Great read. I think the conclusion overall for the Obama admin reluctance to fully back/arm the rebels made sense and with its eventual demise remains so. I think the support of education and historic redevelopment would be something that the incoming admin may be favorable to. Great read.
I agree. I appreciate more depth and probing of the complexities.
I agree.
This also explains the Bush/Cheney failure in Iraq. That failure of an invasion, besides uselessly killing and injuring so many American Troops, was the basis of this cluster-fuck in Syria and Iraq.
I have really appreciated Obama’s reluctance to send troops into places America does not belong - like Vietnam, for example.
So the best strategy is the War Game Gambit. Don’t play. Too bad Bush/Cheney didn’t heed this advice. Ironic too, that aside from what all the reactionaries say, Bush is the father of ISIL.
What IS “America’s Failure in Syria’s Civil War”? Seems like staying out of it is as much success as we could’ve reasonably hoped for - in fact, THAT is the point of the article, isn’t it?
This whole discussion is completely without value.
Reading this article reminds me of the joke of a person with lung cancer going to a doctor for a cure as if instead of cancer he has strep throat. That is the real elephant in the room whenever talking about the Middle East, especially as it comes to America’s policies and especially when it comes to talking about democracy is
ISRAEL.
Or to put another way, you cannot give people freedom and democracy when they will use it to destroy your main goal in the region, protecting Israel.
That is so long as Israel is not a peace with it neighbors America cannot support democracy in the Middle East because any Muslim majority democracy will be a mortal enemy of Israel and as a mortal enemy of Israel also vehemently if not violently opposed to American Middle East policy.
Hence all this talk about what to do in Syria, Iraq or any other Middle East nation means that so long as Israel has not settled with the Palestinians, American policy must be to support strongmen who keep the lid, usually ruthlessly, on their people.
Any discussion that does not recognize how the total dominance of American Middle East policy is dictated by the united opposition of the Muslim world to Israeli policy toward the Palestinians and how that opposition by Muslims makes impossible all other goals America has elsewhere in the world, especially freedom and democracy, is worthless.
So somehow the Sunni/Shiite clash and the resulting proxy war between Iran and the Saudis is all about Israel?
In regard to American foreign policy, EXACTLY.
The ability of American foreign policy in the Middle East in regard to all issues and especially as it regards governance by one group or another is all about Israel. Be it Iraq, Libya or Syria, America cannot promote or support a unified western style democracy because such a unified western style democracy will be an enemy of Israel. Therefore what is left is supporting one strongman over another who will keep the opposition to American policy, support for Israel, under control. Any strongman will be dependent not only on America, but on one particular group over another.
Disputes between different ethnicities be it in the Balkans, Africa, or anywhere else America has always tried to solve through unity. In the Middle East unity means a mortal enemy of Israel and therefore of American policy. Hence to support peaceful unity in Syria, Iraq or Libya is to support a mortal enemy of America’s policy.
Very good analysis of what has occured in Syria. It is interesting that Sunni Turkey is leaning towards becoming a radical Islamist state; and, they hate their own secular Muslim Kurds so much, coupled with their hatred of the secular Muslim Sunni Syrian Kurds, that they recently traded their support for the Syrian rebel opposition in Aleppo so that Assad could declare victory there. In exchange, the Assad/Russia/Iran decision makers allowed Turkey to invade northern Syria and preclude the Syrian Kurds from taking over that area from ISIS. Meanwhile, the U.S. is using those same Syrian Kurds (=YPG, YPJ) as our proxy ground troops in our fight against ISIS in Syria, and whereas Assad and Russia don’t seem to mind this arrangement, Turkey is apopletic about it. It would have been interestng to question Landis in this article about this U.S./Syrian Kurd alliance in Syria and about how it will all play out…
Great Piece. One of the conclussions is, democracy cannot emerge without a strong nationalist identity which is lacking all over the Middle East.
However, I’d like a correspondingly similar assessment of that which is going on in Turkey right now.
Economically Turkey is the most successful state in the Islamic world - in part because of its former commitment to secularism, in part because of its related relationship to the EU Common Market. However, half of Turkey’s productivity has emerged under Erdogan which helps underwrite his popular support, however Erdogan is head of a party that relies upon a portion of Islamisism for its popular support AND Erdogan clearly aspires to turn himself into a Putinesque dictatorial type leader, if he isn’t already - so he is ideologically aligned with Putin and perhaps eve Assad.
Geographically, the entire length of Turkey is sandwiched between Russia to its north and Syria to its south. So a Syria-Shiite Cresent backed by Russia puts Turkey in the position of accommodating itself to that emerging reality.
Now here’s the Geopolitical thing:
Historically, domination of the Middle East west of Iran has been contingent upon holding what is now Eastern Anatolia AND Northern (if not all) of Iraq.
The great decisive battles of the MidEast has all taken place in that general region. Two immediately come to mind: Gaugamela, Manzikurt, Chaldiran.
Gaugamela in Northern Iraq meant the end of the Persian Empire and its conquest by Alexander and it pushed the Western Middle East into the realm of Western Civilization for a thousand years - (Koin) Greek became the language of Anatolia.
