Holy cow, lot of movement on the thread since I left last night.
So, again, if you're not interested in American policy in the Middle East, why are you talking about it? I'm not interested in lobster recipes, so guess what? I'm not talking about them.
So why does American policy in the Middle East interest you enough to talk about, but not educate yourself regarding? To be honest, anything that is worth talking about is worth educating yourself about. That's just me, though.
Because a particular facet of politics does not affect an individual does not mean they have no interests. I already have a fairly good working knowledge of the Middle East, however, I am not trying to become the ultimate expert on the subject. There are hundred or thousands of books on the subject, I don't know exactly how many, just because I chose not to read the one you recommend, does not mean I am not interested in the subject. And the ME is just one subject related to Politics.
It would take even a person like the fictional character Dr. Spencer Reid from the show Criminal Minds, a person with an eidetic memory who reads more than 25,000 words a minute, a life time to read and process all books and articles related to politics and peoples related to politics. Since I have other interests than discussing politics here, some of them more important to me, I am sorry it upsets you that I do not use my available time to read a book you suggest on a subject that is a sub-subject of a massive subject just to have one more persons opinion on it.
Instead of the book you recommended, to start getting any knowledge of the ME, the first book that you should read is the Koran.
Also, despite all the opinions I have read, my experience has taught me that the average person, anywhere in the world, regardless of culture or country, desires the same basic things. They want to fulfill their basic need for food, clothing and shelter. After those 3 things, they want to love and be loved, live and enjoy their family in peace, have a meaningful job that provides them a decent living and to be mostly left alone by governments and politicians. It is a minority of people who actually cause the problems in the world and who stir up all the ruckus.
No, it doesn't work well. I've spent 10 years of my life involved in it. Killing is great. Killing can very useful. Killing is worth much more than liberals give it credit for. But it's not the fix for everything. Hammers are awesome tools, but you can't build a house using only hammers. Other tools are necessary.
Killing is not great. Killing should never be enjoyed and should only be done when necessary. "There are only two reason to ever kill something, defense and meat." John Wayne, character Jacob McCandles, Movie Big Jake
To any sane person, group or government the prospect of facing overwhelming force without the possibility of victory, should deter them from violent actions. It is only the insane ones that don't get the message. The primary reason it has not been effective for the past 20 years and more is because, due to the policies of some of our leaders, it has not been equally applied nor always used. Had William J. Clinton stomped Al Queda into the dirt the first time they took actions against the US, it's territories, interests or people, then 9/11 would never have happened and the current war on terror would never have been started. Had James E. Carter, Jr. stomped the Iranians into a bloody pulp, we would not have anywhere near the problems we currently have in the region and no one would be attacking our embassies. Had Lyndon B. Johnson stomped the North Vietnamese, Vietnam would of had a different outcome. Had Truman allowed MacArthur to take out the Chinese, there would be fewer problems in the world. If FDR had not allied with the USSR and then Truman allowed Patton to take out the USSR, then there would of been far fewer problems since. China probably would not of fallen to communism, Korea and Vietnam would never have been divided, we would not of allied with the Shah of Iran or many other less than desirable countries/persons in the region or elsewhere, we would of never backed the Mujahideen in Afghanistan nor allied with Pakistan.
Failure to properly eradicate and stomp on our enemies when necessary has caused us a great deal of problems for the last almost 70 years. Interesting that everytime we failed to do so, a Dem was in office and a Republican had to try to clean up their mess. Since Obama doesn't want to stomp them down now and allows the attacks to continue, then what problems and how many are going to die in the future from his lack of action?