14 June 2013

Criticism of Obama's Middle East war policy

Excerpts from an op-ed post at The Dish, presumably authored by Sullivan:
This was a president elected to get us out of conflict in the Middle East, not to enmesh us even further in a cycle of sectarian conflict and metastasizing warfare. This was a president who said he didn’t oppose all wars, just dumb ones. Is there a conceivably dumber war to intervene in than Syria’s current civil one? I can’t see one.

You can forgive a president once – even though his misguided, counter-productive and destabilizing war in Libya was almost as nuts as this latest foray. But by deciding to arm the Sunni radicals fighting the Shiites in Syria and Lebanon, the president has caved to the usual establishment subjects who still want to run or control the entire world. I don’t buy the small arms qualifier. You know that’s the foot in the door to dragging the United States into the middle of a civil war we do not understand and cannot control. If it has any effect, it will be to draw out the conflict still longer and kill more people. More staggeringly, he is planning to put arms into the hands of forces that are increasingly indistinguishable from hardcore Jihadists and al Qaeda – another brutal betrayal of this country’s interests, and his core campaign promise not to start dumb wars. Yep: he is intending to provide arms to elements close to al Qaeda. This isn’t just unwise; it’s close to insane...

I am asking what on earth is the American national interest in taking sides militarily? I see precisely none. Do we really want to hand over Syria’s chemical arsenal to al Qaeda? Do we really want to pour fuel on the brushfire in the sectarian bloodbath in the larger Middle East? And can you imagine the anger and bitterness against the US that this will entail regardless? We are not just in danger of arming al Qaeda, we are painting a bulls-eye on every city in this country, for some party in that religious struggle to target.

I understand why the Saudis and Jordanians, Sunni bigots and theocrats, want to leverage us into their own sectarian warfare against the Shiites and Alawites. But why should America take sides in such an ancient sectarian conflict? What interest do we possibly have in who wins a Sunni-Shiite war in Arabia?

9 comments:

  1. I kept waiting for a second term initiative, when the freedom from re-election worries would allow Obama to really start to do some hard work. I'm not even American, and I feel betrayed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Glad to see Sullivan has maybe learned from his own stupid mistakes. He was an Iraq war booster after all...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Since Assad has aligned himself with Hezbollah and Iran, and the rebels are on the loosing side, it doesn't seem such a bad idea to start supporting the rebels. With Assad the possibility for democratic reforms is less than zero. At least with the rebels there is a glimpse of hope. But I agree, it is a risque. Still, sending arms is better than recklessly invading other countries.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dutch newspapers (volkskrant) reported this weekend about those rebels. There is indeed a secular factions (SFA), but they have become a minority. The rest are jihadist fighting for an implementation of a Sharia state. Arming these people is not a risque. That is plain stupidity.

      Delete
    2. I agree, but letting Assad reconquer Aleppo and taking revenge on the population is not so pleasant either. if no-fly zones are blocked by Russia and China, and sending troops is out of the question, what else can we do? Asking Turkey to intervene?

      Delete
  4. I'm still waiting for the promised closing of Gitmo. *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep waiting. I never voted for Obama, but it is amazing to me that the few areas where I liked him are the areas he has completely changed.

      Delete
    2. Well, I suggest you quit waiting and read about how Republicans in Congress have thwarted the closing of Gitmo.

      Delete
  5. Getting involved in Civil Wars is dumb. Getting involved in humanitarian disasters is good. What we did in Libya was good as it stopped a lot of bloodshed. A dictator is Syria, with help from Iran, is killing tens of thousands and using chemical weapons. The question isn't why is Obama giving the innocent a fighting chance, the question is why is Europe doing something in their own backyard? Viva Obama. His foreign policy has been an example to the world!

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...