Does US Overstate Importance of Middle East?
Scott Stearns - Voice of America
Secretary of State John Kerry says the United States must remain “deeply engaged” in the Middle East because it has a direct impact on the U.S. economy and national security. But is the Obama administration overstating those threats?
In the six months since the collapse of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, there has been an upsurge of violence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and 50 days of fighting in Gaza.
Yet Kerry continues to meet separately with Palestinian and Israeli leaders, looking for an opening to restart talks on a two-state solution while keeping up momentum at home, where he says Americans cannot wall themselves off from the Middle East.
“We have to be deeply engaged - deeply engaged - in this region because it is directly in the interest of our national security and our economy," he said.
But in an essay for the magazine Politico, Cato Institute analyst Justin Logan says Washington overstates the region’s importance.
“American attention to the Middle East is disproportionate compared to the Middle East’s strategic impact," he said.
On security, Kerry says no ocean can shield Americans from danger.
“And that is a primary reason why the Middle East matters. But it also matters because our friends are so important to us. We are proudly and unapologetically connected to Israel and many Arab states with whom we have worked closely for decades," he said.
Those decades of military support should have changed the U.S. view of risks facing Israel, Logan says.
“It has a qualitative military edge over all of its conceivable rivals in the Middle East. It has terrorism problems. It has a very nasty dispute with the Palestinians. But none of these endanger Israel’s survival as a Jewish state in that part of the world. So we tend to overstate that consideration," he said.
On economic risks, Logan says the Middle East accounts for just six percent of global Gross Domestic Product, including oil exports, with no one power positioned to monopolize supply.
“Iran isn’t going to conquer Saudi Arabia, vice versa, etc. So the energy security problems, which are under-defined, actually aren’t that great for us. They could be. But there’s no prospective danger in the near term," he said.
Kerry says the United States cannot walk away from the Middle East even as it approaches its own energy independence.
“Any serious disruption to the Gulf oil supplies can have major consequences for our own well-being, as well as the global economy to which we are all attached today," he said.
Kerry says the United States is also linked to the Middle East by “rich spiritual and ethical traditions” that have helped shape Americans’ belief in the importance of every human being - a conviction that he says is now “under vicious assault.”
“Sure, we could turn away, pretend that we don’t see or hear what is happening. But America would not be America if we turned our back on that suffering. It is not who we are, it is not in our DNA, and it is not in our interest," he said.
Kerry says nowhere are the “building blocks of international security” at graver risk today than in the Middle East, where in Egypt, for example, he says violence threatens to drag the entire region into “total turmoil.”
Comments
Anyone understand why if the SecDef was bringing up Russia and Putin as a serious threat to focus on---then why was he being ignored by the WH and the NSC?
That what his job is for.
It all goes back to the concept of "speaking truth to power even if power does not like the message".
Hagel had warned Obama that US needed to be tougher, more focused on Putin http://on.wsj.com/1veTR24 via @WSJ
A really really good study done by the Latvia government on the "Branding of New Russia"--follows their previous work published on the new Russian military doctrine "New Generation Warfare".
Shows the total importance of a thorough info war campaign in support to that new military doctrine such as the current Russian campaign and which we in the West can only dream about.
Center for Security and Strategic Research of NDA, Latvia. Strategic Review "Branding Novorossija":
http://www.naa.mil.lv/~/media/NAA/AZPC/Publikacijas/SA-10_NOVORUS.ashx …
Taken from the article--it is the exact same approach used by IS in their global info war campaign since 2004 used to recruit, radicalize, and now to support their "new Caliphate".
Branding is a powerful tool for influencing mass consciousness, because targeted and sophisticated image building creates a shortcut to people’s minds, attitudes and behaviour. The principles of branding allow for packaging complicated political ideas into symbols that are easily perceived by the masses. Of course, one can debate whether the concept of Novorossiya, as it has emerged in the context of Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian crisis, can be defined as a brand. Nevertheless, outlining the idea of Novorossiya from the perspective of branding reveals its communicative strength. The aim of this strategic review is to discover which elements construct Novorossiya as a brand from the viewpoint of the project’s promoters.
This is how our current policy reflects absolutely no strategy for anything.
SoS talks about success in the Iranian discussions that should have been wrapped up by today.
Notice all the statements above by SoS Kerry and NOW the statements by the Iranians---two distinct parallel worlds of reality and yet we call it success?
Can anyone explain to me just what the NSC and the Obama strategies are for Iran, Iraq, Syria, IS, Ukraine, Russia and Libya?
Pres. Rouhani calls extension "a major victory" for #Iran, adding "the centrifuges are spinning & will never stop
So this is what ---success?
