Posted on 06/17/2014 8:57:42 AM PDT by xzins
America's involvement in foreign wars Doug Bandow foreign policy George W. Bush Iran Iraq Middle East Syria US military War
KILIS, TURKEY—Syria’s civil war has washed over Turkey’s border, flooding the latter with hundreds of thousands of refugees. Washington’s efforts to solve the crisis so far have yielded few positive results.
George W. Bush’s grandest foreign policy “success,” the ouster of Saddam Hussein, is turning into an even more dramatic debacle. Egypt is racing back into Mubarak-style authoritarianism. The outcome of President Barack Obama’s “splendid little war” in Libya continues to unravel.
The region is aflame and U.S. policy bears much of the blame. Washington’s relentless attempt to reorder and reshape complex peoples, distant places, and volatile disputes has backfired spectacularly.
The blame is not limited to Barack Obama. However ineffective his policies, they largely follow those of his predecessors. Moreover, his most vociferous critics were most wrong in the past.
Particularly the neocons, who crafted the Iraq disaster. Their claim that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq would have prevented that nation’s current implosion ignores both history and experience.
Rather than acknowledge their own responsibility for that nation’s implosion, the neocons prefer to blame President Obama, who merely followed the withdrawal schedule established by President George W. Bush. The latter failed to win Baghdad’s agreement for a continuing U.S. force presence before leaving office. Exactly how President Obama could have forced sovereign Iraq to accept a permanent U.S. garrison never has been explained.
Even less clear is how American troops could have created a liberal, democratic, and stable Iraq. Any attempt to impose U.S. wishes would have failed as the Maliki government put its own interests first. Using American forces to fight Baghdad’s battles would have been even worse.
Intervening today would be a cure worse than the disease. Air strikes no less than ground forces would simultaneously entangle the U.S. and increase its stakes in another likely lengthy conflict. Moreover, killing more foreigners in another people’s conflict would make more enemies of America, threatening more terrorist blowback.
In Iraq the Sunni radicals are unlikely to conquer the Shia-majority country. Their success already has mobilized Shiites, and predominantly Shia Iran will ensure Baghdad’s control over at least majority Shiite areas. Ultimately de facto partition may be the most practical solution.
Further American intervention in Syria would be no less foolish. America has no reason to fight over who rules Damascus.
The civil war is destabilizing the region, but American involvement would not impose order. Boots on the ground is inconceivable. Tepid action—no fly zones and increased arms shipments—would be more likely to prolong the conflict than deliver a decisive result.
Moreover, Assad’s ouster likely would trigger a second round of killing directed against regime supporters, such as Alawites and other religious minorities. With multiple parties engaged in the killing, there is no humanitarian option.
Nor does anyone know who would end up controlling what. The assumption that Washington could get just the right arms to just the right opposition forces to ensure emergence of just the right liberal, democratic, pro-Western government of a united Syria is charmingly naive.
If there is a bright spot for the administration, it unexpectedly is Iran, where a negotiated nuclear settlement remains possible. However, the underlying problem is almost entirely of America’s creation. In 1953 the U.S. overthrew the democratically elected prime minister, transferring power to the Shah. He consolidated power and brutalized his people.
In 1978 the angry Iranian people overthrew him. Radical Islamists pushed aside democratic moderates, turning Tehran into America’s number one enemy overnight. Fear of Iranian domination of the Gulf led Washington to back Iraq’s Hussein in his bloody aggressive war against Iran.
After an emboldened Iraq sought to swallow Kuwait, the U.S. attacked the former and deployed troops to Saudi Arabia, which became one of Osama bin Laden’s chief grievances. President Bush invaded Iraq to “drain the swamp,” unleashing sectarian conflict in that country and empowering Islamist Iran—even then feared to be developing nuclear weapons. Now Tehran is sending a rescue mission to save the Iraqi government installed by Washington.
American intervention has broken pottery all over the Middle East. It is time for Washington to stop trying to micromanage the affairs of other nations. And for Washington to practice humility.
