The U.S. must abandon the Middle East

This may seem to be a rather extreme approach to some. The idea challenges U.S. policy since the end of World War Two, but it is a recognition of geopolitics today. Also there are several reasons why this would be a prudent approach. It should be noted that Hillary Clinton -- very probably our next President -- opposes sending ground troops to the Mideast, special ops troops and trainers notwithstanding. That, however, is just the first step. It is being suggested here that the U.S. completely withdraws from the Mideast.

One factor to bear in mind. The U.S. is committed to the defense of Israel. This foreign policy initiative would in no way infringes on that commitment, and we must make that very clear to all parties concerned. Moreover, this policy should not be construed as abandoning our commitment to prevent Iran from securing a nuclear device. Indeed, regarding the latter, if Western intelligence services are unburdened of the entire Mideast fiasco, their task of controlling Iran would be that much easier.

There is nothing to be gained by controlling the Mideast. We are a net exporter of oil and we have enough natural gas for generations. We have an abundance of coal. We lead the world in energy production.

We have been fighting in the Mideast for fifteen years. We have accomplished nothing with all that fighting. We have actually lost prestige in the Mideast due to our vain attempts at hegemony. The creation of a democratic Iraq was a pipe dream that showed our lack of understanding of the region. The dream of controlling Iraq’s oil was another fantasy. As a result of our invasion, Iraq joined Iran’s sphere of influence and that still exists today. That’s called negative progress.

Our attempts at control of the Mideast has made matters worse.

Over 5,000 Americans lost their lives so far in that fighting, over 25,000 wounded, cost is over $6 trillion dollars, an estimated million innocent men, women, and children have been killed. That is enough of price to pay for our failure.

We cannot defeat terrorism by fighting in the Mideast. Talk of attacking ISIS with our military might is ludicrous. Islamic terrorism has been around since the time of Mohammad. It started as a ruthless religion that has no use for infidels. Terrorists meld into the populace, be it a Mideast populace or a European populace. Military units are not trained nor are they equipped to handle terrorists. Terrorist do not stand and fight. Their targets of choice are civilian targets with innocent men, women, and children.

Only the world’s law enforcement and intelligence agencies can possibly control, not defeat, terrorists.

Only Muslims nations can defeat Muslim terrorists. Makes sense. Muslim terrorists kill more Muslims than any other ethnicity. Only .006625% of Muslims are terrorists. That leaves a rather large majority of Muslims to fight terrorism when they put their mind to it, and they must. The idea of the U.S. not doing the job for them may encourage them to take on the task themselves. In a very real sense, it is their problem more than anyone else's.

Some would argue the policy of abandoning the Mideast would be a mistake because the region would succumb to Russian influence. After all our bitter fighting there and all the unintended consequences we have suffered, it can be argued that Russia can have the Mideast. Moscow, it can also be argued, would recognize our severe losses in men and treasure and, perhaps, not want the Mideast.

After all, who does?

 

For those who are so short-sighted, controlling the Middle East/Black Sea/Mediterranean Sea Region is an essential goal for US Geo-Political Strategy.

For one thing, it denies Russia any potential allies in the Region. Next, it sets the stage for the US to implement "regime change" in Iran.

Once the US has effected regime change in Iran, the US will be able to push its hegemony and gain control over the majority of the 5 Central Asian States of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Having accomplished that, the US can then begin arming and funding rebel groups in the eastern Russian republics, to ultimately gain control of them.

That is The Plan.

 

It's what Russian bloggers think anyway

 

Funny how well Russians and Trump bloggers mesh together. Sen. Joe McCarthy would roll in his grave.

 

The U.S. should butt out of world politics and mind its own business. If we leave the Muslims will go back to killing each other.

 

How'd that work in Afghanistan?

 

Gee, that was funny. Are you going to take your show on the road?

Keep in mind the plan does not involve mothballing the U.S. fleet. We still will control the Med, the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the Persian Gulf. That pretty much bottles up Russia and Iran.

 

Breaking news! Muslims are killing each other. Muslim terrorists kill more Muslims than any other ethnicity.

 

I for one would love to see us be able to tell the countries of the Middle East to go pound sand. (Literally). Unfortunately, the U.S. is currently responsible for ensuring the flow of the world's primary energy source, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

 

You didn't refute anything.

Russia cannot base troops, aircraft or port ships in Libya, in case you didn't get the memo. Yugoslavia was castrated in case you forgot about that.

 

Well, our "managing" it is a total fricken disaster.

So she says today. She is financially backed by the Sunni governments, governments that also back ISIS. She will start with an air war which will escalate into a ground war. Ideally, Congress would stop her, put an authorization to a vote and vote it down. If she tried to pursue war in the face of a Congressional rejection of war, they should impeach her and remove her from office.

We already did that with the Obama-Iran deal.

Yes. We have everything we need to be self-sufficient and mind our own business and engage in fair trade with those nations that want to engage in fair trade with us.

 

I don't know if we should tolerate Islam because religion spreads hate.