Speaking truth to power will always kill your career these days at the SecDef level.
By Justin Sink - 10/30/14 01:40 PM EDT
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel wrote a memo to National Security Adviser Susan Rice sharply criticizing the White House strategy on Syria, according to reports from The New York Times and CNN.
The two-page memo details “concern about the overall Syria strategy” and called for a more defined plan for handling the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, a senior U.S. official told the cable network.
The unnamed source said Hagel was concerned that the U.S. could lose gains it made in the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) if it did not alter its strategy toward Assad.
The Obama administration is facing a difficult quandary in Syria, where ISIS has seized control of large swaths of the country amid a bloody civil war between Assad and rebel groups.
The White House has repeatedly called for Assad’s removal from power, but there is some concern that by targeting ISIS, which is also fighting the brutal dictator, the U.S. could embolden his regime.
And another Obama national security type bites the dust over the IS and Ukraine.
NBC News quotes sources as saying Defense Sec Chuck Hagel just wasn't up to the job
http://on.nbc7.com/BG8qkw3
pic.twitter.com/QAd1C4jjYJ
Of course the blogger world in Europe immediately comes to the conclusion that this is the reason that we are spending billions fighting now IS and virtually nothing on the Ukraine.
If the National Security Council would read some of the comments here at SWJ they might be a little ahead of the game and they should feel free to quote SWJ.
Blogger comment:
I can't think of a precedent for how White House is handling this Hagel announcement. Have they ever nuked someone like this as he departs?
Some say this is the weakest national security team ever assembled in the last 20 years as it appears that dancing on one wedding is about they can handle even if that.
1. Iran an ongoing failure as the Iranians are still not willing to give up nuclear weapons grade enrichment and the dream of a nuclear weapon---actually the failure of the Ukrainian Budapest Memorandum would indicate to many countries---if you have nuclear weapons never ever give them up for vague and hallow assurances of your national integrity and borders.
2. IS strategy if there was one is a failure and the bombing has driven more anti Assad fighters into the arms of IS and yet into the bombing campaign we still do not a coherent strategy on Syria
3. And we have absolutely no concept and or strategy for dealing with Russia as a neo imperialistic power on the move in central Europe, the Balkans and the Baltics in recreating the Soviet Empire and declaring along the way "we are not afraid of MAD".
Hagel said to be stepping down as defense sec "under pressure" as admin seeks someone better-suited to fighting ISIS:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-…?
The US does not overstate the importance of the Middle East, instead, the US overstates:
1. The importance of certain post-WWII allies in the Middle East
2. The importance of shaping the governance of the Middle East
3. The importance of religious-based ideology in political conflicts in the Middle East
4. The need for military basing in the Middle East
Bottom line is that the US has always had important interests in this region, and likely always will. Our challenge currently is that long-suppressed political grievances have collided with the information age, setting in motion a degree of political activity that is very disruptive to systems we've worked hard to put in place and sustain over the past several decades. Those systems are not important, the interests are. We need to assume more risk and allow systems to evolve or fall away as new systems for nurturing those interests emerge.
To do otherwise puts our foreign policy at odds with our national narrative, and that type of perceived hypocrisy is terribly erosive of our national influence. We have surrendered our narrative to the extremists, and have linked arms with those dedicated to sustaining the status quo. It is time to reclaim our narrative and work with governments and populations alike in this era of unprecedented political evolution.
Seems some US politicians cannot figure out either what the strategic "vision" should be---noticed he did not want to "declare war on Russia".
Maybe because he is intimidated by Russian nuclear weapons thus has no opinion on the Ukraine events.
2:05pm · 24 Nov 2014
Rand Paul tries to boost his foreign policy chops by calling for a declaration of war on ISIS:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/24/rand-paul-declares-war…
This interview recently with Putin reflects on what happens when someone does not take an unbiased view of history.
He even uses what was stamped in a Ukrainian passport from 1924 to argue that really Ukrainians are "little Russians" but failed to mention that Stalin ruled the Soviet Union and the passport was issued by the Soviets.
Interview in English gives a great view of Putin's current mindset for those that do not believe he is not working with a plan.
Maybe this is the core single failure in the discussion between our emphasis being placed and or a decision being made between both the IS and the Ukraine.
Apologies to Nuland and Latvia, but the majority Americans probably don't know what or where Latvia is. http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.cz/2014/11/window-on-eurasia-americans… …
Religious Jew who fought for #Ukraine near Donetsk w/ the leader of the nationalistic Right Sector v @avramchuk_katya
pic.twitter.com/imN1szkzem
Now that is an example of just how little the West really knows about Ukrainian internal politics--- a Jew fighting next to Ukrainian nationalist who Putin claims are Nazi's/fascists--ever wonder why?
