This is a good thing by the Trump administration. I wish it had more attention during the election.
"Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on stopping “ridiculous endless wars” in the Middle East, took to Twitter last month to announce that American forces currently serving in Afghanistan will be home by Christmas."
Imagine all that money, used instead on our infrastructure instead of propping up wars and enemy of west news broadcasts for the past 19 years.
"The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report."
Pulling out most forces from Afghanistan and Iraq has been tried several times already. It’s how Islamic State managed to establish themselves in the first place. The last pullout from northern Syria apart from betraying the Kurds also allowed hundreds of hardcore IS prisoners to just walk free. So far it’s been counterproductive, but here’s hoping.
One could make the claim that 20 years of US involvement in the Mideast has created unstable power structures that requires perpetual military support to maintain. There’s no guarantee that N more years of additional military involvement will stabilize this power dynamic.
> It’s how Islamic State managed to establish themselves in the first place.
No that was widely credited to the power vacuum created by the United States of America when they publicly hanged the President of Iraq for all the Muslim world to see. [1][2][3]
Serious error of judgement by White House royalty trying to make their ancestors proud. The US gave the Taliban a decade of training, funding and weapons.[4][5][6][7] They gave ISIS the perfect environment for them to grow big and everyone knows it.
It doesn't matter what business you are in, everyone is always trying to create more work for themselves, the military and intelligence services are no exception.
That’s fair as long as we also talk about the constant campaigning for increased military spending and the number of defense industry lobbyists in the administration or why the Secretary of Defense position is empty in the first place.
Still, that alternate universe where we didn’t waste money on two wars of occupation on the other side of the world, didn’t bail out loads of banks and large corporations during the financial crisis and weren’t actively looking to spend more money on unnecessary crap, with the top notch infrastructure minus the enormous cost overruns and CEQA and CEQA-like review processes of the past 20 years, must be pretty nice. Maybe they even kept their Nuclear Arsenal up to date, didn’t kill the F-22 and kept their medical stockpiles in stock and in good condition.
I'm not seeing how that is relevant. There are boots on the ground & bombs in the air. Someone is fronting real resources. There is no possible return on these resources. In fact, the return is negative since the US is taking fairly normal Middle Easterners and presumably making enemies for life.
A situation has been set up that is even worse than borrowing resources to support an unproductive and unsustainable lifestyle. This is borrowing resources to ruin random strangers lives. Those resources could have been used for any inane project and literally everyone is better off.
I’m arguing that not borrowing and spending money on two foreign wars of occupation does not automatically lend itself to permission for borrowing and spending money on something else instead.
I think we are basically in agreement otherwise, unless you want to argue the details.
It got the attention it deserved. He had 4 years and a tweet right before the next election means nothing. Especially with this president. It also didn't get much press that Trump said he was about to release his tax returns.
The US doesn't really need the Middle East any more. North America is now self-sufficient in energy, and that situation improves as more solar and wind go in.
Actually not really the case. The US never really relied on fossil fuel from the Middle East in the last couple decades.
That oil was important for Europe and most of all Japan and China. And that is still the case in many ways. Of course now the US maybe doesn't want China to have cheap oil anymore.
If it was about securing US oil, war in Venezuela and Canada would be far more sensible.
And even then the US didn't need to do anything, everybody would have happily sold the US oil without the need for any kind of war or US troupes of any kind.
The US increase intervention was required because of policy growth, where the US wanted an ever increasing control over these places for things other then oil. Once the Soviet Union was gone, the US started to dream of reshaping the the region and integrating it fully in the the US system.
You say it's about control over the resource, which can be understood as the profit that can be derived from it, but I'd go further and say its just as much about leverage over the regions dependent on that oil or gas.
The US has been vehemently against projects that deliver fossil fuels to Europe by countries that are not its allies, like the Nordstream 2 pipeline or the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. On the other side, Syria has blocked the US-backed Qatar-Turkey pipeline (interestingly drawing gas from the same South Pars/North Dome gas field), sparking US-Syria tensions around 2010.
> If it was about securing US oil, war in Venezuela and Canada would be far more sensible.
Is there not a cold war between US and Venezuela right now (over nationalization of formerly American-owned oil production facilities there), somewhat of a proxy for China to attack us, raging since the second Bush administration? I mean, their nationals factually developed many of the US voting systems (because we're stupid, not because they are stealth) and all we have is political rhetoric that those systems are "the most secure in history" and there is "no evidence of hacking". I think most people here, at least, know that the first order of business for modern computer viruses once they penetrate a system is to get rid of the penetration evidence, neutralize system monitoring capacity and start unwrapping preloaded or downloaded payloads. This all feeds back into what America's government is going to do with respect to domestic oil production over the next four years and how that will affect the world's dependency upon the Middle East and Russia. https://gnews.org/556010/http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/26/c_139467853.htm
I don't see how voting machines are relevant to what you're saying. Are you arguing that there is or isn't a cold war between the US and Venezuela right now?
Votes are the only way the oil policy towards Middle East and Russia will change anytime soon, directly affecting China which supports Venezuela whose not-arms-length nationals created the voting machines.
Sure. But what was the main idea of your comment? You mention something about a cold war with Venezuela, but I don't see how voting machines fit into that idea.
as long as it doesn't get hot, It can be fun actually... some republicans will agree on spending on research if it is about national defense/security...
Last time we got rockets to the moon, and the internet, which was transformational for the whole world. who knows what will be discovered in the next couple of decades in the name of 'defense'.
I left university (hated it, was looking for an out) and enlisted on Thursday, 9/13/2001 (after spending a considerable amount of time talking to my uncle, who served 8 years USMC and ultimately 30 years US Army, my father who spent 8 years with the US Navy, and my brother who was 8 years US Army 10th Mountain Infantry). I was USAF, combat communications. 1 deployment to Afghanistan, 2 to Iraq. I enjoyed my time in, and I wouldn't change anything, but I desperately wanted out when I found myself building pallets for the invasion of Iraq.
