Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:28 AM Mar 2016

Do you think we need a more "muscular" policy towards the Middle East?

Corollary question: if "regime change" had no real positive effects in Iraq and few if any in Afghanistan, do you think it could possibly help in Syria?


9 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
Yes, we need a more "muscular" policy in the Middle East
0 (0%)
Our present policies in the Middle East are about right
0 (0%)
We should pretty much leave the Middle East alone militarily/
9 (100%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do you think we need a more "muscular" policy towards the Middle East? (Original Post) Ken Burch Mar 2016 OP
Depends on which "muscle" we exercise - if it's the one between our ears, it might work . . . Journeyman Mar 2016 #1
We lost. Get out. Get over it. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2016 #2
^pretty much this ^ + 1000 Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #11
Agreed. senz Mar 2016 #18
Where's the diplomacy option? joshcryer Mar 2016 #3
With Kerry as SOS, I think that's the "as is" option. I've been very happy with Kerry's work. JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #4
Fair enough. joshcryer Mar 2016 #6
Yes, indeed. But I think the topic here is the Middle East, not legitimate failings in Eurasia / JonLeibowitz Mar 2016 #7
Obama has it right. Hillary and Sanders are both wrong. Onlooker Mar 2016 #5
Bernie can't be a socialist AND a libertarian. Ken Burch Mar 2016 #8
On foreign affairs, he's certainly not a socialist Onlooker Mar 2016 #9
There can never again be an American military intervention worthy of socialist support. Ken Burch Mar 2016 #10
Well, we can't very well go into a region, impose governments ... Onlooker Mar 2016 #12
Why prop up governments whose authority no one accepts? Ken Burch Mar 2016 #14
We created a mess there Onlooker Mar 2016 #15
What, exactly, CAN we do about women, gays and progressives in the Middle East? Ken Burch Mar 2016 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author Onlooker Mar 2016 #13
Other than ISIS, I'd say leave them alone. senz Mar 2016 #17
We need a more muscular sustainable energy policy. Waiting For Everyman Mar 2016 #19
Seriously. Warren DeMontague Mar 2016 #20

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
4. With Kerry as SOS, I think that's the "as is" option. I've been very happy with Kerry's work.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:38 AM
Mar 2016

Others are free to differ, of course.

I still disagree on drone warfare.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
6. Fair enough.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:43 AM
Mar 2016

But I think that diplomacy is failing in, say, Russia, Venezuela, other countries. Israel is Bibi's fault but since he went to our congress and spoke we should've gone to his opposition parties and spoke to them.

JonLeibowitz

(6,282 posts)
7. Yes, indeed. But I think the topic here is the Middle East, not legitimate failings in Eurasia /
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:46 AM
Mar 2016

South America.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
5. Obama has it right. Hillary and Sanders are both wrong.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:40 AM
Mar 2016

I don't support the libertarian thinking of Sanders nor the "muscular" approach of Hillary. My guess is Hillary has to take that kind of approach because a woman simply has to be tough to be president. Let's remember our nation, unlike many, many others, has never had a woman president, and woman are vastly unrepresented in powerful positions. For me, Obama's balance is perfect in a very difficult situation. We can't pull out completely because there are acts of genocide and depravity going on in the ME and we share responsibility for the problems in the ME. Our current level of involvement is pretty sound.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
8. Bernie can't be a socialist AND a libertarian.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 02:52 AM
Mar 2016

And yes, horrible things happen in the Middle East, but let's face it...WE, as a nation, can't do anything to stop those things.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
9. On foreign affairs, he's certainly not a socialist
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:02 AM
Mar 2016

He's very America first in his thinking, but that results in basically a libertarian approach to foreign affairs.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
10. There can never again be an American military intervention worthy of socialist support.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:08 AM
Mar 2016

Syria can't be, because no faction in Syria wants anything socialist or even humane. They are all right-wing extremists.

So is every armed faction in Ukraine, on either side.

Bernie is all for humanitarian aid and diplomacy(the only foreign policy tools that can possibly be progressive).