Why is it impossible to dance at two weddings---because we failed to fully understand history and have repeatedly failed to learn from that history.
Example---how many Americans fully understand the Sunni Shia divide and the historical reasons behind that divide that have carried into even today?
How many Americans fully understand the regional hegemony disputes between Iran and the KSA?
How many Americans fully understand Khomeini's revolutionary messaging concerning the Green Crescent ie the Old Silk Road?
How many Americans fully understand the reasons the US has been in the ME since WW2?
How many Americans fully understand the differences in the various flavored ME terrorist/insurgent groups since say Black September 1970? Or for that matter any knowledge itself on AQ?
Now flip to the Ukraine---the only major large country in Europe that was not allowed to obtain independence even after two world wars and the Wall coming down.
How many Americans fully understand Stalin's drive to destroy what existed then as the Ukraine?
How many Americans fully understand the reasons behind the Ukrainian forced starvation by Stalin where an estimated 4-10M Ukrainians were killed mostly in the eastern regions of the now Ukraine AND those killed Ukrainians were then replaced by forced ethnic Russian migration afterwards leading to the now Russian claim of wanting to "defend" those same ethnic Russian regions?
How many Americans fully understand the vast web of corruption that existed in the Soviet Union and continued to exist now in Russia and former Warsaw Pact countries.
how many Americans fully understand that Putin is able and even willing to use tactical nuclear weapons in the Ukraine and towards the Baltics and Poland if he has to? Mention that and most Americans would say "do what"?
How many Americans even visited as tourists the former Warsaw Pact countries during the Communist period vs say as tourists traveling to the same countries today?
Until Americans fully understand the role history plays in international relations and geo politics we are basically doomed to keep making the same crazy decisions we continue to make.
Geo politics is actually not hard--one just has to understand history and yet we seem to be unwilling to even do the basics because many find it "boring" and "unproductive". Why because we tend to not care much about what goes on outside of our own Atlantic and Pacific borders.
This by the way can be taken into the countless US military discussions on for or against COIN, FID and SOF.
Unbiased history is the greatest teacher if we allow it .
Sometimes Russia itself fails to remember historical events they themselves instigated.
17.11.2007 Dugin's radical Russian nationalist group broke into the UA cultural center in Moscow & smashed an exhibition on the Holodomor
Russia officially says the Holodomor is not an ethnic genocide. Duma passed a resolution in 2008 saying it should not be considered genocide
From the Ukrainian view---
In the memory of the fusilladed Renaissance:
Ukrainian artists,writers,poets,scientists,most of which were destroyed by famine of 32-33 years
It looks like the spiritual descendants of Stalin, Kaganovich and Postyshev didn’t dissolve in the darkness of history.
Within two years of the Bolshevism genocide Ukraine has lost from 4 to 10 million innocently murdered citizens.
Today, when food riots have started in the occupied territories of the Donbas, gunmen are shooting vehicles with Ukrainian humanitarian aid
In order to fully understand either the IS and or Russia ie Putin history seems to have gotten lost along the way.
Is/are the US air strikes against the IS really just reinforcing the role of the Shia militia's against civilian Sunnis' and in the end also supporting with US fire power Iran in their expansion into physically Iraq?
Good Jihadists vs. bad Jihadists? - "#Iraq's Shiite militias are becoming as great a danger as #IS."
Bill---am not so sure--if you go back to the countless comments by Robert he uses the terms "rule of law and good governance"--and that populations should on their own make the decisions that they need to make.
Most of the Arab Springs sprung up around these two ideas which were incorporated into the slogans--free and fair elections, economic development/jobs, security and the ability to raise a family in a fear free environment.
What the population did not realize and could not realize was what the force back by the then ruling elites or the "hidden elites" had in mind ie the military, economic business class, and or the Islamist groups around the Muslim Brotherhood.
In some aspect all those things that most people envision to be the center of their desires as a population as a whole.
Of all the Arab Springs only Tunisia has made it half way through to the other side but again driven by the population which rose up even against the MB.
The Ukraine on the other hand had a history of trying to become independent and it was always brutally put down--check the period of 1932-1933 when even Stalin used starvation has an attempt to reign in the Ukrainians---which in general even we in the US do not even recall that event.
