In brief, prospects for ongoing US foreign policy are not encouraging. The Donald's ineptitude is such that he is certain to defer to "the best generals" in matters of war and peace, and Hillary's stance in the 2008 primaries and as Secretary of State suggest that she will continue her ongoing attempts to prove she has enough "balls" to be "one of the boys." Bernie Sanders will probably have significant impact on the Democratic platform, but the relationship between a party's platform and what happens when that party wins an election has little if any bearing on what its candidate does when elected to office.
The "War on Terror"
Tr*mp vacillates between isolationism and carpet bombing (along with use of torture and killing the families of terrorists), but his commitment to building the size and strength of the military makes one wonder if "boots on the ground" might be inevitable — the military-industrial complex would like that, since it could restore sales to 2010 levels. Clinton has been largely silent on her suggestion of a "no-fly zone" in Syria lately, but her history on interventionism is troubling, including her vote for the war in Iraq and endorsement of intervention in Libya. Neither has any fresh ideas for dealing with the Islamist State as an international threat, even if Obama's efforts to cut into the territory it occupies continue to make progress.
The Middle East
It seems clear that Clinton will maintain US support for the Arab autocracies, despite copious human rights abuses within their territories and Saudi war crimes in Yemen. She also will be more friendly to Netanyahu's increasingly bellicose and repressive path for Israel than Obama has been, and the Palestinians will be out of luck, no matter what Bernie gets into the Democratic platform. Tr*mp's support from Sheldon Adelson suggests that he will be even deeper in Netanyahu's pocket than Clinton; and his rejection of the Iran deal and insistence that the Saudi's "pay their own way" would be a recipe for a nuclear armed Middle East. With regard to Assad, Tr*mp might be too conciliatory, Clinton too bellicose.
Europe
I don't know if anybody has considered problems that might arise from installing missile "defense" systems (against Iran? Yeah, right!) in Eastern European countries moving ever closer to fascism, but that probably can wait for 2020. Neither US candidate has anything to offer Europe in dealing with its refugee crisis, and neither will use US influence over the IMF in an attempt to soften Europe's devastating austerity regime, albeit neo-liberal (aka neo-conservative) US bankers have a lot more influence than US political leaders. Clinton certainly understands Europe's problems better than Tr*mp, but she's no less neo-liberal in her thinking than her husband was — and nobody knows what impact Tr*mp's affection for Putin might bring
Asia and the Pacific
The US Chamber of Commerce seems confident that Clinton will change her mind about support for the TPP as soon as she's president, and they're probably right. Tr*mp seems to think he could negotiate a "better deal," but his confidence in his negotiating skills is just as inflated as his hair. The Chinese, I suspect, couldn't care less which of them is elected because China's economic and military power is unlikely to be affected. Tr*mp's fantasies of Japan and South Korea having their own nuclear arms would almost certainly remain fantasies, because not all Republicans are total idiots.
Africa
If Tr*mp can identify more than three African countries on an outline map, I'd be very surprised. Clinton, at least, is aware of the mess that is African politics and economics, but is unlikely to move beyond Obama's very limited engagement there. With either of them, Africa will remain on the back burner until something explodes.
Latin America
Haven't you had enough pessimism for one post? It's certainly been enough for me, so I'll pass over Latin America — where the US has had virtually no policy at all since "our" dictators were overthrown — and save it for another day. In the meanwhile, though, keep an eye on Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatamala, et al. Tr*mp's "wall" won't keep the chaos south of the border.
Showing posts with label Gulf States. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gulf States. Show all posts
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Friday, November 27, 2015
ISIS? Isis who?
(Sorry, it's another long one — but it had to be.)
The Russians and the Turks are rather upset with each other at the moment, Turkey having shot down a Russian aircraft that was bombing northern Syria. The Islamist State (as I prefer to call it,) most Americans might be surprised to learn, was not at all involved.
Putin and the Russians support Bashar al-Assad, the Allawite leader of Syria. Russia has an ongoing deal with Assad which permits Russia to maintain its only military/naval presence in the Middle East. Turkey under Erdogan is dominated by an authoritarian Sunni Islamist party hostile to Assad and his Allawists, although Erdogan's primary goal in the region is to suppress the Kurds, who have been getting closer to having their own, autonomous state. To defeat the Kurds, Erdogan has made use of Turkmen rebels, who happened to be be concentrating their own efforts on both Assad and the Kurds, and whom the Russians bombed for being anti-Assad. The Kurds, of course, have been the only effective US ally in the region.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been restricting most of their bellicosity to Yemen, where they are trying to destroy the Houthi. The Houthi have some degree of support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's chief rival in the region. Iran, its Shi'ite proxy Hezbollah, and Russia are cooperating in support of Assad.
So where does IS come in? Good question. And where does the USofA come in? Better question.
