I think that is a valid question:
- In Egypt we support consolidation of power by an obviously Muslim Brotherhood run government. To that end, HC and her deputy, Bill Burns, have traveled to Cairo to threaten and cajole the Egyptian military into accepting what the Egyptians know will become an Islamist state with all that promises for women, Christians, homosexuals, etc.
- In Afghanistan we are engaged in a very long, very costly war against an Islamist guerrilla army that has the support of many in that country. It is claimed that the Afghan soldiers and police who are killing our men are merely "disaffected." Yes, but their disaffection is largely the result of their anti-kaffir xenophobia. We are now in the process of abandoning the failed COIN strategy in favor of a CT based strategy that I advocated three years ago, but that was then. This is now. The time has probaby passed.
-In Iraq, we created a government that rejected any real strategic relationship with us and now conspires with Iran to halp Iran evade the sanctions regime. But, we still say we love them.
- In Tunisia, the Islamist element in the new government is seeking to erase French culture in the country. We look fondly upon them.
- In Yemen we directly assist the new Yemeni government in seeking the annhilation of the small Sunni Wahhabi insurgent movement. In so doing we align ourselves with the Sunni majority of the former PDRY against the Fiver Shia population of the North who are thought to be somehow related to Iran. They are not.
- Iran. Well, I won't even try to deal with that here. We await Israel's initiative.
- Saudi Arabia. We await their desires as well.
- Syria. We support a Sunni Wahhabi led, financed and armed insurgency against a government that has traditionally been hostile to Islamist groups.
What's the connecting thread here?
Don't embarrass yourself by saying oil and Israel.
"It is a tale told by an ifdiot." pl
I will give it a shot: Too many career Dept. of State, Dept. of Defense bureaucrats who cannot see the forest for the trees which is that the USA does not need to micro-manage the world. I just listened to a Naval officer tell me that the new "big thing" in the Navy is China....they are setting their sights on China as The New Big Threat. What a joke and he knows it and he admitted that its the only way to keep your high paying job is to create threats and enemies.
The US government is highly skilled in creating enemies.
I believe we should have less opinions; less intervention; more humility ... lead from a place of high morality
Posted by: walter | 24 August 2012 at 02:59 PM
In the US, 3 months is a long time. In much of the rest of the world, 3 centuries is a short time and none more so than in the Middle East. US foreign policy was once summed up by the late Rodney King: Can't we all just get along?
On US terms, of course.
Posted by: Lars | 24 August 2012 at 04:03 PM
IMO very limited opinion the convoluted past, present, and future of US policy towards Islam will continue to be controlled by US ignorance and hubris that somehow the Islamic world can be directed in its impulses towards modernism, secularism, and democracy. At best wecan only hope that our real policy is not TIL DEATH DO US PART!
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 24 August 2012 at 04:10 PM
William Engdahl has his take, though the article is about the China/Pacific pivot, the ME remains integral to the overall strategy.
"To prevent China from emerging successfully as the major economic competitor of the United States in the world, Washington launched the so-called Arab Spring in late 2010. While the aspirations of millions of ordinary Arab citizens in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere for freedom and democracy was real, they were in effect used as unwitting cannon fodder to unleash a US strategy of chaos and intra-islamic wars and conflicts across the entire oil-rich Islamic world from Libya in North Africa across to Syria and ultimately Iran in the Middle East. [28]
The US strategy within the Islamic Arch countries straddling the Indian Ocean is, as Mohamed Hassan, a strategic analyst put it thus:
The US is…seeking to control these resources to prevent them reaching China. This was a major objective of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but these have turned into a fiasco. The US destroyed these countries in order to set up governments there which would be docile, but they have failed. The icing on the cake is that the new Iraqi and Afghan government trade with China! Beijing has therefore not needed to spend billions of dollars on an illegal war in order to get its hands on Iraq’s black gold: Chinese companies simply bought up oil concessions at auction totally within the rules.
[T]he USA’s…strategy has failed all along the line. There is nevertheless one option still open to the US: maintaining chaos in order to prevent these countries from attaining stability for the benefit of China. This means continuing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and extending it to countries such as Iran, Yemen or Somalia. [29]"
http://www.voltairenet.org/Obama-s-Geopolitical-China-Pivot
Posted by: Rd. | 24 August 2012 at 04:36 PM
Saud funded Pan-Islamist 'stability' under the MB, with a counterweight in Iraq/Iran? Or just cleaning out the non-Royal tyrants with mob rule?
If I could fashion a conspiracy, it would be that the neos, R2P crowd, Twelvers and KSA are all part of a Chinese puppet opera intended to keep the west distracted and devolve US strategic influence.
Afghanistan has just been a Decent Interval effort.
Posted by: Gorgon Stared | 24 August 2012 at 04:59 PM
don't embarass uself by saying oil & israel?
the guy that runs the mideastreality blod has always nailed. his name escapes me for the moment.