> I’m glad the GWOT era is coming to an end and hope we can learn from all the mistakes we made along the way.
Thank you for serving. It is unfortunate that avoidable wars are fought when there very well could be wars in the near to distant future that are not avoidable. With an ever expanding population there will eventually be land disputes which may not have solutions. That’s one of the reasons I really hope we can stop getting caught up in political problems and wasting valuable time on worrying about creating automated income sources and focus our attention on figuring out how to actually live in space
Even after 100 years of the same idiotic logical fallacy the population bomb myth will not die. How many times do these theories have to be shown to be total nonsense before people get it.
Absolutely incredible how we are still dealing with this nonsense.
The free market always creates unsustainable rates of consumption while the resources are still readily available.
But I have a pretty dark view on our global societys future as well with the negative synergies between the climate crisis, the ongoing automation effort for less skilled work and the refugees that will be out of a home with the rising sea levels... Let's just say I'm glad Ill likely be dead before it becomes too much of an issue.
Any evidence for that statement? Since we have modern society, or capitalist markets the world population has doubled over and over again, while overall consumption has actually increased and absolute poverty decreased.
Non of it is unsustainable we have not run out of anything, ironically outside of few renewable resources those can actually run out. Things that used to be worthless rocks are now valuable things. Other things that are now rocks will be valuable in the future. The difference between a resource and dirt is technology, more humans in our system leads to more technology.
In fact, the total amount of resources we have and no about now is probably 1000x more then 100 years ago.
Rising of sea level happens slowly, not in one big wave and can be mitigated in many ways as well. The same goes for climate in general.
Technology has been replacing workers from their job with the same speed for 100s of years, the tractor replaced far more jobs then anything we are inventing now.
But I guess this inherent pessimism counter to all evidence we have about similar predictions over the last 250 years, is somewhat systemic.
I just hope to convince people to not take it as far as the 'population growth is bad' people in the 60s when they said the US shouldn't help India so fewer of them can starve now, rather then more later as mass starvation in India was of course inevitable in their minds. Just one of their many brilliant plans for population control.
It’s just not obvious that it’s meaningful to extrapolate current resource consumption out to forever. People have always adapted their behavior as different resources become more or less available. When some resources become too scarce to be economical, I expect we’ll find alternatives or we’ll find clever ways to do more with less.
The behavior you describe is essentially inertia-driven, only producing change when it becomes inevitable. And it'll be the reason we won't manage to prevent most of the ecological collapse that is already happening.
If we don't behave in a way that's sustainable for an indefinite time, we're living on borrowed time. Sooner or later this debt will catch up. IMO the belief that technological progress will save us is naive. The problem is not technological, it never was, but a matter of priorities.
No one is denying that, but that is missing my point. How is population growth a good thing in the context of sustainability? Improvements in efficiency have generally been more than offset by increased productivity and thus (unsustainable) resource consumption, which is the reason the deterioration of all ecological indicators is accelerating.
What I meant with "matter of priorities" is that we've had the means to stop that trajectory for some time, but it just wasn't and isn't a priority. We've already caused irreparable damage to much of our biosphere. There's positive glimpses here and there but nothing changed fundamentally. I don't see us escaping the Great Filter.
Yes. Even with 10x the amount of consumption based on current technologies. And 100 or 1000x with future technology.
Again, the same argument and question has been made 100s of years and every prediction based on what population growth implies for the future has not just been wrong, but 180 degrees in the wrong direction. At some point you have to ask yourself what you are missing, when repeating the exact same arguments, with literally nothing added.
10x more humans at 10x more the consumption would be a better world then the one we live in now.
The difference between a resource and dirt depends on technology. The amount of energy potential is almost unlimited, considering solar and nuclear power.
I disagree with everything you said except your last paragraph.
Technology is nice but it has yet to lead to a net reduction of our ecological footprint.
The fact that we are unsustainably destroying our biosphere is supported by scientific research and data. If you don't concede that, I don't see a point in even discussing it.
Nothing you are saying about 100s of years ago has any validity in today’s times. There has never been a population this size with the technology we have, thus nothing in history can serve as a valid compare to what lies ahead. I knew eventually I would find someone on here posting mouth dribble they heard from their polisci class.
I have no idea what kind of whack you are reading but the population has already expanded to the point where it has been causing social issues throughout the world. What’s absolutely incredible is how there are always those too stupid to grasp simple mathematical limits.
Afghanistan is the longest war 'undeclared war' in US history. Invaded for one reason destroy AQ (and Osama), and then simply stayed for no real sensible strategic purpose.
The war there will of course not end the country has been consistently at war for 50+ years pretty much. But the US portion of it will end, as the Soviet one did before.
P.S:
Where did you serve in Iraq?
How good was your understanding of Iraq politics back then? How aware were you of the different fraction in Iraqi politics and who was fighting who and why?
That was before all the COIN ideas, so I assume there was little education. Considering you were a Ranger you might have had more insight.
Thanks for sharing. I had a similar timeline--sophomore in high school on 9/11. Joined the Marine Corps in 2006 after college and spent 1yr in Iraq 2009-2010 and 1yr in Afghanistan 2012-2013. I was on embedded transition teams on both deployments, where we lived on operated with the Iraqi Army QRF throughout Iraq and Afghan Border Patrol in Helmand province near the Pakistani border.
There were two distinct moments from my first deployment. One was our team hitting 3 IEDs on one of our first operations and thinking we still had 10 months left. The other was being on a clearing operation, seeing an IED go off and learning of our Iraqi soldiers was killed. I remember feeling my heart break and wondering why we do these things to each other. I'm also glad the wars are coming to an end.
"I’m glad the GWOT era is
coming to an end and hope we
can learn from all the
mistakes we made along the way"
I'm curious about your thoughts on the subject - what do you consider mistakes? What do you think the lessons are? Are there books or other resources that you'd recommend?
