cannot see that could have occurred.I think there is a danger to believe there is an answer to all problems. In the case of Syria, I do not see the West having the expertise, patience or willingness to provide effective military aid in order to achieve a solution.
You are absolutely bang on with this comment. Unfortunately the Zionist hawks in the US Administration would have none of it.
Russia had a base on the Mediterranean for years. To have any traction with the Baath Party , the West would have had to provide effective military support in defeating Salaafi/MB/ISIS/Al Quaeda I cannot see that could have occurred.I think there is a danger to believe there is an answer to all problems. In the case of Syria, I do not see the West having the expertise, patience or willingness to provide effective military aid in order to achieve a solution.
You are absolutely bang on with this comment. Unfortunately the Zionist hawks in the US Administration would have none of it.
Very perceptive comment. As I have said elsewhere, the US Administration and its catspaw Blair were never interested in the facts on the ground or local sentiment – despite warnings from their regional experts; and they never planned for the pigeons which came home to roost.
In my view a smart policy for western states would have been to recognise that the values of the Baath party (basically to maintain a secular state) were intrinsically far closer to ours than those of the Arab Spring, and could facilitate the evolution of Syria into a western-oriented society. It should have been possible to support Assad’s secularism and work to detach him from Iran, whereas the policy actually pursued gave Russia a foothold on the Mediterranean.
Very perceptive comment. As I have said elsewhere, the US Administration and its catspaw Blair were never interested in the facts on the ground or local sentiment – despite warnings from their regional experts; and they never planned for the pigeons which came home to roost.
Two issues which are being ignored:the creation of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in the 1920s and Sunni Islamic Parties in India in the 1940s which rejected western culture, especially emancipation of women and khomeini coming to power in Iran in 1979. Syria and Iraq were run by The Baathist Party which were largely secular arab nationalists. When Grand Ayatollah Khomeini came to power he threatened all Sunni nations whether, republics or monarchies and also inspired Muslim Brotherhood.
In Syria, the dominant religious group was the Alawites, an offshoot of the Shia version of Islam. The Alawites dominated the Baath Party of Syria and ran a fairly secular nation . The Muslim Brotherhood gained support after defeat of Egypt and Syria in the 1973 Yom Kippur War and murdered Sadat in 1981. The MB challenged the Baathist Party in Syria resulting in 20,000 of them being murdered by Al Assad senior in the 1980s.
The support of Saudi Arabia for the Afghans in the war with the USSR resulted in many arabs fighting in this conflict and adopting Wahabi version of Islam. It is largely Afghan veterans who returned to Algeria who started the Civil War of the 1990s in this country.
The rise of the Muslim Botherhood/ Wahabi/ Al Quaeda axis threatened Shias, minorities and arabs both Sunni or Christian. Al Quaeda groups formed in Iraq helped already existing Muslim Brotherhood ( Sunni ) fight the largely secular Baathist Party who ran Syria which was dominated by Alawites. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Syria obtained from Shia Iran against a Saudi supported MB/ISIS ( Al Quaeda ) alliance. Saudi support for ISIS may have been an attempt to rid it’s country of Al Quaeda suporters.
The Kurds are Iranians racially but Sunni by religion are are far more secular in outlook than Shia Iranians and Wahabi/MB/ISIS and women had a large measure of freedom compared to other nearby countries.
The slaughter of Christians by ISIS in Iraq persuaded them to support Al Assad in Syria. In Syria, if people did not challenge the Baathist Party they could lead a Christian or secular life which was not possible under MB/ISIS rule.
The USA and Britain had no desire to understand the complexities of Syria which historically we had very few contacts. The USA and Britain also failed to comprehend the conflict between Sunni and Shia Islam and between secular middle and upper class Sunni Arabs and the MB/Wahabi/Al Quaeda/ISIS axis which are based on rejection of Western emancipation of women combined with criticism corruption and incompetence of ruling westernised elites. Where Sunni arab countries are ruled by competent largely non corrupt people who understand the moods of the nation: the Wahabi- Salaafi/ MB/ISIS / Al Quaeda axis has minimal power, which is largely in monarchies.
Good, long article. Two points I would make. Firstly, Assad has not only secured his regime but more deeply entrenched itself as the guarantor of an independent, plurlistic state.
On the religious aspect one overlooked fact that most commentators didn’t consider at the time and still don’t is the fear of the Sunni majority that Syria was being turned into an Alawite/Shia state. Figures on demographics are notoriously hard to decipher but many sunnis before the war were unhappy about unofficial conversions to shiism (mainstream or alawite) which you could see in Damascus. The uprising which started in the south (sunni and arab funnily enough) was fuelled along sectarian lines – sunnis vs the rest.
