http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/23/opinion/does-obama-have-this-right.html An interesting New York Times opinion piece asks the question if we can ignore the troubles in the Middle East. Obama's efforts not to be entangled, as was Bush, is not working given the refugee problem and the failure to ignore democracies starting in Tunesia and Kurdistan. A link in the first paragraph is to an interesting article appearing in 'The Atlantic's April 2016 issue. That is an expansive look at Obama's foreign policy thinking dating back to his years as an Illinois state senator. While I don't agree with his non-involvement policies and progressive stance, the article offers an introspective look at the man. I believe it leads to a better understanding of his thinking that additionally lends insight to what Hillary is espousing. Depending upon your political views, the information can support the progressive's thinking on foreign policy or provide rationale for those believing we should have an agressive stance in dealing with the likes of IS/ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and terrorist states like Iran and DPRK.
I would be the first person to step up and say US intervention in the Middle East has been a disaster, however I don't think that the answer is simply ignoring them completely, as the terror attacks in Europe have shown that ISIS and the like have no problem bringing the fight to us. I think focusing more on our own problems, and bolstering our security forces is the answer. We need to be more insular right now. If it's good enough for Japan, why not the US?
I think it would be wiser for the US to now focus on bolstering its defences at home in order to be able to counter any possible terror attacks. Truth be told, some of these problems in the Middle East resulted from United Intervention into Iraq and Syria, which mostly have served to increase the level instability in that region. Many of the people in that region have been fighting and backbiting each other for centuries and that's a situation that would be very difficult to tame.
Thanks! This article seems to be pretty interesting. As far as I know, the United States have declared war on terrorism in the wake of 9/11. Damn! It's been almost 15 years. They consider their Congress as the highest legislative body, even higher than the United Nations Security Council. So, that's how they justify all the interventions into that area.
We should definitely be carpet bombing and nuking ISIS, probably even torturing their wives and kids... because you know, that would make them not want to blow us up. I am not saying this as a bleeding heart ´every life is valuable´ thing.. I am saying it to be practical. People have families, People have friends. When we killed 100,000 civilians in Iraq, we created 500,000 people who have reasons to hate us. When bin Laden blew up the WTC, he killed 3000 people and what did we want to do? We got so angry we wanted to completely destroy them. Now reverse that situation.. we killed 100,000 of them. This isn´t religion, this isn´t politics, this is simply revenge. When we carpet bomb them, all we do is create angry family members who are very easily convinced to strap on a suicide vest. We can kill 30,000 ISIS fighters.. and guess what, we create twice as many new ones. The only way we win this is if we make it harder for them to recruit people willing to blow themselves up. Everyone like to talk tough, but it is what is escalating this. ISIS is using Trump for recruitment already. They already have found recruitment tools where Trump talks about torturing the children of Arabs.
While the wears intervention in the middle east hasn't exactly gone to plan, I dint think there's any point now in pointing the finger at who'd to blame. Now isn't the time for sitting back and letting them get on with it either, as actions just lately have shown. I do think now that western countries need to fight fire with fire, and while mistakes gave been made in the past, we need to learn from them, but at the same time put ISIS in its place once and for all.
It is so painful to make a comment on this. I start to write something but I realize the response would be a bit too overwhelming for me. When this happened? The U.S. is not involved in a conflict? Hmm. Interesting point of view and just a simple confirmation that hypocrisy is their middle name. Not only were they involved and are still, but they are also responsible for most of the conflicts and in the middle of the show Hussein Obama gets a Nobel Peace Prize. Unbelievable!
The intervention of the US in the Middle East is long overdue. Obama's hands off approach has failed miserably. Whatever happens in the Middle East will always create a dynamic that will boomerang on the US and its interests. The air campaign should have targeted ISIS and the Assad regime in equal measure in order to prop the moderate and legitimate opposition. With Russian intervention bolstering Assad, it looks like he's going to call the shots for the foreseeable future. I think the best way out is to engineer an implosion within the Assad regime.