The assumption that 'intervention is war' and 'withdrawal' is peace is really short-sighted.
The world is a balance of power, every move changes that dynamic.
Complete American withdrawal in Europe may have seen Putin do what he did in Crimea also in the Baltic states or possibly further, which creates the conditions for the possibility of 'real war' which would draw the US back in anyhow.
The US is the 'lynch pin' of peace between Israel and Egypt, and keeps most the Arab peninsula more or less under wraps. The #1 recipient of foreign aid from the US is Egypt, of course a Muslim country, this surprises a lot of people - it's to keep Isreal/Egypt tensions under wraps. Because they have not had 'hot fighting' in a generation, most of us don't think about that as the 'problem spot' but really it is - if that broke down it would suck the entire region into a bad black hole of fighting.
Without the US to protect House of Saud (and it doesn't need to even fire a bullet for that, just the credible threat of retaliation is enough) and their Sunni neighbours, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be going at each other, and though they don't have plans to 'invade' each other, it would break out into something ugly probably very quickly.
The populists in Egypt (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood) could easily gain power, and their more radical factions would turn 88M people against Israel and that's a real problem, imagine the pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump rallies we see this weekend, but 100x as big, right on the Egypt/Isreal border - maybe neither government wants it, but as soon as 'someone dies' then they are forced to react and it gets swiftly out of hand. If 88M people 'want blood' then war is innevitable.
And Iran's intransigence, though obviously fuelled by the US somewhat - is real.
(Aside from 'total breakdown' of power i.e. E. Syria in which case some radical group like ISIS will take power)
The 'piece on the board' that would 'make the system peaceful' if it were to be removed is point blank Iran, that's obvious.
Yemen, the Gulf, Syria, Shia Iraq, Kurdish lands, and Lebanese instability via Syria ... it's Iran.
The US forces in the M/E right now are not fighting for the most part, this is no longer Gulf War, so the 5th fleet + support is well placed.
There is so much 'inherent instability' there it would fall apart very quickly. The availability of Oil money, concentrated into a few hands of people with personal and ideological vendettas is just too much. (Of course the real 'piece on the board were it to be removed would mean peace' is Oil).
As sad as it is, I feel this is more or less accurate. Unfortunately humans and society as a whole are wired such that we are compelled to form factions and destroy each other. But I guess that's what other animals do anyways
Remember the entire region was under Ottoman power for 500 years, and then WW1/2 and the inability of European powers to wield real influence ... and so you have raging ideologies, clans, Oil, vendettas filling the vacuum.
Frankly it's normal.
We had some very scary moments between Israel and neighbours, but that has subsided.
Now we have 'Iran vs. Everyone' but even that will stay under wraps as long as there are 'real powers' to contain them and there are.
It will take another 100 years but it will settle down.
Much like the Israel/Egypt tensions have faded from the memory of many people, those tensions will fade.
A commenter hinted that it's 'bizarre' that Israel+Saudi have come to terms, it's not bizarre whatsoever it definitely mostly in their mutual self interest.
The 'bizarre' issue is that the benefit of stability in the ME is not nearly so apparent anymore: the world doesn't quite depend on Saudi Arabia so much, and most of the Oil from there goes to China!
The US is 'paying' for Chinese resource protection. That's bizarre.
Hopefully, oil dependence will wane (it's not going away though), and tensions will subside.
And FYI there's a lot of social and civil progress throughout that part of the world, we don't talk about it but the amount of access to education, information, awareness is shocking. The inter-generational divide in the ME is interesting.
Consider MBS murdering a journalist. 25 years ago - no problem. Today? It made the news, which means US politicians 'have to care', and because his hold on power is tenuous, it means repercussions. He probably won't do it again.
Look at Jordan. They are quiet and 'play nice' not for 40 years. Oman is not even on the radar.
The 'odd ingredient' is Iran, because it's hard to see where their endgame is, the regime they have there is inherently unstable.
Unfortunately time has been unkind to US governance and the tail wags the dog. The US is in a bizarre situation where Saudi Arabia and Israel are the key allies, and both states play out their own forms of internal political conflict within the US. Meanwhile the usual mess of sectarian and external stakeholders all vie for position.
The US can’t “pull out”. But we need to figure out what we want post-Trump.
> Complete American withdrawal in Europe may have seen Putin do what he did in Crimea also in the Baltic states or possibly further
Perhaps Europe should pay for their own defense? Crimea and Ukraine aren’t particularly economically successful, but France could certainly stand to save some money on African adventurism and use that budget to shore up their capabilities. Germany, the UK, even Italy — they can and should shoulder more of the burden of protecting themselves against threats. Not sure why the US has to have our troops and money effectively subsidizing European security.
The myth that the EU doesn’t pay for their security is one of those myths that Trump was so desperate to push, because NATO is a threat to his financier Putin, therefore it was a threat to him. He was very adamant about the need to weaken it to please Putin, but in reality they do pay quite a bit.
The EU definitely does not pay for their won security, just because Trump is 'bad' doesn't mean he's wrong.
The EU is a very, very rich place, they have serious military concerns right on their borders, but are both unwiling to make the investment necessary - and - unwilling to 'get along' in a manner such as they can act responsibly and consistently against the threat.
The very fact the US needs to be there - and - underpins/leads NATO is evidence that Europe is not 'doing their own work'.
If Europe was properly paying for their own security, then:
1) There would be 0 question as to the need for the US in Europe. It would be like the need for massive US presence in Canada - nobody thinks that, it's obviously unecessary.
2) There would be 0 concern over border integrity, especially in Baltic states. Again, it would be like concern over 'New Zealand' being invaded - there's no concern there.
That's what 'good security' looks like - it makes one position look secure to the point of any real aggression being unfathomable or crazy.
The Europe should pay more for it's security so we can spend the next ~100 years or so cooling down - eventually the Russians won't want to invade their neighbours.