This would not be isolationism. America, and especially Americans, should be engaged in the world.
However, the U.S. government’s expectations should be realistic and ambitions should be bounded. American officials should abandon their persistent fantasy of reordering the world.
President Obama’s foreign policy may be feckless. But that’s not its principal failing. As long as Washington attempts to dominate and micromanage the world, Washington will end up harming American interests.
They NEED to be told the truth.
The truth is that as long as they were there, this was successful.
Our troops are the best in the world. They just haven't had leadership that even began to measure up to them.
And let's not beat around the bush...Obama is the worst?
What really makes Obama the worst? That he continues to let our troops die and be maimed in a war that he has no intention of fighting, in a war in which he's tied their hands with rules of engagement that don't really allow them to protect themselves, and in a war where he gives every appearance of coddling and comforting the enemy.
My criticism of this article is not that it is wrong, but that it takes no notice of those who’ve spilled their blood, lost their limbs, and invested their lives all at the call of their nation.
They NEED to be told the truth.
The truth is that as long as they were there, this was successful.
Our troops are the best in the world. They just haven’t had leadership that even began to measure up to them.
And let’s not beat around the bush...Obama is the worst?
What really makes Obama the worst? That he continues to let our troops die and be maimed in a war that he has no intention of fighting, in a war in which he’s tied their hands with rules of engagement that don’t really allow them to protect themselves, and in a war where he gives every appearance of coddling and comforting the enemy.
This nation building crap is and always will be a failure and a criminal waste of American lives and treasure.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it entirely possible to drill for oil through a sheet of glass?
The problem with America isn’t with its troops.
The problem is that America cannot be trusted and is basically schizo.
Furthermore, if she can’t fix herself, then she can’t fix anything else.
Frankly, if I lived in another country, and I saw us coming to save that country, I’d be frightened, because we are bat sh!t crazy collectively speaking.
I know you can drill holes in glass....
The 1953 story annoys me. I’m fed up with ridiculous rationalizations like the 1953 overthrow. We need to overthrow the intellectual elite like bandow who always blame america first.
OK, then - we have a solution to the Middle East problem.
I’m dense this morning, MrB. Probably need more coffee.
You’re gonna have to explain where you’re going with this.
Then America should stop letting them into this country for anything.
It’s old news. I’ll give you that.
Nonetheless, I’m not blaming America when I say we fought this last war the wrong way. A reprisal should be relatively short, it should take out your enemy, and it should reduce the capability of your enemy.
The nation building stuff was an over-reach. That said, GW Bush was my president. I voted for him. He made that decision, so I supported him and our troops. I always pray for their victory.
The problem with our system is that one president gives way to another and old policies get forgotten or set aside.
I blame the leaders.
Sand + H-bomb = GLASS.....................
Put on your green glass filter.
I think he’s suggesting we nuke the whole thing from orbit..just to be sure.
LOL. I am dense this morning.
I kept going glass, oil....glass, oil...
Where’s that coffee?!
Sand + intense heat = glass
See #15 (and take it easy on me...my brain has unannounced down time every now and then...)
It’s simple: pull out but attack a different target every Sept. 11th.
I like the sentiment
In all fairness, even before W. Bush was in office, the Pentagon was realigning for the “war belt” across North Africa, the ME, and southern Asia, figuring for the next 100-200 years, that is where the hottest wars will be.
There were even plans for AFRICOM (Africa Command) that would be in the center of the hurricane. And here’s why.
The intelligence estimates were that the whole belt was tinder dry and ready to explode. With the Khan nuclear weapons scheme fully underway, there was a good chance that it would escalate to a medium sized nuclear war. And yes, that would have directly affected the US.
So like a big dry forest in summer, it was thought that “controlled burns” could reduce the risk. And as far as that goes, they might have been right.
After 9-11, we finally realized that large, well financed and fanatical organizations were trying to destabilize much of the world, so we decided to channel them to concentrating and fighting our soldiers over there, rather than waiting for them to attack us here.
And in pursuit of that goal, we have exterminated an awful lot of such villains, even though many remain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.