"Israel works to prevent the formation of a regional monopoly power. In that respect its interests are aligned with the United States. For example Israel bombed Osirak to prevent Iraq from being able to threaten Israel and at the same time it ensured Iraq would not threaten a weak Saudi Arabia.
A balance of power is a US interest independent of Israel. Israel though, adds the constraint that it must be a balance of very weak powers. That is an expensive new constraint added by Israel.
A balance like that between Brazil, Argentina and Chile, between France, Germany and England or between Taiwan, the Koreas and Japan would be intolerable for Israel in the Middle East (meaning between Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran) because any of the countries named could and would, while balanced with each other, make it unviable for Israel to remain a Jewish state.
A balance of powers could have been accomplished without an invasion of Iraq. A balance of powers could be accomplished without the expensive current attempt to economically isolate Iran.
A balance of very weak powers. Subject to the constraint that none of the powers is strong enough to threaten Israel is much more expensive to emplace and maintain. The US does it for emotional reasons, but will stop when the costs become too high. But the cost of maintaining that constraint is part of the cost of US support for Israel.
US policy in the Middle East is driven by oil and the strategic implications of a large amount of that resource that is concentrated in the region. But the US has accepted, for reasons that have nothing to do with pure strategy, a strategic priority in protecting Israel's status as a Jewish state that imposes heavy and costly constraints on that policy."
Posted by: Will | 24 August 2012 at 05:04 PM
There has been talk of stationing a carrier group in Western Australia. Perth would be the home port. That allows quick force projection in the Indian ocean and control of trade via the straits of malacca.
Then there are the marines in Darwin. I expect the number and capability to grow.
Posted by: Walrus | 24 August 2012 at 05:45 PM
RE China - States are naturally paranoid, only the paranoid survive. This is especially true when you look at individual branches within the goverment and in particular the armed services. Their job is to prepare for the next war, not matter how likely or unlikey. With that in mind the current tumult about the 'chinese threat' is certainly understandable. The Navy has an obligation to defend our interests globally and the Chinese are dead set on expanding their sphere (which is natural) at the expense of ours. I'd be concerned if the Navy wasn't worried.
Posted by: Eliot | 24 August 2012 at 06:14 PM
re: Rd
My question is: Who is "Washington"? Who, specifically, constitutes "The USA" .... who are the actual flesh and blood human beings that are deciding "USA strategy" "The USA is seeking to control..." who are these people?
Posted by: walter | 24 August 2012 at 06:35 PM
PL, regarding oil...here is a quote by James A. Baker III on Terry Gross Fresh Air in 2006:
Baker very candidly states: "....let me get back to oil for a minute, cause for a lot of people, oil is a dirty word and I am not so sure it ought to be to a country like ours that uses so much of it and depends so much on it for energy, but I have been in four administrations, and in every one of those administrations, that is Ford, the two Reagan administrations, and the Bush administration, and in every one of those administrations WE HAD A WRITTEN POLICY THAT WE WOULD GO TO WAR TO DEFEND SECURE ACCESS TO THE ENERGY RESERVES OF THE PERSIAN GULF. THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMIC, AND I WOULD EVEN SAY TO THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES. THOSE WERE WRITTEN POLICIES. AND SO WHEN YOU FORMULATE AND IMPLEMENT FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE UNITED STATES YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT PRINCIPLES AND VALUES, YES, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT NATIONAL INTERESTS. AND WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A STRONG NATIONAL INTEREST IN PRESERVING SECURE ACCESS TO THE ENERGY RESERVES OF THE PERSIAN GULF."
Col. Lang, please comment
Posted by: walter | 24 August 2012 at 10:26 PM
Walter
Thanks for asking. I remember Baker's comments on this subject at the time of the First Gulf War. i was significant to me becasue I knew at the time that the US's first instinct had not been to react to Iraq's invasion of Kuwaitby by going to war for Kuwai. at the time I took Baker's statments on this as the reaction and rationalization of a mind wedded to materialism and nothing else. GHW Bush had not intended to do anything like go to war until Margaret Thatcher shamed him into action a week afte rthe invasion by implying a doubt about his manhood if he did not throw Saddam out of Kuwait. This reactionon her part seems to have been caused by her natural middle class belligerance and Britian's long association with Kuwait. Bush had been unjustly slandered as a wimp by this enemies and her reaction was too much for him. She sent us to war. Oil is only good for the possessor when it is used or sold. Eveyone with any brains in Washington knew then that Iraq would sell Kuwait's oil along with its own and that every additional barrel in the world market would depress the price. You don't conquer oil, you buy it. Did we conquer oil in Iraq? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 25 August 2012 at 12:16 AM
Since oil and Israel have been brought up I am interested to know if the Col. believes the US has any line it won't let Israel cross in the ME.
Regardless of whether the Israelis are or aren't crazy, it's hard for me to imagine that the US doesn't have a 'what if' plan for intervening in or preventing Israel from using nukes in the ME and creating a 'economic winter' for world ME oil dependents.
