What to do with the Middle East?

JC Callender said:

Should we just completely stay out of there and tell tourists that they're going at their own risk? Do we need another war? Should we pay one side to fight another?

I personally believe we should've kept a huge military base in Iraq and dealt with issues as they came up, as I believe the philosophy in general of many of the people in power in the M.E. will continue to breed major problems for not only their own people but for us and our allies as well. What say you?

Click to expand...

BHO has made everything worse.

[h=3]The costs of Obama’s Syria policy are apparent to everyone but him[/h]
Hundreds of thousands are dead, there’s a refugee crisis, and the Islamic State and Assad remain unvanquished.




". . . The result is that Obama is now obliged to fight the Islamic State’s multiplying iterations across the region without any prospect of viable states to replace it. He has few allies and no exit strategy. The “liberation” from the Middle East that he now celebrates has created a quagmire that the next president will inherit."

JC Callender said:

Should we just completely stay out of there and tell tourists that they're going at their own risk? Do we need another war? Should we pay one side to fight another?

I personally believe we should've kept a huge military base in Iraq and dealt with issues as they came up, as I believe the philosophy in general of many of the people in power in the M.E. will continue to breed major problems for not only their own people but for us and our allies as well. What say you?

Click to expand...

no your own governments should stay away from the ME.dont you really understand ?????????

annata said:

curious as to what land forces.

Quds are there, we have the Kurds -but only in their region, and Iran and Hez in Syria with the regular Syrian army.

The problem( as I see it)is the Iraqi army is now almost entirely a Shi'a force -how are they gonna liberate Mosul and Anbar (for ex.)

Click to expand...

The Kurds/Syrian Democratic Forces are a given. In Syria, we should back rebel groups such as the New Syrian Army until a peace deal is reached; at that point, our air support should extend to the Syrian government as well. Most Iraqi forces other than the overtly pro-Iran Shia militias and the PKK can be supported as well.

JC Callender said:

Wow, surprised to see a Liberal with these suggestions!

Click to expand...

Although liberal interventionism seems to be rare in common discourse, I'd say that most liberals who are in government (Obama and especially the Clintons) essentially follow this line of thinking. Also, I identify more with liberalism as a global political ideology - democracy, civil liberties, etc. - than with its American connotation, although I agree mostly with that as well. Groups like ISIS completely reject liberalism and so should be liberals' natural enemies.

PoS said:

The textbook definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time.

Click to expand...

Except it has worked before. France built up a coalition of government and Tuareg forces in Mali and proceeded to utterly stomp jihadists there. Terrorism in Algeria is also virtually nonexistent, although that is more a result of internal government strength than Western intervention. Nevertheless, it's hardly as if terrorism is some magical force that can't be defeated.