Second, what we let happen in Egypt was a disgrace and doomed the possible spring. The Morsi government was failing already, incompetent and unpopular. By promoting a coup we didn’t give people (in the Middle East and further afield) a chance to see islamism fail on its own terms. The Muslim Bortherhood in Egypt were the poster child for restrained, accomodating islamism. By strangling them in their cradle it only made the violent, uncompromising strain more appealing and the only alternative if you were of that bent. It will be viewed in 100yrs as worse than the decision to go into Afghanistan (though maybe not Iraq).
Good, long article. Two points I would make. Firstly, Assad has not only secured his regime but more deeply entrenched itself as the guarantor of an independent, plurlistic state.
On the religious aspect one overlooked fact that most commentators didn’t consider at the time and still don’t is the fear of the Sunni majority that Syria was being turned into an Alawite/Shia state. Figures on demographics are notoriously hard to decipher but many sunnis before the war were unhappy about unofficial conversions to shiism (mainstream or alawite) which you could see in Damascus. The uprising which started in the south (sunni and arab funnily enough) was fuelled along sectarian lines – sunnis vs the rest.
Second, what we let happen in Egypt was a disgrace and doomed the possible spring. The Morsi government was failing already, incompetent and unpopular. By promoting a coup we didn’t give people (in the Middle East and further afield) a chance to see islamism fail on its own terms. The Muslim Bortherhood in Egypt were the poster child for restrained, accomodating islamism. By strangling them in their cradle it only made the violent, uncompromising strain more appealing and the only alternative if you were of that bent. It will be viewed in 100yrs as worse than the decision to go into Afghanistan (though maybe not Iraq).
I am not convinced its US weakness. US is now energy independent so does not need to control that part of the world in the same way. However US is still the dominant military power and will protect its key interests.
I think Putin mistook the US’s disinterest and is now paying the price. The US will step in and win when its key allies and/or interests are threatened. The Eastern border of Europe is still a key interest.
I think “dominant” and “win” need definition. The USA’s overseas expeditions have a poor track record, neither dominating or winning.
Trillions spent invading and occupying Afghanistan has left that country in the strategic orbit of China, and has left Western influence in Pakistan more marginalised than ever.
The failures in Iraq, Syria and Libya have emboldened Iran and seen Saudi Arabia officially begin decoupling from the USA.
For all the countless operations in Central and South America, the USA has failed to cultivate a strong ally that can contribute to US hegemon abroad as part of NATO.
The USA’s self interested capture of European energy markets has only served to quicken the industrial and economic demise of NATO countries, America’s closest strategic military alliance.
And the most key interest of all, defending the dollar’s global reserve status, has been undermined by the USA’s poor preparation and decision making in Ukraine. The grab of Russian assets and botched attempt at cutting trading has only expedited the global demand for dollar alternatives, most notably Saudi Arabia.
The stock answer from those who defend this and previous US administrations is the Middle East is no longer so strategic thanks to its energy independence, South America isn’t globally significant, Europe is old and finished, and Africa is too poor to matter. That’s 4/5th of the world the USA has given up protecting its interests.
Wishing the US to be weak and incompetent is not the same as them actually being so.
Can you point to examples of competence, apart from blowing up pipelines
Having 300 million Americans peacefully spending over 100% of their incomes on goods and services, re-electing the same crooked politicians over and over, while slowly growing the size and scope of the government bureaucracy is an example of competence.
‘They’ managed to persuade ‘us’ to send ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles to the Ukraine, and thus put our good selves at the top of Mr Putin’s hit list. Bravo!
Having 300 million Americans peacefully spending over 100% of their incomes on goods and services, re-electing the same crooked politicians over and over, while slowly growing the size and scope of the government bureaucracy is an example of competence.
‘They’ managed to persuade ‘us’ to send ‘Storm Shadow’ cruise missiles to the Ukraine, and thus put our good selves at the top of Mr Putin’s hit list. Bravo!
Actually, I believe it is! ..or at least that one begets the other.. if enough countries get sufficiently pissed off with the US, and grow a pair they may form an alternative reserve currency.. we’re well past the trickle phase, into the flow, and may well see a flood of anti US from the BRICS+ with support from awakened, post colonial African and Asian States; and even South America (Brazil well advanced already within its BRICS home). How long before we see a BRICS+ army as a rival to NATO? If we’re smart we’ll move away from a losing USA and embrace an emerging BRICS+.
For now it seems we’re far too stupid with idiots like Sunak and Von derLayen backing a losing horse. Maybe Macron is smarter? Let’s hope so.
You had better learn another language quickly.