Posted by: Cal | 25 August 2012 at 12:28 AM
I do recall a segment on TV News at the time - do not recall which news channel - were a yuppie in New York stated: "...because Sadda Hussien has gotten our oil..."
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 25 August 2012 at 12:48 AM
US trying to turn Iran into another North Korea is akin to China trying to turn Italy or France into another Cuba.
Doomed to fail....
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 25 August 2012 at 12:49 AM
Saddam was a secular modernizer. This is the internal contradiction of neoconservatism. They can't have a guy like that being a strategic player in Israel's neighborhood. But ultimately, he was an avatar of a pan sectarian progressive model that they can only dream of today. Yes, by force of arms, but that's how we do it too. The difference, he was often successful.
Posted by: JMH | 25 August 2012 at 06:23 AM
If it's not oil or Israel, then what is it?
Also, results don't always = original objective
Just because Hitler wasn't able to conquer Russia, doesn't mean he didn't really want to conquer it.
Posted by: George F | 25 August 2012 at 07:46 AM
George F
You must be new here. What else? Crazed internationalist jacobin ideologues and persnoal egotism pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 25 August 2012 at 08:02 AM
Cal
I don't believe the US has any plans or thoughts about limiting Israeli freedom of action. "...a tale told by an idiot." pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 25 August 2012 at 08:03 AM
Well, he failed in the most significant area of Modernity - fostering of individual autonomy and freedom of action.
Franco was better.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 25 August 2012 at 11:00 AM
Jacobin/neocons/neowilsonian globalists with no real understanding of the world eating the pap that passes for education at university and then rising in the ranks based off of how many diversity checkboxes they can fill in place of actual skill and understanding.
They have drank thier own kool-aid and believe thier own bullshit.
Posted by: Tyler | 25 August 2012 at 12:31 PM
Col Lang, Baker said we would go to war to "defend secure access" to Persian Gulf oil ... which to me means that to maintain this access you would want governments friendly to the USA that would not restrict access by the commercial players (Exxon, Hunt Oil, KBR) who make the real money in these ventures. The Iraq war seemed to be, in part, about installing a more friendly government for us.
Dick Cheney was a political science major and a politician. Why was he chosen to be CEO of the largest oil services firm on earth, Haliburton, which is typically run/operated by engineers? Because engineers don't win contracts, political players do. Why/how did Haliburton go from servicing oil wells to constructing and servicing military installations?
11/15/1999, Dick Cheney, CEO of Halliburton (later, Vice President)
"Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greater access there, progress continues to be slow." (at the London Institute of Petroleum)
9/9/2008, Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve through 2005. (from The Age of Turbulence, p.463)
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
Iraq has not been the oil company bonanza for us because we were unsuccessful at getting our friendly government installed although we tried like hell.
Posted by: walter | 25 August 2012 at 12:51 PM
walter
An interesting conspiracy theory, but incorrect. You want to believe that because you are a econmic determinist and for you asll things must have an economic cause. Baker and you are brothers. In fact, the neocon/Bushy cabal was not interested in Iraq's oil. See my article "Drinking the Koolaid" in MEP. People and countries sell their oil to make money, not to control geopolitics. Iraq's oil was for sale before 2003 and much more would have been available if it had not been for the sanctions we insisted on imposing. OAPEC's embargo on oil exports and Saudi "fiddling" with production are the only real examples i know of restriction of flow for a political end. Why have we not invaded SA? They wuld have been easy. We did not "try like hell' to have our candidates elected in Iraq. we meekly acquiesced in the rejection of our favorited and then equally meekly accepted ejection from th ecountry by those who won. Where is there a US base in Iraq? pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 25 August 2012 at 01:25 PM
In 1995, the government of President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani offered a $1 billion contract to U.S. oil company Conoco to develop offshore Iranian oil and gas fields. The Conoco contract was the most lucrative petroleum deal ever offered by Iran, under the monarchy or the Islamic Republic.
Bill Clinton squashed it; he desired to bankrupt Iran foremost.
Nary a noise of protest came out of the Capitalist Pigs and Big Bad Rotten Piratical Oil companies.
Posted by: Babak Makkinejad | 25 August 2012 at 02:32 PM
There is a serious need to understand international affairs in relation to fact, not one's own desires and resulting misunderstanding of on-going events. For example, I was even taken in by the disgusting appearance of President Assad, but, as time passed I realized that the real problem is the insane narrow minded push of the so-called rebels. We don't need to support this kind of nonsense - it is actually antithetical to our own interests - not all apparent "rebellions" are seeking democracy. Let's get a life and recognize what we are really up against - it might change the direction of our approach.
Posted by: stanleyhenning | 25 August 2012 at 07:48 PM
Thanks for reply.
''a tale told by an idiot." pl
Well then I guess we could end up in even deeper doo doo some day than I imagined.
Posted by: Cal | 25 August 2012 at 11:57 PM