We need a New Mid-east foreign policy

[Lemon law]

To some extent, this NYT link somewhat explains what we are doing wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/middleeast/08policy.html?ref=global-home

Why is it a US obligation to solve mid-east problems. As it is, in things like our 2003 invasion of Iraq, we blew in big time. We broke it and bought it. And many Iraqis still say, things were better under Saddam than they are now.

On the other hand, GHB's coalition of the willing in 1990 was somewhat successful, and did much good for the US image, because we worked through the regional mid-east leaders and other foreign nations.

Now the new question is what to do about Libya's nut case ruler who will cheerfully kill every man woman and child in Libya to remain in power, using international war crimes to accomplish the deed. And one effective tactic to use in Libya might be a no fly zone or actual military intervention.

But why should it be a US responsibility to lead the implementation of such military type tactics? I for one say no no and no.

Its time we assign that lead to the UN, the international war crimes courts, the regional Arab States, and then the USA can provide some military forces along with other nations.
When US leadership has gone badly wrong in the mid-east in recent years, methinks we would be better off by being useful partners to the consensus of the UN.

 

[Jaskalas]

When US leadership has gone badly wrong in the mid-east in recent years, methinks we would be better off by being useful partners to the consensus of the UN.

This is a comedy! There is no consensus at the UN, as I'm quite certain Russia and China would let every man, woman, and child in Libya die.

Though, don't mistake me for wanting us involved. I'd rather not.

 

[xj0hnx]

Why is it a US obligation to solve mid-east problems. As it is, in things like our 2003 invasion of Iraq, we blew in big time. We broke it and bought it. And many Iraqis still say, things were better under Saddam than they are now.

Where do you get this crap from? I didn't meet a single one that thought that, even Iraqis that lost family int he fighting.

 

[epidemis]

I'm pretty sure the EU would join in if it's decided on a no-fly zone. Although the US actions have always been shamefully misunderstood, I think there's a lot of people who have a great deal of respect for US's willingness to contribute to world's peace.

 

[JS80]

Where do you get this crap from? I didn't meet a single one that thought that, even Iraqis that lost family int he fighting.

That's why they call it an ivory tower.

 

[JEDIYoda]

When US leadership has gone badly wrong in the mid-east in recent years, methinks we would be better off by being useful partners to the consensus of the UN.

Lemon law is trying to hide the fact that if the US were to become a useful partner of the UN then Israel would get royally screwed by the members of the UN!!

It would be a different story if the UN was a useful entity period!
As it is the Un is a joke and they are very very biased!!

There is no fairness or equality in any of their middle east rulings!!

 

[Doppel]

Should Gadhafi make ground and take back Libya, I do not ever want to hear another American say that Iraq was not a mistake because despite its lack of WMD the people are better off for it. Scope of the Libya conflict, insofar as what's being asked of the international community, is far more restrained. It should probably be a UN-led effort but should the UN sit on its hands is it acceptable for more proactive nations to do the same? UN is often best left writing letters and creating sanctions that lack teeth. But if the US does go there it should not have its flag in the front; it must be behind some other group be it the Arab League, official invite from a consolidated rebel command, etc. and with other nations.

Iraq is a cluster because the US went in and bought the whole store up. It was a stable albeit nasty country that was suddenly shattered, and not at the behest of the people. And the US has no idea what to do about it. Libya is already fractured, it's now in a civil war. The US neither started it, nor will be involved in choosing its leaders or setting up elections, security, etc.--that is as long as there is no mission creep.

There is talk of the West giving weapons to the rebels. I expect that in 20 years those weapons will be used against the West in some capacity. That's just how things go over there. That's why they should be surface to air missile launchers only with electronic locks on their guidance systems so that they only function for distinct portions of time and with the allowance of the US, which can remotely turn them on and off. I don't imagine this technology exists now but it would certainly be technically feasible and assist in matters like this. Give the weapons 30 days. That way they aren't taking down civilian airliners next year.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Arab league does not want to get involved. To many of their members are similar to Libya. so no military support there.

You then have the EU. Had they wanted to do something forceful, they would have before the airstrikes happened.

NATO is led by the EU and the US. The same rules and theories apply there. The US/NATO did not want to jump in without backing of the EU. And the EU waffled; so rather than equalizing the rules; they end up favoring the rebels.

 

[Sinsear]

Kill em all and let god sort em out.

 

[Lemon law]

Lemon law is trying to hide the fact that if the US were to become a useful partner of the UN then Israel would get royally screwed by the members of the UN!!

It would be a different story if the UN was a useful entity period!
As it is the Un is a joke and they are very very biased!!

