This was clear from the start. Asking Congress for permission was the smartest thing Obama has done as president that I can think of. I don't think as many people missed that as the author of this article suggests. -- That second article was incredible in every way. Thanks. But ... option three, do nothing -- what's the endgame? Where do we draw the line at not meddling? The Middle East? The Far East? Europe? Mexico? At some point, something will happen that requires our involvement for the good of us -- right? Some would argue it's already happening economically with the pipeline and natural gas monopolies. I'm not sure we can afford to let USSR 2.0 become the preeminent power in the world. Do you think that could happen if we abandon the Middle East? I think it's at least possible. I guess what I'm saying is that abandoning the world, while definitely the intelligent thing to do in the short term, has potentially catastrophic longterm consequences. Am I wrong? If I'm right, I see no correct answer to this situation.So why then does our president appear to be beating the drums of war? The simple answer is he is now regarded as a hawkish leader before the US and the world. And he does so without having to fire a shot. He appears wholeheartedly in favor of a strike and is playing the part well. The hawk stands upon his perch without lifting a talon as Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. And during this entire debacle, he even manages to make republicans come out as anti-war; something even no one thought possible only a month ago.
Steven Gaghan interpreted Robert Baer really, really well in this scene right here. There's a world of difference between "abandoning" and "not assuming conservatorship of." The reason we care oh-so-very-much-more about the Middle East than we do about sub-Saharan Africa is that the Middle East has oil. That's it. That's all. Without oil, the Middle East is a bunch of isolationist tribes attempting to lead their lives without any real involvement with the West. Reza Aslan's "How To Win A Cosmic War" points out pretty succinctly that the "Near Enemy" matters far more than the "Far Enemy" where for "Near Enemy" substitute "those fucking Sunnis down the valley" and for "Far Enemy" substitute "The Great Satan The United States of America." One pays lip service to hating on the far enemy while one fights jihad against the near enemy. We have no stakes in the sectarian stuff. However, it allows us to proxy our way to dominance. That simple fact covers the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, if not before. The reason we devote so much attention to Israel is it's a colony. It's an embassy. It's a bunch of Europeans, with European heritage, establishing a toe-hold in a region we know culturally from bible stories (that happens to have LOTS OF OIL). It gives us a position to destabilize the middle east to prevent the return of a Caliphate. Speaking from a purely machiavellian point of view, it is in our best interests to keep the Middle East destabilized and warring. As soon as they unite, we go from "Far Enemy" to "Near Enemy." We will continue to meddle in the Middle East until the sun is a cinder. We will maximize bloodshed and discord. And we will do so for the betterment of the United States of America, because that is the sausage-making of foreign policy. "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down". - Lord Ismay France, England and Russia all did their level best to destabilize the Ottoman Empire for purposes of trade. We now continue to do so for much the same reasons. I'm a firm believer in peace on earth, good will toward men. I've had a subscription to Saudi Aramco World for 8 years now. But I recognize that nobody wants war in the Middle East quite so much as the Middle East and that attempting to pacify it for purely humanitarian purposes is deadly and foolish.
We don't need to meddle in the Middle East for it to be destabilized. And I'm having trouble reconciling our need to "maximize discord" via foreign policy with our need to power our vehicles. I mean, I think you're mostly right -- I just also think there's a bizarre disconnect pretty high up in our government. Our explicit and implicit agendas in the Middle East seem to contradict each other.
Foreign policy is determined by elected officials and carried out by career diplomats and operatives. Even if there was only one of each there would still be a disconnect. Nothing bizarre about it. For any one person there can be several motivations... and we're talking about something as bit as "the West's regard for the East."