US Politics: Check with a Court before you see your Doctor

[Horza]

...at the cost of flooding Lebanon and Jordan with refugees, intensifying the Iraqi civil war, magnifying the Saudi-Iran proxy conflict and opening up vast stateless zones for jihadists to operate.

Doesn't sound like such a great deal to me, YMMV.

[Ramsay Gimp]

Going by your post, you're OK with the US being an interventionist global hegemon provided it gets it right every time. That seems like a high bar to clear.

Going by his post, he'd settle for most of the time. Which is what anyone demands of any enterprise - positive results overall

[TrueMetis]

Going by his post, he'd settle for most of the time. Which is what anyone demands of any enterprise - positive results overall

When is the last time US intervention actually succeeded? I wanna say Desert Storm but I think I might be missing one that's closer.

[Inigima]

I was not super politically aware at the time, so maybe I'm wrong and it was a clusterfuck, but Bosnia?

[Ramsay Gimp]

That said, while it would never be publicly admitted, the administration may feel that a country getting worse on the ground is in US interests in certain cases; for instance Syria. Now that situation went belly up when ISIS managed to move into Iraq, but before that there was the somewhat ideal situation where two groups that hate us were too busy fighting each other to spare a moment's notice for us or for close-ally Israel. Horrible for the Syrian people of course, but it made tracking Islamists easier knowing they were all fighting the government, and it lessened the chances of Syria or Hezbollah trying to attack Israel (not that the former was that likely anymore) because they were too busy fighting the Islamists.

Staying out of the Syrian Civil War wasn't the problem. Like you said, pretty nasty people and American enemies were killing each other and there was no real interest at stake . But Obama clearly and openly picked sides when he started sending aid to the rebels, making "red line" comments, and trying to build support for air strikes.

[Horza]

Going by his post, he'd settle for most of the time. Which is what anyone demands of any enterprise - positive results overall

By the expansive definitions outlined in his post I suspect there's no accounting that would actually satisfy his position, calling the US incompetent for not having resolved the Syrian civil war isn't my definition of reasonable disappointment.

And that's assuming we're accepting successful military interventions as the only currency in which to audit seven decades of US superpower-hood.

[Ramsay Gimp]

When is the last time US intervention actually succeeded? I wanna say Desert Storm but I think I might be missing one that's closer.

The Annexation of Hawaii went pretty smoothly I guess

[Galactus]

When is the last time US intervention actually succeeded? I wanna say Desert Storm but I think I might be missing one that's closer.

Probably some of the interventions in the Balkan Wars.

[The guy from the Vale]

Probably some of the interventions in the Balkan Wars.

Yep. KFOR/Kosovo would be the last successful US/NATO intervention.

[Larry of the Lawn]

When is the last time US intervention actually succeeded? I wanna say Desert Storm but I think I might be missing one that's closer.

WW2

[Altherion]

Going by your post, you're OK with the US being an interventionist global hegemon provided it gets it right every time. That seems like a high bar to clear.

I think calling the US a hegemon is giving it way too much credit. It has some hegemonic properties, but they are too limited and incomplete for it to qualify. Also, I don't see how what I said can be interpreted as meaning that it should get it right every time. Everyone makes mistakes and in endeavors like these, mistakes are practically inevitable. However, there's a problem when mistakes become the rule rather than the exception and there's a bigger problem when these mistakes are obvious (e.g. providing weapons to a mix of rebel groups many of which are your avowed enemies or trying to negotiate a cease-fire without including the two opposing sides or the closest and most involved non-combatant).

[Fez]

...at the cost of flooding Lebanon and Jordan with refugees, intensifying the Iraqi civil war, magnifying the Saudi-Iran proxy conflict and opening up vast stateless zones for jihadists to operate.

Doesn't sound like such a great deal to me, YMMV.

Certainly not a great deal for the people on the ground, but a flood of refugees doesn't hurt US interests, the Iraqi civil war getting worse only hurts because of the stateless zones, and the proxy conflict getting bigger is arguably a good thing for the US (let them duke it out and leave us alone). Giving the jihadists more space is a bad thing for the US, and I did say that even in this horribly cynical the Syrian civil war could only be viewed as a positive prior to ISIS moving into Iraq, but that's a function of the complete incompetence of the Iraqi army more than Syrian conflict continuing. If either the government had truly won, or the non-Islamist rebels had, the Islamists would've been forced out of the Syria, and likely would've moved into Iraq anyway; since it was there.

When is the last time US intervention actually succeeded? I wanna say Desert Storm but I think I might be missing one that's closer.

Military or non-military? Because our non-military interventions work quite well on a regular basis, for instance we continue to successfully bribe the Egyptian military into being friendly with Israel.

Militarily, the last big one that worked was Kosovo I think, but, depending on your definition, we've had plenty of smaller interventions that have worked out fine since then. For instance, while Joseph Kony is still at large, the Lord's Resistance Army has been significantly weakened in the past several years due to a stronger African Union push against them, supported by US military advisors. Its not direct combat and its not against a state, but we've still got 100 troops over there, being involved.