The last war in human history that had even mildly socialist consequences was World War II.

No other use of force by the West ever served anyone but the rich.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
12. Well, we can't very well go into a region, impose governments ...
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:19 AM
Mar 2016

... and then leave them as sitting ducks. We created a mess in Afghanistan and Iraq and have some responsibility for dealing with the mess. ISIS is a pretty horrible group, and needs to be dealt with to some degree, but like I said I support Obama's approach. Let's not forget, we went into WWII way too late. The genocide was already well underway. Personally, I think the Arab Spring showed the ME that the secular and more progressive forces in the ME wield some real power. I think it changed the equation for the better, even in places like Syria, but I certainly don't see any solution in Syria, though oddly Russia may have helped promote a political one -- it remains to be seen.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
14. Why prop up governments whose authority no one accepts?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:39 AM
Mar 2016

There is no way either the Iraqi or Afghan governments as currently constituted can be sustained in power without perpetual US military troop involvement...there was a certain country in Southeast Asia we tried that with...didn't go well.

The only chance for the Middle East to achieve a democratic, progressive, secular future is for people there to make that happen from below. Whatever our intentions, Western and particularly American military involvement is going to automatically discredit anything put in place by that involvement. Liberalism cannot be done as a badge of conquest.

And ISIS, loathesome as it is, grew in response to previous American intervention. How can further intervention do anything but make it grow stronger. ISIS doesn't deserve to be this year's Viet Cong-don't give it the chance to claim to be.

Agreed that we waited too long to fight fascism...FDR should have refused to recognize the governments of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, should have given military and humanitarian aid to the Republican(anti-fascist)side in the Spanish Civil War, and should have accepted all antifascist exiles seeking refugee status in the U.S. (as, of course, it should have given sanctuary to the entire Jewish population of Europe the moment Hitler came to power). But the situation in the Middle East has nothing in common with that.

 

Onlooker

(5,636 posts)
15. We created a mess there
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 03:50 AM
Mar 2016

What do you do about the women, gays, and progressives in the region who sort of did okay under Saddam, but now are now facing increased levels of abuse, especially when ISIS gets involved? What do we do in Afghanistan where we installed a corrupt but relatively secular government, under which many people live fairly secular lives? I don't think there are any simple answers, and I also don't think we should make the same mistake as FDR made when he waited until the genocide was well under way before getting the United States heavily involved in WWII. This is where I am more a liberal than an American socialist. But, as I said, that's why I really like Obama's approach more than Hillary's or Bernie's.

 

Ken Burch

(50,254 posts)
16. What, exactly, CAN we do about women, gays and progressives in the Middle East?
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:07 AM
Mar 2016

What can we possibly do militarily that could help them? How, exactly, do we FIGHT ISIS?

It is a horrible situation, and I don't see any way that our military can do anything to help anyone in the Middle East.

If we overthrow Assad, that simply puts other reactionaries in power in Syria. If we hold off the Taliban in Afghanistan, we simply preserve the power of a group of tribal chieftains who are just barely less psychotic than the 'ban.

There is no one who is equivalent to the heroic leftists and democrats of Spain, or the antifascist partisans in Nazi-and Fascist-occupied Europe, or ANC in South Africa, or the Sandinistas or FMLN in Central America in the Eighties, in the Middle East of today...at least among any of the armed factions.

Response to Ken Burch (Original post)

 

senz

(11,945 posts)
17. Other than ISIS, I'd say leave them alone.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:24 AM
Mar 2016

For sovereign states, intelligent diplomacy is preferable to invasion and other hostile actions.

ISIS is a band of outlaws who terrorize everyone within reach. They must be stopped.

Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
19. We need a more muscular sustainable energy policy.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 04:28 AM
Mar 2016

STAT. Should've been 40 years ago, when it was first brought up.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)
20. Seriously.
Tue Mar 22, 2016, 06:10 AM
Mar 2016

Beyond a certain point all this stuff will be like arguing over the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Do you think we need a mo...