 

According the Democrat talking heads and many Democrats on this forum, your message is proof that you are a troll for Russian President Putin. All true Americans agree we MUST immediately attack the Russian in Syria, MUST shoot down Russian military aircraft and civilian airliners over Syria, and be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bombs, missiles and drone bombing at least 7 countries at any given time and spending billions giving weapons to all sides of at least 3 civil wars we start at all times as well. IF you were a TRUE American in their view per their propaganda media and press PR outlets, you would agree that we MUST spend at least $10 Trillion over the next decade to best Russia in a new arms race - and another $5 to $10 Trillion in an arms race with China. And since ISIS is in at least a dozen countries, we not only must be bombing and attacking a dozen countries, those are also 12 countries we need to be arming ISIS in as well.

You aren't really going to claim that the USA can't win Hillary Clinton's and the super rich global elites' war against Russia, are you?

 

Trillions of dollars to be made for the super rich elites in that plan.

 

Good writing, and I agree with almost all of it. If I may, I shall take issue with just one part of it.

Let's set aside for the time being our own culpability for the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. That is a well-worn topic, and I suspect you are well aware of it, as I am.

So all that aside, the problem with ISIS is that they do wish to achieve hegemony over the whole Muslim world, or at least the Sunni Muslim world. Now honestly, I could consider that a problem for the Muslim world and just ignore it except that ISIS is an existential threat to Europe, the U.S., and to Israel. And, it's not like ISIS is some peaceful, benevolent political movement. They are genocidal barbarians of the worst kind imaginable. So I will say that I do think it is appropriate that the civilized world confront and destroy them.

Where I disagree with you is where you say military units are not trained or equipped to handle terrorists. Our military is capable, and they have proven it in recent times in places like Anbar Province and in Helmand Province. Our troops did, in fact, subdue those areas. None of the forces arrayed against our troops were ever any match for them. Our troops are better trained, better led, and better equipped. Our troops also have more heart. They don't surrender, and they don't run away. The truth is, in the face of U.S. forces, most of our enemies are cowards. They inflate their egos by raping and killing helpless civilians, but they are a bunch of cowards at heart.

The truth is, if the U.S. wanted to wipe out ISIS in Iraq and Syria, we could do it in a matter of months. The problem of course is not our military ability. The U.S. simply does not possess the will to do this using our own troops. The other issue is the question of who we turn over these territories over to. The Sunni areas of Iraq can't stand the Shiite government of Iraq (for good reason), and the Sunni areas of Syria can't stand the Allawite government of Assad in Syria. So winning would be easy. But then what? One thing is for sure ... The U.S. does not want to occupy either area and sit around in those countries and babysit. And of course the situation is complicated by this present administration's misguided obsession with regime change in Syria. One option could be to just destroy our enemies and leave and not even screw with the question of who governs afterwards. We could be done with it, except that we could leave with the warning that if AQ or ISIS re-emerges, we will kill them all again.

You can take the wind out of their sails by being strong. When bin Laden was killed, our SEALS took his computers. One of the things that was found on them were writings to other jihadists where bin Laden admitted that he underestimated the U.S. response to 9/11. He actually believed that the U.S. would do nothing or nothing of consequence. In essence, he thought the U.S. would cower and surrender. His writings prove that the U.S. retaliation was felt and that it did have the desired effect. And, as we know, the U.S. drove the point home when we broke into his home, shot him in the face, and dumped his carcass into the ocean for the crabs and fishes.

So yes, the civilized world does possess the ability to discourage these barbarians from attacking us. This we can do, and our enemies are powerless to stop us. Every breath they take is a breath we grant them, for we can take it all away if we choose to, whenever and wherever we want.

But don't take this as a big disagreement with you. In general, I agree. My belief is that our military should be used to defend our country and our closest, most longstanding allies - countries that are like us - and that definition excludes almost all of the middle-east.

Cheers

 

With a global dependent economy US could never abandon the Middle East,
turmoil in a wider scale would render a greater effect and somehow the flow of bucks will trickle.

 

The U.S. is pretty much self-sufficient in energy. We are the largest producer of energy in the world. We are a net exporter of oil, and we have enough natural gas for generations. It is the E.U. that is dependent upon Mideast oil. They can protect their own source of oil. We've have protected that source for them for decades. That's enough and we have paid a heavy price. It is past time for the E.U. to pick up the slack. We no longer can afford to do the job for them.

 

Your post was too absurd to refute. Russia has a naval base in Syria. I don't understand your last two sentences at all. Yugoslavia was castrated? You mean Ukraine? What does either have to do with the Mideast?

 

President Bush had a major goal. But he also wanted to end a major problem that we had for over 10 years prior to his taking office.

What was the conditions when he took office?

USA in a virtual war with Iraq. Clinton bombed them a lot of the time. And don't think you heard of all the bombs he dropped.

I can't recall anybody accusing Clinton of bombing Iraq to get the oil.