Russia has done three things in their drive to put down the Maidan---
1. they had inherently driven the Ukrainian population to realize they are in fact Ukrainians which is something to even die for--Russia has created a true Ukrainian nation state identity
2. Russia has created in this identity building to actually give the Ukrainians the feeling that their army is something needed and it is worth dying for--Russia created a Ukrainian army while not free of corruption and or poor leadership---they are in the field and fighting and are actually holding on their own
3. Russia in its actions have driven the underlying desire to create a democratic state, reign in corruption and it for the first time gave the Ukrainians hope for a future and the diaspora for the first time is actively supporting them from the outside
But more importantly is it has given the Baltics and Poland a voice and the Baltics are now voicing their thoughts about Russia in the open and along the way it has motivated Sweden and Finland to come in from the cold and merge their own security interests in the Baltic region.
Russian "unintended consequences" might say.
Yesterday the Lithuanian President accused Russia of being a "terrorist state" something that would not have happened a year ago.
Russian response---and read carefully the Russian wording it is interesting. Notice they accuse her of her Soviet past and attempt to place here in the corner of the "radical nationalists".
Comment by Spokesman of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexander Lukashevich on the provocative remarks by the President of Lithuania
2667-20-11-2014
In an interview with a local radio station on 20 November, Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė once again broke out into what have become her traditional rude attacks against Russia, this time going as far as calling our country, in the context of the Ukrainian events, a “terrorist state.” She also bluntly called for providing support, including military aid, to the current Ukrainian regime, saying that if the “Russian aggression” is not stopped, then the “aggression” could spread across Europe and beyond.
Grybauskaitė’s remarks surpassed even the most extremist statements coming from radical nationalists in Kiev. What she said does not help, but, to the contrary, only complicates the search for solutions to the Ukrainian crisis. Sensible politicians in most countries, who are not trying to please those on the fringe of society, but are genuinely concerned about the situation in Ukraine and the state of affairs in Europe and the world, operate based on a different -- responsible -- approach.
The Lithuanian president would better pull in her Komsomol horns and try to get rid of her inferiority complex caused by her Soviet past, which, clearly, makes her be holier than the Pope. A politician’s wisdom is not measured by an obsessive desire to provoke conflicts and offend its neighbours, but the ability to find constructive solutions based on the current situation in Ukraine, for which the foreign leaders, who in February supported the unconstitutional coup and are now pushing the Kiev authorities to wage war against their own people, are partly responsible.
20 November 2014
Again not a single mention of Russian mercenary support---it is the old standard Russian line for the last seven months--"it ain't us".
Regarding resources, what Kerry et al. seem to be focusing on today are not so much natural but, rather, human resources.
Thus, the hearts and minds of the people of the Greater Middle East and elsewhere.
All of whom we seek to change -- via inspiration and state and societal transformation -- into more valuable, reliable and usable "products."
In other parts of the world, and post-the Cold War, this mission (to make the human resources of the world -- via inspiration and state and societal transformation -- into more valuable, reliable and usable products) this has largely been accomplished.
Not so in the Greater Middle East; so we place a great deal of our focus, energy and emphasis there.
We also place much of our focus, energy and emphasis in the Greater Middle East to, hopefully, prevent people in places like Indonesia from "back sliding" and, thereby, becoming less valuable, less reliable and less usable as "products;" products whose job it is, in our eyes, not so much to pray -- but, rather -- to produce and consume.
Thus, "the importance of the Middle East," I suggest, to be viewed more along "human resource"/"human capital" lines.
For those that think Russia does not want to take the entire eastern Ukraine or what Putin calls "New Russia"---here comes the next move.
So what is more important bombing black flag waving radical Islamists or stopping neo imperialism in central Europe?
#NATO sees movements of the Russian troops along the dividing buffer line in eastern #Ukraine - sec.gen. @jensstoltenberg in #Lithuania
Madhu--this is really the single greatest fear Putin has at the moment---the Maidan as a symbol of the colored revolts---he is seriously afraid it will reach into Moscow and he might in the end be correct.
Doesn't this sound a tad bit insecure? RT Putin says Russia must prevent 'color revolution'
http://reut.rs/11FRvQ2 via @reuters
Madhu---Putin is on a roll and until someone stands up and says stop with a very large hammer behind the word stop he will not stop.
Now it is on to the Baltics;
#Russia refused to ratify border w/#Estonia: Tallinn's unilateral border demarcation has no legal effect for Russia. http://tass.ru/politika/1589136 …
Russian Foreign Ministry says Estonia’s unilateral border demarcation will have no legal binding on Russia
http://en.tass.ru/russia/761074
Madhu---Many in the former Warsaw Pact see the EU as a solid example of the rule of law and good governance thus the drive to join it.
Tourism the worlds greatest common leveling device between populations.
From Maidan stage today: "We in Ukraine should be able to live a normal life. A European life." #Euromaidan #DayofDignity
Madhu---notice that many in the eastern Ukraine did not initially want to fight to become independent from the Ukraine.
