About 40 years since anyone managed to attack Israel eitherâŚdestabilisation may be the goal not the consequence of US actions.
1 Like
Thatâs probably true alright. But Israel is a regional superpower and is untouchable in military terms so thatâs not even a real concern anymore. The real question is what has the US got out of the vast expenditure of both treasure and lives in the region? Essentially nothing. Iran-Iraq, Libya, Reagan in Lebanon, the Tanker war, the Saddam sanctions, Afghanistan, Iraq 2, Libya 2 all ended with none of their political objectives achieved.
The Gulf War prosecuted by Bush Sr was the only venture that ended in something you could call success. The rest of the time itâs either been failure or outright disaster.
It hasnât been a disaster for the American arms / private security / tech / facilities services / oil etc etc etc companies who have profited massively from it, courtesy of the american taxpayer. the military / industrial complex is the business equivalent of a self fulfilling prophecy.
2 Likes
Ultimately the roots of all this go back to
i) an unfortunate chance geological occurrence, ie. that the oil lay under Saudi Arabia, which had the most repressive Islamist ideology in the world, and used its stroke of fortune to spread its ideology. The Saudis have spread their cancerous brand of radical Islam across Islamic countries in a similar way to how the New Right in the US sold their bizarre dystopian, anti-government views to much of the white population of the US. It was an easy sell as long as the US was perceived to be a colonial oppressor throughout the region.
ii) the creation of Israel.
Other things like the coup in Iran in 1953 and proxy wars against Communism or even any sort of social democracy had long-lasting negative effects. But the US has been behind numerous coups in South America and the long-term consequences were not nearly as serious because there are more complicating factors at play in the Middle East.
The neo-conservatives sort of had a grand vision for the Middle East, but it was hopelessly wrongheaded and naive, and thatâs being kind. Other US governments were less obviously interventionist, but kept interfering and picking sides in local squabbles without either fully committing or having any real idea what they were doing, or any idea of or any real care for the long term consequences. This helped stoke up intra-Islamic tensions. Every ostensible attempt at firefighting ended up creating more fire. Now thereâs a situation across the Middle East where there really is no solution at all, the problems are so vast and intractable. That wonât stop people hysterically personally blaming current or future US Presidents for whatâs happening in Islamic countries, of course.
The USâs unquestioning support for Israel and its colonial expansion stoked up anti-US feeling across the Islamic world in general, and itâs something the US has never made any real attempt to address or be an honest broker in, and probably never will. The pro-Israel lobby in the west is far too strong.
Iâd go back even further to the colonial times when the Brits & the French sliced up the middle east in straight lines allowing nothing for the different racial groups contained within the boundaries, slicing apart groups which had been together for years and sticking them onto groups with whom they had no affinity or worse were enemies.
Fair point, Robert Fisk always talks about how âSykes-Picotâ is often invoked by people with a long knowledge of history in these places.
Post first world war. Robert Fisk goes into it well in his book âThe Great War For Civilization.â Well worth a read.
Part of the appeal of ISIS is their rejection of the European-imposed Skyes-Picot borders. Understandably, large swathes of the population in the region see that state system as (1) a social and economic disaster, and (2) an alien framework foisted upon them with no thought given to their interests. The caliphate promised by ISIS is drawn from their history and their traditions, as opposed to ours, so it has some vague romantic appeal in that sense. Unfortunately life under ISIS is a totalitarian nightmare, hence the flight of millions anywhere they go.
Itâs impossible to tell what the future of the region will be. But itâs hard not to conclude that US have just been pissing in the wind with their military adventures, occasionally getting covered in piss themselves.
1 Like
Iâve been saying on here for years that the borders drawn up by Europeans are the root cause of conflict in the Middle East. to think the US have âfailedâ is infantile, all they want is continuous war, or more accurately, continuous preparation for war, by both the US armed forces themselves and their willing arms buyers like Saudi. So near total success in the region.
1 Like
Itâs quite frankly amazing that the world never listened to you while you were dishing out your wisdom. Iâll give Bono a call immediately and the pair of you can sort it out.
4 Likes
Well all the boys are repeating it above, the sincerest form of flattery and all that. But thanks pal.
when will the anti war, anti water charges, anti corrib oil, JFT96, repeal the 8th, occupy dame street. IPSC, anti israel, anti US, anti EU but also anti UK brexit, anti TROIKA rent a crowd mob be having the stop the US led bombing of poor old ISIS protest?
3 Likes
The Iraqis are ahead of schedule in the retaking of the city. Well according to themselves anyway.
ISIS will run away like the Rovers in Limerick.
2 Likes
ah its a win win for ISIS
they can never really be âdrivenâ out of somewhere as they just regroup and morph into something else
they are very adaptable, they see this as some type of end game in Mosul but will re invent themselves as an even better terror organization , ull see a huge uptick in suicide attacks in Europe again id say especially as they start loosing ground here
the caualties here will be fucking enormous, its like a Jenin x 1000 during the second inifada when the IDF went street by street after hamas⌠this will be a humanatarian catastrophe
1 Like
They need to have a state to call Muslims to arms, so to lose all their territory would be a big blow.
As we know only too well in this country though you canât stop terrorism by military force theyâll morph as you say into something else.
I see in Syria Al Qaeda have undergone a bit of a brand change with Al-Nusra now âdistancingâ themselves from Al Qaeda and are thought to be getting under the counter support from the US. You literally couldnât make it up. The US supporting Al Qaeda in a war against Russia, again. Absolutely fucking incredible.
1 Like
Losing.
Loose - not tight.
Lose - not win.
âLoosing the battleâ - gibberish.
5 Likes
The amount of roasters that make the lose/loose mistake is staggering.
1 Like
Thatâs the whole problem with the US strategy in the region. Itâs the conditions that gave rise to ISIS that require serious analysis if the cycle is not to repeat itself. But the power of the US military has retarded that sort of strategic thought. Some other ragtag bunch will become a dire threat to the entire world in a few years and the US media will forget that ISIS existed.
spelling and, grammur are not my strong points however the content as always carries serious wait.
And is usually especially in this thread proven to be on the ball and in the long term correct
7 Likes