In 1025 at the death of Bazil II, Byzantium was the paramount power in the Middle East. The battle of Manzikurt in 1071 resulted in the loss of all of Anatolia by the Byzantines - the heartland of Byzantium - to the Seljut Turks, triggering their cry for help to the Pope in Rome - triggering the Crusades. Essentially Byzantium never fully recovered and slowly desolved into nothingness. The Crusades created Christian states that lacked a sufficient hinterland to be self supporting and eventually collapsed - essentially control of Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iraq (the establishment of the Principality of Edessa was an insufficient attempt at that strategically - it did not control sufficient areas of Anatolia and Northern Iraq -, but when it fell it meant the rest of the crusaders states would eventually fall too). The Selject Army that won Manzikurt was sent into Anatolia for strategic reasons to guard the flanks of the Selject attempt to conquer Egypt - this is an acknowledgment of the overall importance of that region, even though the Selject state never lasted long enough to conquer Egypt. Manizkurt opened Anatolia up to Turkish settlement by pastoral Turks the same way Arab conquest opened settlement of North Africa by pastoral Arabs, permanently changing the ethnic make up of Anatolia from Greek to Turkish.
The Ottoman victory of Chaldiran in 1514 over the Safavid Persians meant that all of the Middle East west of the current border of Iran would be controlled by the Ottomans. Indeed the conquest of Egypt occurred only three years later.
So the drift of Turkey is of enormous consequence.
Ideologically Turkey is committed to a unitary state defined by a broad definition of the meaning of Turk - to include Armenians and Kurds within their boundaries - along with a commitment towards secularism which is at odds with Turkey’s Islamic underpinning. The Kurds for their part are nationalistic, often socialist - even to the extent as marxist - but certainly look more like something Westerners might understand by their definition of civics.
I think that a solution for Turkey and the region, incompassing Israeli strategic needs, would be for Turkey to reinforce its commitment to secularism in order to continue to enjoy peace and prosperity through association with Europe AND constitutionally Turkey allow itself to evolve into something more like Spain, at the other end of the Mediterranean, which has a floating point federalism with the various regions and ethnic identities within it - which would allow the identity of various groups in Eastern Anatolia to thrive, including the Kurds. I think a general peace agreement might even allow the Kurds in Northern Iraq and North Eastern Syria to unite with their counter parts in Turkish Eastern Anatolia - moving the borders of the Turkish state into Northern Iraq. (I understand this is fanciful thinking - both assuming secularism can grow and prevail in Turkey AND the redrawing of borders). Such an alignment would give Kurds atonomy, peace, security and prosperity - but if they try to break free from Turkey they’d lose access to security (NATO) and prosperity (European Markets) and exposure to engulfment by a Shia alliance. This bit of remaking would ensure that Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iraq were controlled by Turkey and thus subject to influence by the Western Alliance. The control of Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iraq being strategically important to the stability of the entire region including and especially Israel. This Turko-Kurdish strategy would essentially succeed where the Crusader’s failed (Edessa was too small, not far enough east and not far enough north to protect the flanks of the other Crusader states).
Anyway just some fanciful talk. But the evolution of what will happen to Turkey is extremely important for stability in the Middle East in the Near future. Ultimately a successful Turkey and Kurdish region will put pressure on Iran to modernize along similar lines and eventually the entire northern arc of the Middle East. This is slow motion, perhaps multi-centuried aspirations.
As to your vision, and but for Sultan-in-waiting Erdogan, it would have already been reality. If Turks find someway to make him disappear, then what you write would have a chance there… Erdogan is corrupt and has corrupted his country, which is currently on an exodus to nowhere.
America should stop behaving like a de facto Wahabbi Sunni state in its foreign and defense policies. The civil war in Syria was an age-old Shia-Sunni war. Simply, the Sunnis want to destroy the minority Shias.
America is being used as the Wahabbis’ pawns in these internecine religious conflicts. America has no interest in these religious wars and should stay out. As Americans, we should not aspire to be Crusaders or Wahabbis.
We should be very careful on how we define our national interest and go to war. It should be based on homeland security – not on economic interests of corporations or the interests of our allies.
We should support our allies but not go to war for them or provide arms. Our allies, even our closest ones (our friends, and those who lobby and buy our elected officials, or those that use our military as hired help) should not get to decide who Our enemies are and who we go to war against.
I’m not sure any of our involvements in Muslim countries have ever benefitted the US. Yes, they have helped “American” oil companies - the ones who ask for our help when their assets are under attack, but otherwise claim they have no obligation to America, only to their stockholders. Our worst mistake, I think, was to help fundamentalist Muslims [the Taliban] drive out out the mostly secular Afghan government supported by the USSR. But hey, the Taliban was religious, and the USSR was atheist, so better maniac religious people than mostly rational atheists. We are still paying for that.
The challenge to American defense policy is that Israel’s security threats and America’s security interests have diverged. Israel considers and treats Shia countries as its enemies and befriends the authoritarian Wahabbi Sunni regimes because most Palestinians are Shia. The threats to America is from Wahabbi Sunni ideology and terrorist groups. That is why Benjamin Netanyahoo and the Republicans are opposed to America addressing Wahabbi Sunni terrorism. That is why it is about Israel.
This will seem a bit off the wall, but sometimes the outcome you want may be best achieved by getting the hell out. If you look at Vietnam today, 40 years after the defeat and exit of the USA, I cannot imagine a result more congenial to a western, capitalist point of view than what has happened.
Obama has our military in 150 countries. I don’t think we belong in over 150 non-USA countries.
Haven’t read this yet, but the headline is horrible and horribly inaccurate. The Syrian civil war is a complete disaster for everyone involved It has destroyed much of the country physically and the society totally. This is like touting success after destroying the village to save it.
And even without reading the article, it is easy to conclude that no one has gained anything from this strategically, except maybe Lebanon, as it will keep Syria out of it’s affairs for the foreseeable future.
The military was in 150 countries, if not more, before Obama took office. That is, by and large, the legacy of both Bush administrations, which widely expanded our physical and (semi-)permanent presence in at least half-a-dozen, essentially, hostile nations in which we had no presence prior to the Iraq invasion. Most of the rest has been in place since not long after WWII.