"At first, nobody wanted to fight," says Strelkov, proudly stating that he started the war between Russia - Ukraine.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russia-s-igor-strelkov-claim… …
Madhu--you bring up and interesting point--Soviet style corruption--you will still find it in all the former Warsaw Pact countries that have even joined the EU and NATO.
Visit Warsaw, Prague etc. and it is all a blazing lights type of city with expensive hotels and food---travel to the countryside it and looks like 1972 all over again with many houses and buildings never even being newly painted or the poor roads 25 years after the wall came down---even the EU development funds get ripped off when not heavily controlled. Not to speak about the internal local and Russian criminal gangs which are being used heavily in the Donetsk.
In some aspect the Ukrainian colored revolts were much like the Arab Springs---big demos, changes of government and then nothing happened ie rule of law and or good governance was never implemented which is really why the population demonstrated in the first place---all they want is a reasonable life, a job, a chance for their children and some reasonable security.
The same goes for the Ukraine which was even worse off on the corruption side and they are struggling badly even now with it.
But I have never seen a country try to rebuild itself, rebuild a army and fight a war all at the same time and lose 10% of their land mass.
If you think about it 97% of the country is actually not under control of the Russians---that is the remaining 3%.
There are some voices inside the current government that say they do not need the Donbas and they are actually correct as the Donbas has the bulk of the old dying Soviet industrial base and they can easily shift the industrial rebuilding to other areas---what they do need are the two ports of Mariupol and Odessa which is really what the Russians need to ensure a land corridor to the Crimea and completes the formation of the "New Russia".
.
I like your comments too, it's just that I have a bad habit of behaving badly online. Dude, what is with the Ukrainians and their border weirdness? Is it just their endemic bad leadership and corruption? You'd think they'd be more interested but it seems more like a Western Ukraine punishing the Eastern Ukraine thing. How is cutting off old people's pensions supposed to work, instead of working patiently on a good border force and working to disrupt the flow of outside materials? Yats isn't the man in Victoria Nuland speak, he seems utterly clueless.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the other stuff, Russia isn't as strong as the old Soviet Union, and Europe is plenty wealthy. A certain amount of NATO expansion had to do with the desire for some Eastern European countries to be the big local boss and there is the old French, German, British competition.
I wonder if War on the Rocks is interested in the old Ismay "keeping the North Americans in," line?.... LOL. Wonder how that happens, eh? Those poor guys. I am the most skeptical person on the planet.
Madhu---have always liked your responses by the way.
My deep concern over the Ukraine is that we currently have a country that has unleashed one of the best world class info war campaigns I have ever seen in a long number of years.
Core problem is they are now believing their own propaganda and that is then dangerous-- why because they then reside in "an altered state of reality" that does not allow for one to be able to make clear and concise rational decisions necessary for a regional power that has a urge to fire tactical nuclear missiles--- in order to figure out when it is time to stop.
Right now regardless of what many think Putin believes he is superior to anyone especially the US and feels his "nuclear superiority" and that has made him ignore the common Cold War principle of MAD.
Gorbi stated yesterday in an interview that Putin is beginning to believe he is "god like".
When one leaves the realm of MAD and expresses his desire to use first strike tactical nuclear weapons-and even hears it muttered to his own population during an "experts TV discussion" as a way to counter the current sanctions --that is then dangerous.
PS: There are lots of people spending lots of money in DC to ensure that we stay focused on the Middle East in just the right way, an array of foreign factions, DC legacy systems, people that want to buy and sell (but mostly sell) things....
Multifactorial:
adjective
involving or dependent on a number of factors or causes.
Influence:
noun
the capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself.
verb
have an influence on.
It never ends, the endless rounds of justification for being forever involved in every nook and cranny of the Middle East:
<blockquote>In response to these disturbing developments, President Eisenhower called for "joint action by the Congress and the Executive" in meeting the "increased danger from International Communism" in the Middle East. Specifically, he asked for authorization to begin new programs of economic and military cooperation with friendly nations in the region. He also requested authorization to use U.S. troops <strong>"to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations."</strong>
Eisenhower did not ask for a specific appropriation of funds at the time; nevertheless, he indicated that he would seek $200 million for economic and military aid in each of the years 1958 and 1959. Only such action, he warned, would dissuade "power-hungry Communists" from interfering in the Middle East.