All good points except the Russian threat, that in my opinion is nonexistent. Crimea was Russian since Katharine the great, it ended up in Ukraine because Krutchev arbitrarly transferred it to Ukraine (it is psaid it was drunk when he signed the transfer). The biggest threat to Europe comes from the Mediterranean.
It’s fairly clear that trump has given up all pretense of protecting American lives, it’s not like he purged the entire military leadership because they knew this was a good idea and he wants to strengthen America. He’s just looking to weaken the country to get revenge for their voting on the way out.
That's a deep and realistic analysis, and Russian trolls attention proves you right.
Unfortunately, Western leaders treat Russia just like Germany in 1936-38, hoping that "this last occupation would finally make dictatorship happy". We all remember how this practice ended in 1939.
As much as I want these wars to end, they should leave it to the Biden administration to figure it out. I'm concerned this is GOP strategy simply trying to gum up the works and cause headaches for the Democrats. Anything they can do to obstruct and then use that to rally uninformed voters in the midterms in 2022 and the next presidential election.
We absolutely lost (and I'm reading this as the US lost the war). There's no question about it.
I'm more curious as to how you can reason that Trump and/or the GOP would not be so vindictive? If Trump had any interest in what's best for the country and its citizens his administration would not be hindering the transition to the new administration. Something similar can be said for the GOP.
From what I've read the transition from Clinton to Bush was shortened due to the issues of the recount in Florida. I don't think any fair-minded individual would argue that the circumstances are similar for the 2020 election.
“CIA briefers faced a difficult situation after the 2000 election, when the country didn't know for some time whether Republican George W Bush or Democrat Al Gore had won.
Bush had received a four-hour CIA briefing in September before the election at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, but he had never seen the President's Daily Brief, which Gore saw daily as vice president.
As their lengthy ballot recount dragged into December, President Bill Clinton authorized intelligence officials to share the so-called PDB with Bush, too."
We still have a Congress that is subservient to Israeli political and security needs, thanks to the Jews and Evangelicals who have legally bribed our representatives into it. So yeah, I think we're going to be fighting wars in the Middle East for a long time to come.
Wow, you mean foreign interests lobby the US Government, I'm so surprised, I was unaware of that! /friendly sarcasm/
Saying that 'Congress is Subservient to a Foreign Power' is completely different than saying 'A Foreign Power has influence in Congress'.
The US gives billions to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in aid, military equipment, and literally by contract guarantees the Sovereignty and power of the House of Saud - so conspiratorial statements that make this about 'one side' or that anyone 'controls congress' are damaging and false.
Acknowledging that the Evangelicals supporting Israel is because they see the Middle East and Israel, in particular, as a gateway/prerequisite to the end times is hardly conspiracy--it's quite well documented.
Yes, but it's more likely a narrative that gained traction because supporting Israel happened to also align with US interests, rather than the cause of that support.
hmmm... neither american nor arab here, but you can't deny that usa spends a lot, I mean billions, on aid to Israel, some less to Egypt. That's not a conspiracy but a fact. The cold war is over. We are much less depended on arab oil right now. What's the excuse now?
Most of that aid has to be spent on US weaponry so it's really a backdoor subsidy for the MIC. Something to keep the fires burning when we're between wars.
"but you can't deny that usa spends a lot, I mean billions, on aid to Israel, "
If someone want to point out that Congress is influenced by others, and to question that, it's fine.
But indicating that 'Congress is Controlled by the Jews' is an anti-semetic trope.
Also: "What's the excuse now?"
The Israeli-Egyptian conflict was not part of 'the Cold War' nor was it about 'Oil' - it's about regional stability among two regional powers - and the Suez Canal.
Keeping Israel and Egypt away from each other keeps others less likely to start a conflict with Israel - and also provides stability for an important economic throughway - the Suez Canal.
Since the US has participated there's been peace. The investments have yielded great dividends.
That said, it's still a powder keg: there are minor bust ups between Muslim Brotherhood and Israeli soldiers etc. at the border, every example has the opportunity to blow up into something much more. Thankfully, the US has a lot of influence in Egypt and can keep things under wraps.
And though the US is less dependent on Oil from Saudi Arabia, it still is to some extent, moreover, keeping the oil flowing is good for the world economy, and much better in those terms than were Saudi Arabia to be taken by China or Russia etc. which is why that pact continues.
The racist and antisemitic part of this comment is assuming jewish control over US affairs. The reality is Israel is a neo-colonial state that acts as a nuclear armed forward operating base in the middle east for the US. Without US arms and funds, Israel's militaristic stance would not be possible. As a Jew, I look forward to the day we can end the wars, end funding of an apartheid regime, stop the mistreatment of Palestinians who live in a blockaded prison city, and the attainment of real democracy in the region for every group without imposing a fake version at the point of a US gun.
I look forward to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq from neocolonial rule. I look forward to a new era when control of oil fields is no longer a matter of geostrategic importance and drilling will incur sanctions by an international body.
Israel does have a powerful lobby. They are not a complete puppet. They do things for our security state, so they can exert leverage. The US establishment also is fine with Israeli lobbying because they want to maintain that relationship as an outpost and a place they can outsource certain intelligence operations to. It's kind of a virtuous cycle that is very much more dependent on US imperialist designs than it is on Israel.
My only issue with your point is the UK and France deserve at least some of the "credit" for Israel's status. I always find it absurd that people think Israel is the top of the pyramid.
edit Upon second reading, I also object to it being seen as just a "forward operating base." For most of history the region has been highly prized as the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean.
> the UK and France deserve at least some of the "credit" for Israel's status
Definitely. I forget France's influence, but the UK literally granted them the territory without regard for the people that lived there already.
> I also object to it being seen as just a "forward operating base." For most of history the region has been highly prized as the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean.
Sorry, I was being too simplistic. It is a very valuable geostrategic asset in many ways.
Is it racist or anti-anglo to criticize evangelical control over US affairs? Why is christian influence over the government fair game but not jewish? Just as not all christians are complicit, neither are all jews. It doesn't mean there aren't jewish forces trying to influence the government.