[Horza]

I think calling the US a hegemon is giving it way too much credit. It has some hegemonic properties, but they are too limited and incomplete for it to qualify. Also, I don't see how what I said can be interpreted as meaning that it should get it right every time. Everyone makes mistakes and in endeavors like these, mistakes are practically inevitable. However, there's a problem when mistakes become the rule rather than the exception and there's a bigger problem when these mistakes are obvious (e.g. providing weapons to a mix of rebel groups many of which are your avowed enemies or trying to negotiate a cease-fire without including the two opposing sides or the closest and most involved non-combatant).

As I said above, I'm not sure how to otherwise characterise your position given that you think that the US has 'failed' in Syria because the civil war hasn't been resolved by the US's (very limited) provision of arms. I'm not sure what you actually want the US to do there, as any intervention would be a very risky and costly endeavour yet being global not-quite-hegemon it doesn't really have the option of standing back.

It also seems weird to suggest that all these problems of US intervention are recent ones. Last I checked, US mediation of the Israel-PA negotiations and the Israel-Hamas conflict (a situation created in part by the Bush administration) had been disastrous for a good long while. It's been alleged in some quarters that that US strategic involvement in the entire Middle East has been highly problematic for decades, and there are even people who argue the problem may extend to other regions of the world. It's conceivable that people from distant decades like the 1970s and 80s might have assembled similar catalogues of failure and disaster.

[Shryke]

I don't know, we have threads on Ukraine and the Middle East, but I think there should be some acknowledgement in this thread of just how incompetent the US has been at international affairs recently. Libya (where we effectively removed the previous government) is more or less in a state of constant war. Syria (where we failed at removing the existing government despite supplying the rebels who hate us only very slightly less than they do their current enemies) is definitely in a state of civil war. Ukraine (where we probably financed a coup and definitely supported it once it was underway) is also in a state of civil war. The Israelis and Palestinians are fighting again -- which is nothing new, but this time at least they're in agreement on the fact that Kerry is not making things any better. Oh, and Iraq and Afghanistan are still at war too, but that's old news (though I guess the fact that a part of Iraq has actually been conquered is new).

I don't mind the fact that the US has imperial ambitions and thus constantly sticks its nose in the affairs of other countries. However, I do mind that we're an incompetent empire and most of the places we interfere in deteriorate.

This is an awfully strange view of what the US is "responsible" for.

In actual foreign policy that happens in the real world, the US is helping blunt Russian aggression in Ukraine without starting WW3, building alliances in East and South-East Asia, not getting bogged down in a foreign war in the Middle-East, actually being vaguely critical of Israeli policy (a huge step forward sadly) and managing to freaking talk Iran into nuclear disarmament and renormalization (unless Congress fucks it up the idiots).

[Horza]

Certainly not a great deal for the people on the ground, but a flood of refugees doesn't hurt US interests,

Yeah, the Obama administration just loves the fact that Jordan's population just grew by 10%, over 600,000 people who aren't going home any time soon, in a country that already has a restive refugee problem. They also welcome the influx of people fleeing a Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict into Lebanon, because what could go wrong there?

Maybe there are some positives to this scenario I'm missing though.

the Iraqi civil war getting worse only hurts because of the stateless zones, and the proxy conflict getting bigger is arguably a good thing for the US (let them duke it out and leave us alone).

No, you're right, I can't see how the US would be drawn into any kind of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as it isn't like the US has any major strategic interests in the Persian Gulf.

Giving the jihadists more space is a bad thing for the US, and I did say that even in this horribly cynical the Syrian civil war could only be viewed as a positive prior to ISIS moving into Iraq, but that's a function of the complete incompetence of the Iraqi army more than Syrian conflict continuing. If either the government had truly won, or the non-Islamist rebels had, the Islamists would've been forced out of the Syria, and likely would've moved into Iraq anyway; since it was there.

Before ISIS was ISIS, it was a little known organisation called Al-Qaeda in Iraq (at one time it was lead by a guy called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but yeah, he was never of any interest to the US). While a bunch of them got run out of town in the Anbar Awakening they never fully left, and one of the first things Assad did was empty his jails of them. I would have thought getting some kind of resolution to the Iraqi civil war so that these guys wouldn't find a simmering cauldron of sectarian grievance to play havoc with might have been in US interests, but recent events appear to have vindicated this 'just let them kill each other, there's no way this could blow back on us' policy.

[jarl the climber]

Yeah, the Obama administration just loves the fact that Jordan's population just grew by 10%, over 600,000 people who aren't going home any time soon, in a country that already has a restive refugee problem. They also welcome the influx of people fleeing a Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict into Lebanon, because what could go wrong there?

Maybe there are some positives to this scenario I'm missing though.

.