While some newspapers and critics were uneasy with the open-ended policy for U.S. action in the Middle East (<strong>the Chicago Tribune called the doctrine "goofy"</strong>), the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate responded with overwhelming votes in favor of Eisenhower's proposal.</blockquote>
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-proposes-new-midd…
<blockquote>Iran has offered to double the volume of oil it exports if nuclear sanctions that restrict its energy industry are removed by Western powers.</blockquote>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/112428…
Define Middle East, define critical interests, define conflicting interests, and there you have it, the decades long mishmash of competing agenda, priorities, lobbies, ideologies and business interests that define the mishmash of American policy toward the region. Everyone has their own idea about what is our interests should be, but what they never stop being in the Middle East is the constabulary that took over from the old colonial order even as we wed ourselves to the Saudis in complicated ways, far more complicated than any one word could do justice: oil, dollar, religion, habit, emotion, global, leadership, you name it.
To ask American elites that have zero ability to be intellectually tough, fit and focused (exaggeration, I know, but it's a comments section) to pick just one or two and see those through to a reasonable conclusion is to ask too much. Add to that the emotional and intellectual habits the average American has picked up over the years, and, why, Outlaw and I might go back to being simpatico around here, except I disagree on Ukraine.
But he's right on the expansive "nice to have" versus "must have" nature of our Middle East wish lists.
Outlaw 09: I feel like you're setting up false dichotomy after false dichotomy. I don't think that anyone is arguing that the Russia/Ukraine fiasco isn't important, though I'm not sure what you're proposing the United States/NATO should do about it. The topic of discussion is whether the United States has a strategic interest in the Middle East (you keep talking about ISIS/DAESH when the article itself clearly points to the Israeli-Arab dispute). The obvious answer is "yes, of course the United States has a strategic interest in the Middle East". Answering "yes" to that question doesn't undermine the strategic interest that the United States/NATO has in Ukrainian sovereignty, so I'm not sure why you find it necessary to be so prolific about Russia/Ukraine in a discussion that's essentially unrelated to Russia/Ukraine.
Here is the basic difference between the IS and the Ukrainian events;
Pentagon asks for $1.62b for #Iraq's Army, #Kurd forces, and #Sunni tribes to fight #ISIS.
And we announce with great fanfare today 23M USD for Ukrainian reforms--now tell me there is not something wrong.
Heck even the Russians are spending 20M USD per day for their war efforts inside the Ukraine.
Then tell me after spending the next 1.62B USD the Iraq military will be able to stand alone again?
Whether or not the US is suppose to be the police force to protect all of the global oil is a question that has been answered in 2003 when we crossed into Iraq---we are not the world police force of other's oil consumption.
Even if the Iranians act up as they did years ago it is questionable they will ever repeat it in the future as they need to sell oil to the global market as well as does all of OPEC and the independents.
Iraq was online and now offline why because of they own internal problems and IS which we as a police force could not even control even when we were there and still cannot control.
Oil is still flowing from the Emirates, Kuwait and the KSA---do not see a need for a police force there.
Let's see--the Israeli-Palestinian question is a key to the ME but it has nothing to do with oil the last time I checked---all the Arab Springs--also not about oil the last time I checked as well.
What I do see is a massive unsettled dispute between two regional powers Iraq and the KSA over the Sunni Shia divide but again we cannot and should not get involved in that dispute--AND here is where I would agree with you--the two countries are currently in a pricing war over oil and it is hurting the Iranian government not the US government which is the intent of the KSA.
So when we exclude the question of oil---what is left then?
One could have a valid argument that the ME is a large purchaser of US weapons or one could argue that we do export to a degree to the ME usually agriculture products, but if one looks at the US exports to say Europe vs the ME then Europe out weights for the US economy. One could argue we need the ME for naval basing rights but most of those bases sit inside Europe
THEN balance that against a resurging nuclear power who has now overcome the US in sheer nuclear missile numbers and modern new nuclear missiles and who expresses a desire to use them against the US and who does not any longer fear "MAD" and who wants to rock the basis of European national borders settled in two wars and a falling Wall.
Decision between the two is not necessary---yes still pay attention to the ME but pay far more attention to Europe especially if the US wants TTIP passed in the coming year or so---13 million potential jobs is not chump change compared to how many being created out of the ME?
Some say that all politics circles around the question of economics--even the Ukraine question was "triggered" by economics---not oil.
Bill nails it with his observation that even if America becomes energy independent, that won't make the rest of the world energy independent, and America's role in Middle Eastern security will remain largely unchanged. Anyone who doubts the Middle East's long term role as a lynchpin of international security is ignorant, disingenuous, or just plain wrong. One could make a case that the Israeli-Arab dispute doesn't directly impact American security, but that case typically ignores the role that the Israeli-Arab dispute plays in the wider Middle Eastern security landscape. Any dismissal of the importance of these factors to American national security requires gross oversimplifications of current events and a wilful ignorance of historical precedents.