Bush had no idea of wanting the oil. He understands the oil market better than most of us do. And he realized the oil there would be on the world market. He did hope a grateful Iraq would cash in oil and pay back for our efforts. But he had no way to force it on them that he would take. You don't free people then demand they pay you back. But it sure would have been nice.

As a child, in the late 40s we were involved in the ME. I recall the heady days of the Egyptian dictator who was so friendly with the Soviets. Back then, the Israel business was in it's infancy. Iran was on our side. We used Iran to watch over the Gulf.
That was official policy. We needed that waterway open. The Shah handled that.

When Ayatollah took over, he did not do that for us.

I agree in principle we need not be there.

But this for me is why Bush invaded.

To free humans
To allow freedom to well up and create a free society
Bush had early plans to conquer, help them get the voting started and take off. Bush did not want to remain there.

I think the goals of Bush was to not need to be there.

 

Do you enjoy Russia as your enemy? And they do not want things that way.

 

Yes, beginning with Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq, our "managing" of the Mideast has been a total failure. That, and the fact we no longer need Mideast oil, is the primary reason for getting out. We have paid a heavy price for negative results.

Your scenario regarding Hillary is a bit farfetched. Hillary has been described in many unflattering terms, but she is experienced and intelligent. Moreover, she will have the best advisors money can buy. She played a role in Bush's debacle. She was a Senator. She will not go down that road again.

The Iran deal prevented Iran from developing a nuke. Far more important, Iran does not want a nuke. A nuke will make Iran a target. Were she ever to develop a nuke, which Israel will not allow, she will begin with two nukes, one for testing, one for use. Iran's greatest enemy, Israel, has between 100 to 200 nuclear bombs. The Ayatollah and his minions are not stupid, and they have no death wish.

Yes, engage in fair trade, not attempt to seek trade agreements that strongly favor the U.S. Our trading partners will not agree to terms that are skewed toward us. Attempting such agreements would be a fool's errand. Trade agreements must be beneficial to all.

 

Read Charlie Wilson's war. Folks, I doubt you all saw the movie. But that movie is not the tip of the iceberg. The story is so much richer than you get from a Tom Hanks film.

Charlie was a Democrat powerhouse. We may not realize it, but he might well be the most powerful ever single congressman that lived.

How did it work in Afghanistan? The goal was the removal and defeat of the Soviets. And of course we all know it worked very well.

Charlie wanted to also defeat the Sandinistas but felt he could not handle two major events.

 

Russia is just not going to sit by and watch as that happens. And ... the plan is going really badly.

Russia is already cozy with Iraq and very cozy with Iran. Syria is Russia's best bud and Assad is still in power. Turkey is now getting mighty friendly with Russia.

China does business with Russia so does India (the two largest populations and fastest growing economies on the planet). India in fact just inked a deal with Russia on S-400 missiles and they have been working together for years on brahmos missile technology.

US hegemony in the 5 Central Asian States of Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan ... is not happening any time soon. Any fancy stuff and they will get the same treatment as Ukraine.

After many years in hibernation the Bear has awoken ...

 

The invasion was not illegal. Why must Democrats start a discussion calling it illegal? Hillary voted for it. As did most Democrats.

Congress did declare war. Bush could start as he decided to.

Your error is assuming we manage it. That never was Bush's goal. If you think it is Obama's goal, he sure is not showing it to me.

We were tapping quite a bit of oil from Saudi Arabia at one point. Iraq was a lot more closer to the Russians so would gladly help them with their oil needs.

Hillary has to be intelligent to keep you fooled. Don't you see that?

Again, freeing 50 million humans is not a debacle. We honor the French who came to this country to assist George Washington and pay them honor. We did a good thing freeing two countries. Too bad in those countries were men who would try to undo what we did so well.

Frankly, I never feared an Iran nuke. We lost our fear over both India and Pakistan. Both have the bomb. And they hate each other. So if the bomb will get used, it might get used by one of them. Iran is next to Afghanistan.

It is a smart idea to keep iran from the bomb but they are crafty. I am not certain we stopped them.

It is not proven, but I heard that israel has over 800 nuclear bombs. I think they can handle Iran in a pinch.

 

Robert, please provide sources for this statement. "USA in a virtual war with Iraq. Clinton bombed them a lot of the time. And don't think you heard of all the bombs he dropped."

"Bush had no idea of wanting the oil." Bush succumbed to the advice of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the goals of the neoconservatives. Their charter, Project for the New American Century or PNAC, called for U.S. hegemony over the Mideast. The plan called for a democracy in the heart of the Middle East, Iraq, and complete domination of Mideast oil from well to distribution points. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

The Bush invasion of Iraq was based on three lies to Congress and the American people. Saddam had WMD's. Saddam was allied with bin Laden. Saddam was culpable for 9/11. All were untrue from the very beginning. They were a result of micro-managed intelligence, not bad intelligence. Please Google the Office of Special Plans.

Robert, you have much to learn about Bush's invasion. Bush was a very nice guy, but he was a mere puppet when it came to the Iraq War. He was dominated by Cheney and Rumsfeld.