The difference is stating that the state of Israel (which does not represent all Jews) is trying to influence the government. Evangelical Christians are a subset of Christians that are widely known to be a key voting block for the republican party.
I don't think it's anti-semetic to criticize Israel. The thing NOT to do is imply that Israel (or the Jews) operate the US like a puppet state. The idea that jews secretly control the peoples of the world is a trope from nazi propaganda and so it is important to carefully state criticisms so as to not imply that.
If the US really were a puppet state, it would be fair to say, but in reality it is rather the reverse. It can be difficult to see that because we do not talk about US imperialism and the neo-colonial goals of the US state security apparatus. As I stated in another comment, Israel lobbies the US for favors and often they are granted because our governments wish to maintain a security relationship. It can be sometimes difficult to thread that needle, but it is possible to do in good faith. The Israel lobby does attack people who make criticisms in good faith though... which is permitted because if people saw Israel as an apartheid state, the US would be pressured to terminate our security relationship.
In summary, this is a complex issue. To be honest, Israel's apartheid behavior and militarism is giving fuel to hate by muddying the waters so much. If they would quit that shit, it would make life a lot easier for every honest person trying to talk about these issues.
> operate the US like a puppet state. The idea that jews secretly control the peoples of the world is a trope from nazi propaganda
Woah now this is much further than anyone in this thread has claimed or stated. Fear of social ostracization is not reason enough to avoid discussing the truth. Just pointing out the truth that jews form a "key voting block" and lobbyist group is not an endorsement of any more encompassing and ungrounded theory or judgment against them.
It is bigoted and prejudicial to treat jews differently from christians and muslims, period point blank.
As a Jew, I am sure you know at least some American Jews who put Israeli interests above or at least parallel with American interests, don't you? I'm a first generation immigrant who barely speaks their 'mother' tongue, but I still have a greater affinity for my parent's birth nation than I do for the USA. If I were a billionaire or otherwise influential, I would 100% use that power to further the interests of my mother country, even at the expense of the USA. Jews are just better educated and better organized so they accomplish what I and many other ethnic/religious minorities would undoubtedly attempt in their position. I do not think it is antisemitic to point this out. I would argue its more hypocritical rather than racist of other minorities in the USA to criticize of American Jews over this issue. As for the "native" American Whites, I cannot comment.
While I agree that Israeli politics has an un-heathy amount of representation in the US. And in particular in Congress, calling them subservient is problematic. Believe my I know about the spending they do on congress and what happens to people who run against the policy platform.
And for better or worse, Evangelicals are US citizens and their crazy as religion is not more crazy then other religions. If they want to vote for pro-Israel policy, however misguided, this is their right. Democracy kinda sucks sometimes. These Evangelicals are powerful force in US politics because they successfully vote as a block.
I would also say however that some of the dumbest polices of the US in the middle east are grown on US own heap of intellectual idiocy. The people who wrote the plan for 'The Next American Century' while clearly very pro Israel, were also all former basically Ratheon lobbyist. So blame Israel, blame military-industrial complex, blame the idiot Bush who got convinced by the pathetic argument for those policies.
Israel for 30+ years wants the US to make war on Iran and however much their influence is, its not enough to get that done.
I'm expecting a Biden administration is going to be all-in on war.
It's somewhat clear the "establishment" is dying to get rid of Trump for being unpredictable, free-wheeling and unwilling to repeat the usual pieties about the war industry.
It was galling to see the bureaucrats confess this week to lying about troop numbers in order to bypass Trump.
I wonder how many of the “successful stalemate” alluded to in this article comes down to the “he’s just crazy enough to do it” factor?
Obama’s Syria strategy mostly failed because when it came down to it Assad read him correctly: the “bright line” was crossed and Obama didn’t really want to intervene beyond air power.
With Trump, I think Iran genuinely thought he was looking for an excuse to nuke them (especially when he had Bolton as an adviser). I think that moderated their responses and led to the stalemate we saw.
What can he do in two months? If the military industrial complex can hold on for 20 years they can surely manage another few weeks.
It would be interesting to understand the intricacies of why Trump was unable to do anything about this before now. Maybe it's just because he's an idiot but I doubt it. Obama also started out wanting to do this. Remember "I'm against dumb wars"?
It could be some corrupt force. Or it might be that once a president gets in and gets up to date on all the intelligence and geo-politics and complexities of leaving those countries, they decide it isn't such a good idea after all.
There's no vacuum in "power projection". Since US gives up control of Middle East, China and Russia would be there soon. Maybe for good, this is how USSR ceased to exist.
100 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 162 ms ] thread"Trump, who campaigned in 2016 on stopping “ridiculous endless wars” in the Middle East, took to Twitter last month to announce that American forces currently serving in Afghanistan will be home by Christmas."
Imagine all that money, used instead on our infrastructure instead of propping up wars and enemy of west news broadcasts for the past 19 years.
"The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.57 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report."
https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/
No that was widely credited to the power vacuum created by the United States of America when they publicly hanged the President of Iraq for all the Muslim world to see. [1][2][3]
Serious error of judgement by White House royalty trying to make their ancestors proud. The US gave the Taliban a decade of training, funding and weapons.[4][5][6][7] They gave ISIS the perfect environment for them to grow big and everyone knows it.
It doesn't matter what business you are in, everyone is always trying to create more work for themselves, the military and intelligence services are no exception.
[1] https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-failed-strategy-middl...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/23/...
[3] https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/iraqs-power-vacuum-cou...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone
> described as the "biggest bequest to any Third World insurgency."
[5] https://theintercept.com/2019/08/21/taliban-peace-talks-afgh...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA%E2%80%93al-Qaeda_controver...
[7] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/who...