There is no fairness or equality in any of their middle east rulings!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust JediY to only look at everything from only Israeli eyes. But at the same time JediY has only contempt for the very UN that legitimized the Israeli state in 1948, he is ignorant that the same UN can un legitimize the Israeli state now.

Learn it and live it JediY, that is the trend line now.

 

[drebo]

The only foreign policy we need is one of non-interventionism.

Don't kick us, and we won't kick you back, otherwise do whatever the fuck you want.

This nationbuilding, intervention bullshit that's been going on the last 50 years is going to get us in trouble. You can't MAKE someone want a western way of life. They have to want it all on their own.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Trust JediY to only look at everything from only Israeli eyes. But at the same time JediY has only contempt for the very UN that legitimized the Israeli state in 1948, he is ignorant that the same UN can un legitimize the Israeli state now.

trust you to attempt to add legitimacy to anything the UN does. The Un back then was quite a bit different than the Un of today!! Back then they nwere a legitimate organization and were not a joke.

The UN of today is seriously the laughing stock of the world and should be disbanded!!

Nice try....shroom guy!!

 

[Craig234]

While I very much disagree with Jediyoda about the UN and his apparent notion that Israel can do no wrong on anything the UN has condemned, there is a point.

The UN is set up well for 'the world's major nations' to unite against a new Hitler or Imperial Japan from trying to conquer the world again - a pretty implausible scenario.

However, it does have little protection for the old 'two wolf and a sheep' issue. If Israel were not doing wrong things, but there was still anomosity to it in the region, votes against it - to condemn it, to take action against it, etc. - would likely be a lot more based on the nations' interests and not 'justice'. What protection is there for such things in the design, except the rest of the world's votes - which just enlarges the same problem.

And the 5-nation veto is a real problem for justice as well - whether it's the US vetoing resolutions condemning Israeli actions like settlements, or today's Russian position that they will veto any military action against Qadafi, including a no-fly zone to somewhat reduce the slaughter of civilians - these vetos not allowing for dealing with one of the five veto nations or their allies they're protecting do wrong.

We could really use some things the UN could do; the Charter nations sign, for example, is a good idea, against aggressive war; too bad we undermined the charter with Iraq.

I think some redesign is needed. It's not easy to do, but the alternative is ongoing problems resolved only by the point of a gun or bomb and not the better methods.

There was a time when nations including the US and USSR would rather not have the bad PR of the UN against what they did. It didn't stop many bad things, but it seemed to perhaps create some restraint. We could use more of that -at the least, it's useful for nations to get to expose some things.

The US was able to use the UN for this purpose to dramatically build opposition to the USSR's placement of nuclear missiles in Cuba; few in the US are aware of how strongly the US had pursued a policy of terrorism in Cuba before that, which Cuba was able to clearly expose as its response was to go to the UN and present evidence of some of the attacks, however much the US press ignored the information.

As it stands, the UN does a lot of good - there are plenty of hot spots in the world where the UN is doing a lot of good - but it's flawed, from the problems noted above to the inconsistency that wrongs without one of the 'big 5' on your side are treated differently than wrongs where there's a veto.

But an ongoing situation of global power struggles - leading to things like a US invasion of Iraq motivated largely to get friendlier control of the global resource - is bad too.

We're in a lull now post-cold war, but there are looming conflicts for redistributing power that would do better than to be settled by who has the most military power.

We could have used a UN who could do something about the Chinese treatment of Tibet, of Indonesia's treatment of East Timor, of Reagan treatment of Latin America.

There is a balance between sovereignity and peace - but now the balance has been leaning on the side of war.

One idea would be to have a stronger charter against war in place, with the right for nations to withdraw to protect sovereignity - but for there to be a stigma to deter it.

It's harder to deal with how to plan for peace, than to call to arms for war, but a lot more important for the world.

This 'backing into the role of world empire without announcing it' eventually is a threat to peace and democracy. We need peaceful, non-centralized powers globally.

Not some corrupt mishmash based on private defense compan profit motives buying our tax dollars with political funding.

You know that democratic revolution in Egypt we applauded, that was overthrowing the *US*, our second largest recipient of foreign aid to keep him in power.

 

[wuliheron]

Its time we assign that lead to the UN, the international war crimes courts, the regional Arab States, and then the USA can provide some military forces along with other nations.
When US leadership has gone badly wrong in the mid-east in recent years, methinks we would be better off by being useful partners to the consensus of the UN.

How on earth would the US be better off?

We already pay half the bills for the UN, half the bills for NATO, and our military is equal to the next seven largest in the world combined. Next you'll be telling me it's to our advantage to treat the entire third world as our equals. The only thing that's gone badly wrong in the middle east from out point of view is the economy and we're just not in a position to help them with that.