Tut, tut, Mahoney, been on the vino again?
You had better learn another language quickly.
Tut, tut, Mahoney, been on the vino again?
I don’t wish the USA to be weak. Questioning some obviously awful policy choices made by the USA isnt the same as supporting the enemies of the USA.
You don’t answer the points made:
– How can American interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria be described as competent defences of American interests when they demonstrably damaged American interests?
– How is scaring unaligned countries and allied countries such as Saudi from using the dollar a defence of American interests when it undermines the very thing that makes the dollar the world’s reserve currency?
Can you point to examples of competence, apart from blowing up pipelines
Actually, I believe it is! ..or at least that one begets the other.. if enough countries get sufficiently pissed off with the US, and grow a pair they may form an alternative reserve currency.. we’re well past the trickle phase, into the flow, and may well see a flood of anti US from the BRICS+ with support from awakened, post colonial African and Asian States; and even South America (Brazil well advanced already within its BRICS home). How long before we see a BRICS+ army as a rival to NATO? If we’re smart we’ll move away from a losing USA and embrace an emerging BRICS+.
For now it seems we’re far too stupid with idiots like Sunak and Von derLayen backing a losing horse. Maybe Macron is smarter? Let’s hope so.
I don’t wish the USA to be weak. Questioning some obviously awful policy choices made by the USA isnt the same as supporting the enemies of the USA.
You don’t answer the points made:
– How can American interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria be described as competent defences of American interests when they demonstrably damaged American interests?
– How is scaring unaligned countries and allied countries such as Saudi from using the dollar a defence of American interests when it undermines the very thing that makes the dollar the world’s reserve currency?
The trillions ‘spent’ by the US were simply printed with gay abandon so the money doesn’t really matter.. plenty more where that came from! Just look at the debt ceiling circus.. what is it now, $32,000,000,000,000 and it seems it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that the obscenely rich get richer and all other anti US regimes get smashed..
But maybe, just maybe with unrest at home, a dying democracy, hungry and frustrated Americans and crazy politicians the looming de-dollarisation will herald in an end of the US Empire? Will that possibility will come to pass. I recommend each way bets..
Haha! Perhaps the yanks should have let you all become Germans a few decades ago? How quickly some forget. I’m sure the post US world will be nirvana for most Europeans.
Haha! Perhaps the yanks should have let you all become Germans a few decades ago? How quickly some forget. I’m sure the post US world will be nirvana for most Europeans.
Wishing the US to be weak and incompetent is not the same as them actually being so.
The trillions ‘spent’ by the US were simply printed with gay abandon so the money doesn’t really matter.. plenty more where that came from! Just look at the debt ceiling circus.. what is it now, $32,000,000,000,000 and it seems it doesn’t really matter. All that matters is that the obscenely rich get richer and all other anti US regimes get smashed..
But maybe, just maybe with unrest at home, a dying democracy, hungry and frustrated Americans and crazy politicians the looming de-dollarisation will herald in an end of the US Empire? Will that possibility will come to pass. I recommend each way bets..
It’s not borders that interest the US, it’s what’s inside those borders, ie oil and other resources!
I think “dominant” and “win” need definition. The USA’s overseas expeditions have a poor track record, neither dominating or winning.
Trillions spent invading and occupying Afghanistan has left that country in the strategic orbit of China, and has left Western influence in Pakistan more marginalised than ever.
The failures in Iraq, Syria and Libya have emboldened Iran and seen Saudi Arabia officially begin decoupling from the USA.
For all the countless operations in Central and South America, the USA has failed to cultivate a strong ally that can contribute to US hegemon abroad as part of NATO.
The USA’s self interested capture of European energy markets has only served to quicken the industrial and economic demise of NATO countries, America’s closest strategic military alliance.
And the most key interest of all, defending the dollar’s global reserve status, has been undermined by the USA’s poor preparation and decision making in Ukraine. The grab of Russian assets and botched attempt at cutting trading has only expedited the global demand for dollar alternatives, most notably Saudi Arabia.
The stock answer from those who defend this and previous US administrations is the Middle East is no longer so strategic thanks to its energy independence, South America isn’t globally significant, Europe is old and finished, and Africa is too poor to matter. That’s 4/5th of the world the USA has given up protecting its interests.
It’s not borders that interest the US, it’s what’s inside those borders, ie oil and other resources!
I am not convinced its US weakness. US is now energy independent so does not need to control that part of the world in the same way. However US is still the dominant military power and will protect its key interests.
I think Putin mistook the US’s disinterest and is now paying the price. The US will step in and win when its key allies and/or interests are threatened. The Eastern border of Europe is still a key interest.