Still, that alternate universe where we didn’t waste money on two wars of occupation on the other side of the world, didn’t bail out loads of banks and large corporations during the financial crisis and weren’t actively looking to spend more money on unnecessary crap, with the top notch infrastructure minus the enormous cost overruns and CEQA and CEQA-like review processes of the past 20 years, must be pretty nice. Maybe they even kept their Nuclear Arsenal up to date, didn’t kill the F-22 and kept their medical stockpiles in stock and in good condition.
I'm not seeing how that is relevant. There are boots on the ground & bombs in the air. Someone is fronting real resources. There is no possible return on these resources. In fact, the return is negative since the US is taking fairly normal Middle Easterners and presumably making enemies for life.
A situation has been set up that is even worse than borrowing resources to support an unproductive and unsustainable lifestyle. This is borrowing resources to ruin random strangers lives. Those resources could have been used for any inane project and literally everyone is better off.
I think we are basically in agreement otherwise, unless you want to argue the details.
Trump voter here. Covid was the issue. Nobel prize Trump deserves gets awarded later.
The US doesn't really need the Middle East any more. North America is now self-sufficient in energy, and that situation improves as more solar and wind go in.
What a waste.
That oil was important for Europe and most of all Japan and China. And that is still the case in many ways. Of course now the US maybe doesn't want China to have cheap oil anymore.
If it was about securing US oil, war in Venezuela and Canada would be far more sensible.
And even then the US didn't need to do anything, everybody would have happily sold the US oil without the need for any kind of war or US troupes of any kind.
The US increase intervention was required because of policy growth, where the US wanted an ever increasing control over these places for things other then oil. Once the Soviet Union was gone, the US started to dream of reshaping the the region and integrating it fully in the the US system.
The US has been vehemently against projects that deliver fossil fuels to Europe by countries that are not its allies, like the Nordstream 2 pipeline or the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline. On the other side, Syria has blocked the US-backed Qatar-Turkey pipeline (interestingly drawing gas from the same South Pars/North Dome gas field), sparking US-Syria tensions around 2010.
Is there not a cold war between US and Venezuela right now (over nationalization of formerly American-owned oil production facilities there), somewhat of a proxy for China to attack us, raging since the second Bush administration? I mean, their nationals factually developed many of the US voting systems (because we're stupid, not because they are stealth) and all we have is political rhetoric that those systems are "the most secure in history" and there is "no evidence of hacking". I think most people here, at least, know that the first order of business for modern computer viruses once they penetrate a system is to get rid of the penetration evidence, neutralize system monitoring capacity and start unwrapping preloaded or downloaded payloads. This all feeds back into what America's government is going to do with respect to domestic oil production over the next four years and how that will affect the world's dependency upon the Middle East and Russia. https://gnews.org/556010/ http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-10/26/c_139467853.htm
As far as Canada, it was far from a cold war, more like two gentlemen getting into an argument at the local country club, but a primary focus was oil (pipelines), no? https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/fs/USMCA/US...
Get ready for The Draft boys.
I do agree though, Asia will be the next boogeyman. In my lifetime it's been: Russia->iraq->other middle eastern countries->now china
Last time we got rockets to the moon, and the internet, which was transformational for the whole world. who knows what will be discovered in the next couple of decades in the name of 'defense'.
I had a deployment to Afghanistan in 2004 and three to Iraq(2005, 2006 x 2).
I’m 35 now and the wars are finally near an end. Had I had kids younger, they could have been deployed in the same war.
Roughly 7,000 Americans were killed, 50k+ wounded, not to mention then hundreds of thousands of men, women and children killed.
I’m glad the GWOT era is coming to an end and hope we can learn from all the mistakes we made along the way.
RLTW
> I’m glad the GWOT era is coming to an end and hope we can learn from all the mistakes we made along the way.
Agreed.
Absolutely incredible how we are still dealing with this nonsense.
But I have a pretty dark view on our global societys future as well with the negative synergies between the climate crisis, the ongoing automation effort for less skilled work and the refugees that will be out of a home with the rising sea levels... Let's just say I'm glad Ill likely be dead before it becomes too much of an issue.
Non of it is unsustainable we have not run out of anything, ironically outside of few renewable resources those can actually run out. Things that used to be worthless rocks are now valuable things. Other things that are now rocks will be valuable in the future. The difference between a resource and dirt is technology, more humans in our system leads to more technology.
In fact, the total amount of resources we have and no about now is probably 1000x more then 100 years ago.
Rising of sea level happens slowly, not in one big wave and can be mitigated in many ways as well. The same goes for climate in general.
Technology has been replacing workers from their job with the same speed for 100s of years, the tractor replaced far more jobs then anything we are inventing now.
But I guess this inherent pessimism counter to all evidence we have about similar predictions over the last 250 years, is somewhat systemic.
I just hope to convince people to not take it as far as the 'population growth is bad' people in the 60s when they said the US shouldn't help India so fewer of them can starve now, rather then more later as mass starvation in India was of course inevitable in their minds. Just one of their many brilliant plans for population control.
If we don't behave in a way that's sustainable for an indefinite time, we're living on borrowed time. Sooner or later this debt will catch up. IMO the belief that technological progress will save us is naive. The problem is not technological, it never was, but a matter of priorities.
> The problem is not technological, it never was, but a matter of priorities.
The growth of humanity from 100M to 10B was 100% based on technology improvement.
Again, the same argument and question has been made 100s of years and every prediction based on what population growth implies for the future has not just been wrong, but 180 degrees in the wrong direction. At some point you have to ask yourself what you are missing, when repeating the exact same arguments, with literally nothing added.
10x more humans at 10x more the consumption would be a better world then the one we live in now.
The difference between a resource and dirt depends on technology. The amount of energy potential is almost unlimited, considering solar and nuclear power.
Technology is nice but it has yet to lead to a net reduction of our ecological footprint.
The fact that we are unsustainably destroying our biosphere is supported by scientific research and data. If you don't concede that, I don't see a point in even discussing it.
The war there will of course not end the country has been consistently at war for 50+ years pretty much. But the US portion of it will end, as the Soviet one did before.