 

[P4man]

Where do you get this crap from? I didn't meet a single one that thought that, even Iraqis that lost family int he fighting.

How many of the 4+ million displaced Iraqi refugees did you meet?

As for the situation in Libya and what to do; some consistency in foreign policy would be nice. It makes no sense to install, prop up, arm and finance dictators around the globe for decades , and when suddenly people in a particular country finally revolt, decide to bomb that same regime because suddenly we discover they are evil? And at the same time, we change nothing about our stance to all the other dictatorships.

As much as I hope (and at the same time, frankly, doubt) Gaddafi will be removed from power, actively supporting revolutions like this one opens a huge can of worms. What will do in Bahrein? Saudi Arabia ? China? Iran ? Pakistan?

There is more than just irony in the observation we are blaming Iran for meddling in Bahrein, Saudi Arabia, or even Palestine because they support local opposition to regimes that we consider friendly, even though they are no better for their people than the ones in Egypt or Libya. If the opposition becomes stronger there and leads to widespread protest and armed revolt, are we suddenly going to join Iran in supporting the opposition or instead side, perhaps even fight for the regimes there? Where is the logic in any of that?

IMO, if we want to help people suffering from repressive regimes around the globe, then the first course of action ought not be to send bombers to Libya or anywhere else, but stop installing, arming and supporting countless dictatorships and puppet regimes elsewhere. Trade with them if you must, but stop meddling and stop the hypocrisy.

 

[Doppel]

This nationbuilding, intervention bullshit that's been going on the last 50 years is going to get us in trouble. You can't MAKE someone want a western way of life. They have to want it all on their own.

Not sure that's what's on the table, simply the rebels don't like getting pounded from the air.

The US/UN have stepped in in other times like Kosovo '99 to good effect.

It makes no sense to install, prop up, arm and finance dictators around the globe for decades , and when suddenly people in a particular country finally revolt, decide to bomb that same regime because suddenly we discover they are evil? And at the same time, we change nothing about our stance to all the other dictatorships.

You illustrate a great hypocrisy. The fact is Gadhafi quite possibly wouldn't even exist if not for being propped up. He uses UK-made weapons against his people and now the UK wants to attack his air force? It's like Iraq, one day Rumsfeld and Saddam are watching movies and eating pizza and the next hated enemies. It's not like either one changed.

Where is the logic in any of that?

The logic is this: Support democracy in spirit and in words but in action support whoever has the oil. At this point the oil is dicey in Libya so it's hard to know who to support, but with Saudi's production if they had to gun down a few dozen protesters or so to keep the pipes going so be it.

I saw a comic a week back. A guy supporting democracy at any price. Then he gets in front of his gas pump and sees the price is up and screams.

then the first course of action ought not be to send bombers to Libya or anywhere else, but stop installing, arming and supporting countless dictatorships and puppet regimes elsewhere.

This.

 

[P4man]

The logic is this: Support democracy in spirit and in words but in action support whoever has the oil.

No, that doesnt fly. If that were the case, Saddam would still be in power and the US would be supporting regimes in Iran and Venezuela. Its not who has the oil, its who takes marching orders. China's foreign policy is closer to what you describe: dont meddle with the politics abroad, just buy the oil and other resources from whoever is willing to sell it (and who isnt?) regardless of type of government. Frankly, its both a cheaper and less harmful foreign policy.

At this point the oil is dicey in Libya so it's hard to know who to support, but with Saudi's production if they had to gun down a few dozen protesters or so to keep the pipes going so be it.

That has already happened in Bahrein (home of the US 5th fleet) and went mostly under the radar. It is also likely to spill over to SA. Keep a close eye on events there this friday.

Now I dont think the short term ramifications of widespread SA protest will make any of us happy, but at least Im looking forward to seeing how the US will react. Stand by the regime and lose any credibility with public opinion they still might have left, and risk ending up with a new regime thats (even more) hostile to US interests, or quickly drop one of their most crucial allies like another hot patatoe and at the same time (yet again) help Iranian interests immeasurably. Whatever they do, it would not just be a lose-lose proposition for US foreign policy, it would pretty much mean the bankruptcy of US foreign policy.

 

[EagleKeeper]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trust JediY to only look at everything from only Israeli eyes. But at the same time JediY has only contempt for the very UN that legitimized the Israeli state in 1948, he is ignorant that the same UN can un legitimize the Israeli state now.

Learn it and live it JediY, that is the trend line now.

What country has the UN disallowed? do they have the authority to do so. Just because the UN blessed the birth of Israel, does not have to come with the ability to disolve it.