It is complicated, it becomes thorny when you start making these refugees or illegal migrants citizens and and introduce them into the political process because some groups. particularly Southern whites, feel that this is being done deliberately and that one of the goals is to not only dilute their political power but to ostracize them into comprimising some of their beliefs if they want to continue to have a say in things. On the other hand if your only concern is hiring a house cleaner or getting you lawn mowed I suppose it is a positive.

No, you're right, I can't see how the US would be drawn into any kind of conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, as it isn't like the US has any major strategic interests in the Persian Gulf.

Before ISIS was ISIS, it was a little known organisation called Al-Qaeda in Iraq (at one time it was lead by a guy called Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but yeah, he was never of any interest to the US). While a bunch of them got run out of town in the Anbar Awakening they never fully left, and one of the first things Assad did was empty his jails of them. I would have thought getting some kind of resolution to the Iraqi civil war so that these guys wouldn't find a simmering cauldron of sectarian grievance to play havoc with might have been in US interests, but recent events appear to have vindicated this 'just let them kill each other, there's no way this could blow back on us' policy.

This is more difficult, 9/11 should have proved to everyone that some blow back from the Middle East was an inevitibality. Still our interference hasn't seemed to have had the desired effect, it seems to have exacerbated this sectarian divide even though it did not create it. Not only that but it seems to have brought to the surface this underlying instability that effects the Middle East as a whole. I think that Obama definitely missed an oppurtunity in Syria and that this has had consequences for Iraq. This conflict in Israel seems to have coincided with a renewed offensive by ISIS in Syria, ISIS is a Saudi and Turkish proxy to an extent. Iran has provided Hamas with some of its weaponry, and Israel has struck at Iranian interest in Syria during the Civil War but it really seems me to that this conflict is more of a Saudi job, to expose Irans weakness and inability to protect its proxy Hamas, while at the same time its seems to be undermining Israel and sending them a message to stay out of Syria. The US repsonse to this should be based on US interests, if Hamas and the Palestinians are being used as proxies by the Saudis, the Turks, the Iranians and Hezbollah, then why are we getting involved at all, let these other powers broker a truce, if that is what they want, we should back our tradtional ally Israel, within reason and not let our foreign secratary get wound up and down like a jack in the box, Hamas is no friend of ours and it doesn't behoove our policy to focus on the pawns.

[Shryke]

Hamas are not being used as pawns in any way you mentioned and the flare up of tensions in Israel is not related to ISIS offensives in Syria or Iraq.

[Altherion]

As I said above, I'm not sure how to otherwise characterise your position given that you think that the US has 'failed' in Syria because the civil war hasn't been resolved by the US's (very limited) provision of arms. I'm not sure what you actually want the US to do there, as any intervention would be a very risky and costly endeavour yet being global not-quite-hegemon it doesn't really have the option of standing back.

I don't think we've "failed" in Syria; as you say, our intervention there has been quite limited. However, to the extent that we did interfere, this interference was not helpful. The same thing is true of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: didn't do much, didn't help.

It's conceivable that people from distant decades like the 1970s and 80s might have assembled similar catalogues of failure and disaster.

It's possible, but I'm not old enough to remember it. Things were certainly better than this in the 1990s.

[Suttree]

Interesting article on Vice concerning the Koch brothers fake libertarianism:

The largest media outlets in the country routinely describe the conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch, the shadowy megadonors behind much of the modern political infrastructure on the right, as selfless libertarians. Matthew Cooper of Newsweek claims they are "more libertarian than Republican, more Austrian economics than Christian Coalition." Daniel Schulman, author of a new book on the Koch family, recently told Jon Stewart on The Daily Show that the brothers do not "align with Republicans at all," adding that "David Koch has come out and said he's pro-gay marriage; they're pro-reproductive rights."

It’s almost as if these journalists can’t accept that the rich men whose names are plastered all over elite cultural institutions in cities like New York are conservative Republicans. But the reality is that the Kochs are underwriting powerful political organizations with decidedly anti-libertarian views—like arbitrarily killing foreigners in detention and using the heavy hand of government to force women to carry undesired pregnancies to term.

The evidence for the Koch clan’s supposedly libertarian beliefs—particularly on polarizing issues like gay marriage, war, drugs, and abortion—tends to consist of off-hand remarks made by David and Charles in the 1970s and 1980s, as well as a comment at the 2012 Republican convention.

Following the Koch money paints a different picture.

[snake]

I don't think we've "failed" in Syria; as you say, our intervention there has been quite limited. However, to the extent that we did interfere, this interference was not helpful. The same thing is true of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: didn't do much, didn't help.

It's possible, but I'm not old enough to remember it. Things were certainly better than this in the 1990s.

Well, Kerry went over there in an attempt to do something but he was ridiculed and insulted by nearly everyone so it's not like the US wasn't willing to try. It's just that Israel/PLO/Hamas basically told em to fuck off.