P.S:
Where did you serve in Iraq?
How good was your understanding of Iraq politics back then? How aware were you of the different fraction in Iraqi politics and who was fighting who and why?
That was before all the COIN ideas, so I assume there was little education. Considering you were a Ranger you might have had more insight.
There were two distinct moments from my first deployment. One was our team hitting 3 IEDs on one of our first operations and thinking we still had 10 months left. The other was being on a clearing operation, seeing an IED go off and learning of our Iraqi soldiers was killed. I remember feeling my heart break and wondering why we do these things to each other. I'm also glad the wars are coming to an end.
S/F
I'm curious about your thoughts on the subject - what do you consider mistakes? What do you think the lessons are? Are there books or other resources that you'd recommend?
The world is a balance of power, every move changes that dynamic.
Complete American withdrawal in Europe may have seen Putin do what he did in Crimea also in the Baltic states or possibly further, which creates the conditions for the possibility of 'real war' which would draw the US back in anyhow.
The US is the 'lynch pin' of peace between Israel and Egypt, and keeps most the Arab peninsula more or less under wraps. The #1 recipient of foreign aid from the US is Egypt, of course a Muslim country, this surprises a lot of people - it's to keep Isreal/Egypt tensions under wraps. Because they have not had 'hot fighting' in a generation, most of us don't think about that as the 'problem spot' but really it is - if that broke down it would suck the entire region into a bad black hole of fighting.
Without the US to protect House of Saud (and it doesn't need to even fire a bullet for that, just the credible threat of retaliation is enough) and their Sunni neighbours, Iran and Saudi Arabia would be going at each other, and though they don't have plans to 'invade' each other, it would break out into something ugly probably very quickly.
The populists in Egypt (i.e. Muslim Brotherhood) could easily gain power, and their more radical factions would turn 88M people against Israel and that's a real problem, imagine the pro-Trump vs. anti-Trump rallies we see this weekend, but 100x as big, right on the Egypt/Isreal border - maybe neither government wants it, but as soon as 'someone dies' then they are forced to react and it gets swiftly out of hand. If 88M people 'want blood' then war is innevitable.
And Iran's intransigence, though obviously fuelled by the US somewhat - is real.
(Aside from 'total breakdown' of power i.e. E. Syria in which case some radical group like ISIS will take power)
The 'piece on the board' that would 'make the system peaceful' if it were to be removed is point blank Iran, that's obvious.
Yemen, the Gulf, Syria, Shia Iraq, Kurdish lands, and Lebanese instability via Syria ... it's Iran.
The US forces in the M/E right now are not fighting for the most part, this is no longer Gulf War, so the 5th fleet + support is well placed.
There is so much 'inherent instability' there it would fall apart very quickly. The availability of Oil money, concentrated into a few hands of people with personal and ideological vendettas is just too much. (Of course the real 'piece on the board were it to be removed would mean peace' is Oil).
My comment is not either, it's just realpolitik.
Remember the entire region was under Ottoman power for 500 years, and then WW1/2 and the inability of European powers to wield real influence ... and so you have raging ideologies, clans, Oil, vendettas filling the vacuum.
Frankly it's normal.
We had some very scary moments between Israel and neighbours, but that has subsided.
Now we have 'Iran vs. Everyone' but even that will stay under wraps as long as there are 'real powers' to contain them and there are.
It will take another 100 years but it will settle down.
Much like the Israel/Egypt tensions have faded from the memory of many people, those tensions will fade.
A commenter hinted that it's 'bizarre' that Israel+Saudi have come to terms, it's not bizarre whatsoever it definitely mostly in their mutual self interest.
The 'bizarre' issue is that the benefit of stability in the ME is not nearly so apparent anymore: the world doesn't quite depend on Saudi Arabia so much, and most of the Oil from there goes to China!
The US is 'paying' for Chinese resource protection. That's bizarre.
Hopefully, oil dependence will wane (it's not going away though), and tensions will subside.
And FYI there's a lot of social and civil progress throughout that part of the world, we don't talk about it but the amount of access to education, information, awareness is shocking. The inter-generational divide in the ME is interesting.
Consider MBS murdering a journalist. 25 years ago - no problem. Today? It made the news, which means US politicians 'have to care', and because his hold on power is tenuous, it means repercussions. He probably won't do it again.
Look at Jordan. They are quiet and 'play nice' not for 40 years. Oman is not even on the radar.
The 'odd ingredient' is Iran, because it's hard to see where their endgame is, the regime they have there is inherently unstable.
Give it a few generations, it will settle down.
Unfortunately time has been unkind to US governance and the tail wags the dog. The US is in a bizarre situation where Saudi Arabia and Israel are the key allies, and both states play out their own forms of internal political conflict within the US. Meanwhile the usual mess of sectarian and external stakeholders all vie for position.
The US can’t “pull out”. But we need to figure out what we want post-Trump.
Perhaps Europe should pay for their own defense? Crimea and Ukraine aren’t particularly economically successful, but France could certainly stand to save some money on African adventurism and use that budget to shore up their capabilities. Germany, the UK, even Italy — they can and should shoulder more of the burden of protecting themselves against threats. Not sure why the US has to have our troops and money effectively subsidizing European security.
The EU is a very, very rich place, they have serious military concerns right on their borders, but are both unwiling to make the investment necessary - and - unwilling to 'get along' in a manner such as they can act responsibly and consistently against the threat.
The very fact the US needs to be there - and - underpins/leads NATO is evidence that Europe is not 'doing their own work'.
If Europe was properly paying for their own security, then:
1) There would be 0 question as to the need for the US in Europe. It would be like the need for massive US presence in Canada - nobody thinks that, it's obviously unecessary.
2) There would be 0 concern over border integrity, especially in Baltic states. Again, it would be like concern over 'New Zealand' being invaded - there's no concern there.
That's what 'good security' looks like - it makes one position look secure to the point of any real aggression being unfathomable or crazy.