To state it more simply---
Do those black flag waving radical Islamists threaten a water tower in Des Moines, Iowa or does this threaten the entire US?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/11/20/could-russias-new-nuc…
IMO the water tower is safe --the US as a whole needs to rethink it's position towards Russia in a hurry as the Russian leadership is truly in "an altered state of reality" and think they can win and are voicing their willingness to use nuclear weapons when they "feel threatened without warning".
For the first time since WW2 ---MAD does not impress them.
Bill---here is the current problem with US foreign policy--and perception is 100% always at the heart of political announcements.
US is literally "afraid" that anti tank weapons being supplied to the Ukraine would trigger an even heavier Russian response---and that is being balanced by unlimited Russian T-72B2/3s in large numbers as well as heavy MLRS systems and massively advanced SAMs being supplied in large numbers and "Russian vacationing troops" and that is not "an already heavy response"--it cannot get much worse if you ask me---just supply the darn things and deny like crazy much as the Russians do daily and we the US cannot play the same "game"?
When have you seen an long press conference on the Ukraine by Obama-explain to the US population exactly what is ongoing--Putin has had over six just in the last three months.
Announcements such as below should trigger a massive info war/PR response from the US and yet---nothing --strange is it not?
ANNEXATION?#Russia draws up bill to replace #Ukraine banks with Russian ones in #Donbas
http://bit.ly/1HuOhiN
pic.twitter.com/Eew7QKxTk7
This from reuters:
LONG DEBATE
President Barack Obama's administration has long debated providing weapons to the Kiev government, but has so far concluded that it might only prompt Russia to escalate its aid to the separatist rebels.
Lethal assistance "remains on the table. It's something that we're looking at," Obama's deputy national security adviser and nominee for deputy secretary of state, Tony Blinken, said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Wednesday.
In response to Blinken's comment, Russia warned the United States on Thursday against supplying arms to Ukrainian forces.
Hours before Biden was due to arrive in Kiev, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich cautioned against "a major change in policy of the (U.S.) administration in regard to the conflict" in Ukraine.
U.S. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said he had not been briefed on the new non-lethal aid but called it "a continuation of the ridiculous."
"They are fighting against people with lethal weapons. They need lethal weapons to fight back. It is disgraceful and shameful that we won’t give them lethal weapons," McCain told Reuters.
Bill---I would argue that it is and has never been about the "Ukraine" from the Russian perspective.
The "Ukraine" is in fact simply a smoke screen and or a "false flag" that Putin is using to gain three distinctly from Russian perspectives important geo political accomplishments---if you check Putin's statements since 2010 and his FMs statements also from 2010 the below can be found in virtually all of their actions and or statements concerning the Ukraine;
1. Putin fully wants to cut the US totally out of Europe for once and for all times ie separate the US from the EU--- one of his greatest fears and that has been stated by Russia a number of times since 2010 is the coming EU/US TTIP agreements for a free trade zone that threatens to cut Russia completely out along with their EEU
2. Putin wants to fully discredit NATO in the eyes of the former Warsaw Pact countries (all of them that have joined and or still want to join) that joined it as a safe harbor from Russian aggression they perceived would be coming around again and they were actually quite correction in that assumption--ie over 400 Russian AF intrusions into their air space in just 2014.
Putin wants to be able to prove to the former Warsaw Pact countries that NATO will not support them under Article 5 and he is rattling them right now and NATO actually has no answer for the question---do I go to war over a "bunch" of Russian speakers who want more autonomy and complain of discrimination---a valid question as NATO has not really answered it in their recent statements on hybrid warfare
3. Putin wants to actually break the EU apart---why he fears their economic and civil laws that will destroy the Russian State enterprise system and thus the funding streams for himself and the oligarchs---any new member must be able to prove to the EU upon joining they have achieved the Copenhagen standards which all have---
He and his FM keep going back to their economic free trade zone proposals of 2010 of a free trade zone from Portugal to China---but if one reads it closely--- under Russian control---that was why Merkel made her recent statement---under no circumstances will the EU ever allow Russia to say what it can and or cannot do and who can join or not join.
Russia wants as a regional power hegemony over Europe---nothing more nothing less and the Ukraine is the battering ram to achieve the three items above. Russia has never been really a superpower per se---she has always been a regional player but one who has nuclear weapons thus had the status as a superpower--but economically she has always been since 1918 a total failure.
There is nothing wrong in maintaining a presence the ME and wave there the flag but if TTIP is to go forward which would generate far more jobs and revenue for the US than the ME ever will and there is talk of then expanding it into the ME/Med regions then we must refocus militarily back into Europe whether we like it or not.