IS offends Western sensibilities in a variety of bloodthirsty ways, so the US is necessarily against it. Inspired by Salafi Islamists from Saudi Arabia, and probably making use of private Saudi seed money, IS has been endeavoring to create and maintain a Sunni extremist caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Some of our "allies," though, are far more concerned with Assad and Iran than with IS atrocities. The USofA is providing Saudi Arabia "logistic support" (telling them where to bomb the most civilians?) in Yemen, thereby helping their proxy war against Iran. In Iraq, however, the Iranians are our chief allies in protecting what was supposed to be our puppet regime. In reality, though, it's their puppet regime because we let it be dominated by Shi'ites.,
Turkey, a NATO ally, really has nothing in particular against IS, considering how it is keeping the Kurds from establishing an independent state on Turkey's border. The Turkish border with Syria restricts the IS supply of weapons, war materiel and foreign fighters about as well as a chain link fence obstructs the flow of water. Bear in mind that Turkey is part of NATO, and supposedly opposed to IS, but since it started bombing in northern Syria, its primary targets have been the US allied Kurds.
In brief, since the USofA opposes both Assad and IS, and since others in the region have mixed feelings about which other groups present the greatest threat to their own self-interests and different historically and geopolitically based affinities and animosities, there are too damned many sides, and every new development creates more ambiguity.
It's a ridiculous time for anybody to want to be president, which sheds a little light on the general ridiculousness of foreign policy discussions in the current campaign. If we adopt Hillary's "no-fly zone" idea, who do we enlist to help us and who do we keep out? If we follow Lindsey Graham's prescription and send in ground forces to eradicate the "State" part of IS, it might turn out much more difficult to contend with a stateless enemy.
We're probably leaning on the Turks and the Saudis and the Iranians and the Russians and anybody else who has a real state as hard as we can, but our diplomatic pressure is spread too thin. Don't blame Obama (this time) — at least he's not actively making it worse.
The Russians and the Turks are rather upset with each other at the moment, Turkey having shot down a Russian aircraft that was bombing northern Syria. The Islamist State (as I prefer to call it,) most Americans might be surprised to learn, was not at all involved.
Putin and the Russians support Bashar al-Assad, the Allawite leader of Syria. Russia has an ongoing deal with Assad which permits Russia to maintain its only military/naval presence in the Middle East. Turkey under Erdogan is dominated by an authoritarian Sunni Islamist party hostile to Assad and his Allawists, although Erdogan's primary goal in the region is to suppress the Kurds, who have been getting closer to having their own, autonomous state. To defeat the Kurds, Erdogan has made use of Turkmen rebels, who happened to be be concentrating their own efforts on both Assad and the Kurds, and whom the Russians bombed for being anti-Assad. The Kurds, of course, have been the only effective US ally in the region.
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have been restricting most of their bellicosity to Yemen, where they are trying to destroy the Houthi. The Houthi have some degree of support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's chief rival in the region. Iran, its Shi'ite proxy Hezbollah, and Russia are cooperating in support of Assad.
So where does IS come in? Good question. And where does the USofA come in? Better question.
IS offends Western sensibilities in a variety of bloodthirsty ways, so the US is necessarily against it. Inspired by Salafi Islamists from Saudi Arabia, and probably making use of private Saudi seed money, IS has been endeavoring to create and maintain a Sunni extremist caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Some of our "allies," though, are far more concerned with Assad and Iran than with IS atrocities. The USofA is providing Saudi Arabia "logistic support" (telling them where to bomb the most civilians?) in Yemen, thereby helping their proxy war against Iran. In Iraq, however, the Iranians are our chief allies in protecting what was supposed to be our puppet regime. In reality, though, it's their puppet regime because we let it be dominated by Shi'ites.,
Turkey, a NATO ally, really has nothing in particular against IS, considering how it is keeping the Kurds from establishing an independent state on Turkey's border. The Turkish border with Syria restricts the IS supply of weapons, war materiel and foreign fighters about as well as a chain link fence obstructs the flow of water. Bear in mind that Turkey is part of NATO, and supposedly opposed to IS, but since it started bombing in northern Syria, its primary targets have been the US allied Kurds.
In brief, since the USofA opposes both Assad and IS, and since others in the region have mixed feelings about which other groups present the greatest threat to their own self-interests and different historically and geopolitically based affinities and animosities, there are too damned many sides, and every new development creates more ambiguity.
It's a ridiculous time for anybody to want to be president, which sheds a little light on the general ridiculousness of foreign policy discussions in the current campaign. If we adopt Hillary's "no-fly zone" idea, who do we enlist to help us and who do we keep out? If we follow Lindsey Graham's prescription and send in ground forces to eradicate the "State" part of IS, it might turn out much more difficult to contend with a stateless enemy.
We're probably leaning on the Turks and the Saudis and the Iranians and the Russians and anybody else who has a real state as hard as we can, but our diplomatic pressure is spread too thin. Don't blame Obama (this time) — at least he's not actively making it worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)