Is it possible for the West to do anything right in the Middle East?

[redgunamo]

Full-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.

Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.

Make a few quid out of it.

[redgunamo]

East Aleppo, eh? Well, if that's *East* Aleppo, one shudders to think what West Aleppo must be like.

:wodehouse:

The usual one-sided reporting of unverified claims, which even if true, only ever seem to be about offenses committed by forces aligned to one side (the Syrian government) in the battle for East Aleppo, with the aim of raising the clamour for somethingmustbedonery in support of the 'rebels' (new name for Al-Queda).

We don't know what is happening in Al-Queda-held areas because these people, y'know, tend to chop journalists heads off, so we rely on 'tweets' and 'doctors' which are pretended to be geniune. I suspect they are from the same PR sources funded by Washington and Westminster which have been providing the same drip-drip of propaganda for the last five years.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pro...-month-produce

Like the story of protest singer Ibrahim Qashoush, reported by BBC, CNN, Guardian, Telegraph, to have been brutally murdered by the 'regime', with his vocal chords cut out, who turns up alive and well in Spain. #fakenews

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/syria-civil-war

The West *is* intervening in the conflict in Syria, and the conflict exists because the West started the civil war in the first place with the familiar aim of regime change. And with the familiar outcome which as usual is being blamed on other sides and dutifully reported as such in the usual places.

[Monty92]

The usual one-sided reporting of unverified claims, which even if true, only ever seem to be about offenses committed by forces aligned to one side (the Syrian government) in the battle for East Aleppo, with the aim of raising the clamour for somethingmustbedonery in support of the 'rebels' (new name for Al-Queda).

We don't know what is happening in Al-Queda-held areas because these people, y'know, tend to chop journalists heads off, so we rely on 'tweets' and 'doctors' which are assumed to be geniune. I suspect they are from the same PR sources funded by Washington and Westminster which have been providing the same drip-drip of propaganda for the last five years.

http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-pro...-month-produce

Like the story of protest singer Ibrahim Qashoush, reported by BBC, CNN, Guardian, Telegraph, to have been brutally murdered by the 'regime', with his vocal chords cut out, who turns up alive and well in Spain. #fakenews

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/syria-civil-war

The West *is* intervening in the conflict in Syria, and the conflict exists because the West started the civil war in the first place (or massively helped it along) with the familiar aim of regime change. And with the familiar outcome which as usual is being blamed on other sides and dutifully reported as such in the usual places.

Isn't the problem that just when things start to get really messy in these conflicts, the west loses its nerve, in large part because of political pressure back home imposed by 'progressives' and squeamish anti-war movements. Like when Obama talked about the 'red line' of Assad using chemical weapons and then pussying out when he did.

[World's End Stella]

All it really proves is how much we undervalue a truly brutal dictator who keeps his population of nutters under firm control.

A man with whom you can do business should never be under-valued, no matter how much of a c*nt he is.

[Burney]

Isn't the problem that just when things start to get really messy in these conflicts, the west loses its nerve, in large part because of political pressure back home imposed by 'progressives' and squeamish anti-war movements. Like when Obama talked about the 'red line' of Assad using chemical weapons and then pussying out when he did.

Elected politicians can't really do long-term strategy, though, that's the problem, since they're on a two-year cycle between the need to get re-elected or step down raises its ugly head. It makes taking decisive action difficult. Dictators like Putin have the advantage there.

[Burney]

All it really proves is how much we undervalue a truly brutal dictator who keeps his population of nutters under firm control.

A man with whom you can do business should never be under-valued, no matter how much of a c*nt he is.

This 'hard man' line gets trotted out regularly and rather ignores the fact that these sort of quasi-socialist, kleptocratic, 'hard-man' dictators like Mubarak and Assad are actually shït at running their countries. They give the appearance of keeping the lid on, but actually balls things up to the extent of them becoming backwards, rat poor and basically forming a wonderful breeding ground for resentful hard-line islamists.

[Monty92]

Elected politicians can't really do long-term strategy, though, that's the problem, since they're on a two-year cycle between the need to get re-elected or step down raises its ugly head. It makes taking decisive action difficult. Dictators like Putin have the advantage there.

Yes, but the limitations of democracy are made exceedingly worse by electorates' woeful inability to see the world with dispassionate eyes. Without that flaw, a whole lot more good would likely get done a whole lot quicker.

[Monty92]

This 'hard man' line gets trotted out regularly and rather ignores the fact that these sort of quasi-socialist, kleptocratic, 'hard-man' dictators like Mubarak and Assad are actually shït at running their countries. They give the appearance of keeping the lid on, but actually balls things up to the extent of them becoming backwards, rat poor and basically forming a wonderful breeding ground for resentful hard-line islamists.

I don't think the failure of any state populated by millions upon millions of religious fanatics to whom the very concepts of wealth and prosperity is anathema can really be blamed on any individual leader. It's pretty much the geopolitical equivalent of the England job.

What would have become of Saudi Arabia if they hadn't struck oil?

[Tony C]

Supreme Leader Trump will bring peace to the world imo.

Will go down as the greatest ever US President...Lincoln and Roosevelt ain't going to have sh*t on him.

-

failing that we can always use Plan G....i.e. let Israel off their leash and let them pick a country to nuke....might as well give the nod and wink to the Indians to do the same to Pakistan while we're at it.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

Full-scale, boots-on-the-ground intervention and we get Iraq
Just intervene with air power and we get Libya.
Don't (or barely) intervene and we get Syria.

Seems to me that these people are intent on slaughtering one another and nothing we do is going to make a damn bit of difference.

"Is it possible for the West to do anything right in the Middle East?"

Colonise the place? That was right in the past.

I read a book review of Baghdad in the Sun Times a year ago, which said the only peaceful time in its history was under GB rule in the inter-war years as part of the League of Nations mandate.

The natives didn't have the vote anyway, but under GB rule they at least had the rule of law and security forces who were above all the sectarian conflict and put a stop to it.

Wouldn't work now, mind.

But it's another of those imperial questions most fellow lefties find a bit tricky. Unfortunately, they seem to have been better off under our rule. Still, at least we robbed all their oil so we can feel guilty about that.