BUT when Russia has developed a totally new nuclear first strike capacity and has basically abandoned the MAD principle--- and even threatens to use it to achieve their "Ukrainian" smoke screen goals THEN that is far more serious than anything the ME can and or does mean to the US.
Have not seen many ME countries providing over the years military support in AFG, or Kosovo, or just about any other place the US/NATO/UN has been militarily involved in outside of Kuwait.
By the way the former SOCEUR has made similar comments in the last few days.
WATCH Merkel--she has had totally enough of Putin and fully states now he does not want a compromise and she speaks fluent Russian and lived and grew up in the GDR so she has some insights other Western leaders do not have and for her to say that is impressive.
THEN this today--aimed directly at Putin and he will understand it---Germany is cutting ties and doing away with the last vestiges of "Ostpolitik". Germany will continue to talk to Putin but he will get the message that he has in effect "lost" German support now and in the future.
Merkel orders Russian-German forum to be canceled http://liveuamap.com/en/2014/21-nov
This can be argued from a lot of different angles, but the Politico article is a blast from the past that misses the changes in the world today. It doesn't matter how much oil the U.S. gets from the Middle East, what matters is how much the global economy depends on the oil from the Middle East. The global economy is connected, and meltdown in one part of the world will impact the rest of the world to varying degrees. On the other side, does it matter who runs the country? They'll still sale oil at the end of the day. He also stated the Middle East didn't have real military power that could threaten the West and starting counting nuclear submarines. Fair point, that just validates there are a wide range of potential threats in the world. However, just because the Islamists don't have significant conventional military means to project power, they do have global networks, and the stated intent to attack the West. That can't be ignored. One can also project a potential future where they take over large areas of the Middle East, develop enough wealth to purchase more advanced military capabilities that would be even more devastating to the U.S. and West than the attacks on 9/11. We can't predict the future, but we can see certain trends and how they could converge.
At the end of the day strategic decisions are made based on assumptions, and the author may be right that we're putting too much effort into Middle East because the outcome of the fight there doesn't matter. If he is wrong, that assumption could prove to be costly.
Ukraine? Make a case why it is important. Russia? I agree with you that we missed the obvious for many years. President Bush assumed Putin was a friend, yet there was no behavior that supported that perception. Neocons and liberals like to believe their vision for the world is reality, and that vision becomes an illusion that they form policy around regardless of what is really happening.
While we the US chased jihadi's and AQ since 9/11 and got deeply pulled into Iraq which gained the US absolutely nothing and AFG where we have failed again this was ongoing in central Europe as we paid no attention.
What was along the way our military strategy as we seemed to not have a national strategy---COIN, CT, SOF, ink blot theories, FID---BUT what did we forget to do which we are at one time really good at ----CAM.
One point that was missed---is the ME really deeply needed for the US economy--no not really, and how is our dependence on that so called ME oil---gone down massively since fracking has created the US as one of the really top oil producers.
And central Europe, the Baltics--the EU in general---not important?
What is actually an interesting development--while we the US were tied in knots by black flag waving Islamic fascists--the Russian military recently held a major exercise in the far eastern which replicated the actual invasion of an mid sized country---CAM total coupled with integrated SOF and intel units complete with a division size airborne assault. When was the last time the US military held a multi service force major exercise anywhere in the world?
Social media picked up on it immediately and started asking questions and then it hits the Western media just now---seemingly ignored it actually?
How did we get so pulled away from our traditional allies and out of our traditional military concepts of CAM in favor of COIN or better yet why did we abandon CAM and thought COIN was going to be here forever?
Former #Putin’s adviser: #Russia was preparing for the war with #Ukraine &West for 11 years, so it will be long
http://goo.gl/1o0FKr
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia-war-games-spill-secrets-175912339…
Russia's Igor Strelkov Claims Responsibility for Unleashing War in Ukraine:
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/russias-igor-strelkov-claims…
Russian UAV reconnaissance over Donetsk region cont., 9 cases in last 24 hours. MI8 helic. and SU25 flights spotted near northern UA border
Artillery shelling from Russian territory registered first time since the 5 Sep. ceasefire. Shells were shot in eastern part of Luhansk obl.
RF army and terrorists continue movements of military units on east Ukraine, attacks and shelling continued in all directions
And in the face of the above---3200 none boots on the ground, weapons and bombers were sent to the ME and to say the Ukraine MREs, blankets and other "non lethal" aid---but that does not stop Russian T-72B2/3s, t-80s and T-90s.
Social media summed it up ----Again, lethal aid no. Humvees yes
And those black flag waving guys---still on the move in Ramadi and nothing we have done on the "lethal side" has stopped that-interesting is it not we are ready to stop them but say and or do nothing against Russian expansionism?