The Europe should pay more for it's security so we can spend the next ~100 years or so cooling down - eventually the Russians won't want to invade their neighbours.
Unfortunately, Western leaders treat Russia just like Germany in 1936-38, hoping that "this last occupation would finally make dictatorship happy". We all remember how this practice ended in 1939.
I'm more curious as to how you can reason that Trump and/or the GOP would not be so vindictive? If Trump had any interest in what's best for the country and its citizens his administration would not be hindering the transition to the new administration. Something similar can be said for the GOP.
Bush had received a four-hour CIA briefing in September before the election at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, but he had never seen the President's Daily Brief, which Gore saw daily as vice president.
As their lengthy ballot recount dragged into December, President Bill Clinton authorized intelligence officials to share the so-called PDB with Bush, too."
Saying that 'Congress is Subservient to a Foreign Power' is completely different than saying 'A Foreign Power has influence in Congress'.
The US gives billions to Egypt and Saudi Arabia in aid, military equipment, and literally by contract guarantees the Sovereignty and power of the House of Saud - so conspiratorial statements that make this about 'one side' or that anyone 'controls congress' are damaging and false.
I'm well aware of that.
If someone want to point out that Congress is influenced by others, and to question that, it's fine.
But indicating that 'Congress is Controlled by the Jews' is an anti-semetic trope.
Also: "What's the excuse now?"
The Israeli-Egyptian conflict was not part of 'the Cold War' nor was it about 'Oil' - it's about regional stability among two regional powers - and the Suez Canal.
Keeping Israel and Egypt away from each other keeps others less likely to start a conflict with Israel - and also provides stability for an important economic throughway - the Suez Canal.
Since the US has participated there's been peace. The investments have yielded great dividends.
That said, it's still a powder keg: there are minor bust ups between Muslim Brotherhood and Israeli soldiers etc. at the border, every example has the opportunity to blow up into something much more. Thankfully, the US has a lot of influence in Egypt and can keep things under wraps.
And though the US is less dependent on Oil from Saudi Arabia, it still is to some extent, moreover, keeping the oil flowing is good for the world economy, and much better in those terms than were Saudi Arabia to be taken by China or Russia etc. which is why that pact continues.
It will be this way for a few generations yet.
I look forward to the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq from neocolonial rule. I look forward to a new era when control of oil fields is no longer a matter of geostrategic importance and drilling will incur sanctions by an international body.
And without intense lobbying by pro-Israeli groups in the US, those arms and funds wouldn't be possible.
edit Upon second reading, I also object to it being seen as just a "forward operating base." For most of history the region has been highly prized as the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean.
Definitely. I forget France's influence, but the UK literally granted them the territory without regard for the people that lived there already.
> I also object to it being seen as just a "forward operating base." For most of history the region has been highly prized as the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean.
Sorry, I was being too simplistic. It is a very valuable geostrategic asset in many ways.
France had the smaller role, but the Sykes-Picot agreement is too key to completely ignore them.
I don't think it's anti-semetic to criticize Israel. The thing NOT to do is imply that Israel (or the Jews) operate the US like a puppet state. The idea that jews secretly control the peoples of the world is a trope from nazi propaganda and so it is important to carefully state criticisms so as to not imply that.
If the US really were a puppet state, it would be fair to say, but in reality it is rather the reverse. It can be difficult to see that because we do not talk about US imperialism and the neo-colonial goals of the US state security apparatus. As I stated in another comment, Israel lobbies the US for favors and often they are granted because our governments wish to maintain a security relationship. It can be sometimes difficult to thread that needle, but it is possible to do in good faith. The Israel lobby does attack people who make criticisms in good faith though... which is permitted because if people saw Israel as an apartheid state, the US would be pressured to terminate our security relationship.
In summary, this is a complex issue. To be honest, Israel's apartheid behavior and militarism is giving fuel to hate by muddying the waters so much. If they would quit that shit, it would make life a lot easier for every honest person trying to talk about these issues.
Woah now this is much further than anyone in this thread has claimed or stated. Fear of social ostracization is not reason enough to avoid discussing the truth. Just pointing out the truth that jews form a "key voting block" and lobbyist group is not an endorsement of any more encompassing and ungrounded theory or judgment against them.
It is bigoted and prejudicial to treat jews differently from christians and muslims, period point blank.
The original post said the US congress was "subservient to Israeli political and security needs." Or "operates the US like a puppet state."
And for better or worse, Evangelicals are US citizens and their crazy as religion is not more crazy then other religions. If they want to vote for pro-Israel policy, however misguided, this is their right. Democracy kinda sucks sometimes. These Evangelicals are powerful force in US politics because they successfully vote as a block.
I would also say however that some of the dumbest polices of the US in the middle east are grown on US own heap of intellectual idiocy. The people who wrote the plan for 'The Next American Century' while clearly very pro Israel, were also all former basically Ratheon lobbyist. So blame Israel, blame military-industrial complex, blame the idiot Bush who got convinced by the pathetic argument for those policies.
Israel for 30+ years wants the US to make war on Iran and however much their influence is, its not enough to get that done.
It's somewhat clear the "establishment" is dying to get rid of Trump for being unpredictable, free-wheeling and unwilling to repeat the usual pieties about the war industry.
It was galling to see the bureaucrats confess this week to lying about troop numbers in order to bypass Trump.
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2020/11/outgoing-syria-en...
Obama’s Syria strategy mostly failed because when it came down to it Assad read him correctly: the “bright line” was crossed and Obama didn’t really want to intervene beyond air power.
With Trump, I think Iran genuinely thought he was looking for an excuse to nuke them (especially when he had Bolton as an adviser). I think that moderated their responses and led to the stalemate we saw.
It would be interesting to understand the intricacies of why Trump was unable to do anything about this before now. Maybe it's just because he's an idiot but I doubt it. Obama also started out wanting to do this. Remember "I'm against dumb wars"?