I Helped Sell the False Choice of War Once. It’s Happening Again.

He had a lot to say and I dont think I can remember all his points

But the most obvious curiosity was his personal attack on Nikki Haley

If anyone is most to blame for the Iraq war I think it would be the Deep State spooks

Because I did not hear the Col say that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq but helped his boss lie about them anyway

 

More likely they are bored with the incessant attacks.

 

I don't think the US was "diplomatically isolated" and I'm not seeing how the US was "diplomatically isolated". If you're referring to the grumblings of France and Germany, the US simply ignored them. The US will take whatever action it deems necessary, especially where future economic prosperity is concerned.

I don't think you understand the Big Picture. Control of Iran will give the US air, rail and highway access to the five Central Asian States (Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan) from the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean. That will allow the US to exert hegemony in Central Asia, and the benefit of that far out-weighs the costs.

You have apparently conflated Foreign Policy with Geo-Political Strategy. They are not the same. Geo-Political Strategy is a vision of the Future -- 25 to 35 years into the Future -- and the plans, policies and actions necessary to shape the Future into the vision of the Future you want.

Presidents come and go, but the Bureaucracy is indefinite. If you allow Presidents to change the Geo-Political Strategy every four to eight years, then the US ends up wandering aimlessly without any goals for the Future.

Clinton, Bush and Obama all followed the same plan, and so apparently is Trump.

The conflict will end with the removal of Assad, since that is the US objective.

China and Russia are powerless to stop the US, and the US isn't really interested in what the UK, France or Germany thinks. The Iran Deal has little to do with anything.

 

It's easy to overstate the isolation of the US during that era, but it definitely wasn't insignificant. There was a sense, particularly in Europe and the Middle East, that the United States was a significant threat to their own safety in it's willingness to risk upheaval in the Islamic world.

American force projection depends on the willingness of regional governments to host our bases and allow our usage of their airspace and infrastructure.

If that's the American plan they're walking straight into a disaster. Even if we're to ignore the challenge of invading and occupying Iran and Central Asia (extremely significant) the United States faces the problem of Russian force projection into Central Asia. The Russians may be much poorer than the United States, and even still their military capabilities aren't that far behind ours, especially in terms of direct force projection into Central Asia and Eastern Europe. The United States, if it attempts to directly control Central Asia, of all places, will fail. As a maritime power I can think of no region poorer suited to American domination.

I'm on board with the idea of increasing force projection capabilities in Central Asia. Not with conquering Iran to do it. Even if there's no other way, that's not a real option.

I think you're making a distinction where there is continuum. It is true that American Presidents face circumstances beyond their control, and head a massive bureaucracy that they cannot simply about-face.

But the invasion of Iraq, for example, was deeply marked by Bush and the people he surrounded himself with. The pullout of Iraq under Obama, specifically it's rapidity, was marked by who Obama was and what he represented. Trump, more than any, has allowed the bureaucracy to take the reins, because he's confused as to what exactly he wants to do.

That "aimlessness" is a direct result of the human condition, and impossible to overcome.

The United States has goals for the future. Some in power have different goals than others. All of their goals change over time.

History is not neat and orderly, planned out in advance. It's a ****ing mess, where the Americans invade Iraq in 2003 deposing a Sunni dictator who suited their goals in the region perfectly fine, installing instead a Shia republic right next to the most important country in the region, Iran. Why? Because they got too ambitious. They thought they could simply control the flow of history. It was never in their power.

If it ends that way, it won't be because it's what the United States wants. It would be Turkey who makes that call, if any single country does.

And I'm not sure that it will end that way. I think that a political settlement may be over the horizon, if the parties involved are able to keep the Turks from enflaming the situation.

 

Trump ran on staying out of wars and regime changing and many of his supporters agreed with that position including me.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rventionist-u-s-military-policy-idUSKBN13W06L

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...we-will-stop-racing-to-topple-foreign-regimes

 

Well, the MIC's gotta justify such an overblown defense budget... What's the use of buying mil-spec hardware if there is but peace?

 

You're the first one who brought Trump in the thread.

The elected President matter for little in ME decisions, Robert, as the Sauds and zionists are generous with both parties. They can't lose.

Like I've wrote before, the US may control the gas pedal in ME politics, but not the steering wheel.

 

Maybe, just maybe there's too much Israeli dual citizens in your highest bureaucracy. How many dual Russian and Chinese citizens in that same governmental apparel?

No dual citizen should have access to either countries' government, for obvious reasons. It's crazy.

 

I would have, like pretty much the rest of world, except for Islamist terrorists and a small snake-handler cult from Hicksville, USA.

 

Everything?

 

The countries that pushes the US war effort toward Assad are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Turkey has already taken a stance against US-backed Kurdish forces on their south border.

The rest of the post was excellent.

 

That was Bannon. Now it's Kushner.

 

As you say Saudi Arabia is our ally

Just as the Soviet Union was our ally in WWII

Thats Realpolitics as a former West German leader called it

I dont know what would happen if Iran gained control over all the oil being produced by the Gulf states

And then turned off the supply but it would not be good

Rather than arguing for war as short-sighted liberals fear, Haley is arguing for a sane response to the radicals in Iran while strict sanctions could still have a positive affect

That is to say before Iean and Russia become too powerful

 

... Plus, of course, the usual living room elephants such as the MIC, zionists and Sauds.

 

Seriously, Joe...

 

I am ambivalent on this: On one hand, Kurds do need a homeland of their own, being hated by nearly all of their host countries.

On the other hand, protecting them in such an aggressive manner may well mean their loss in the mid-future. Kurds have no reason to push that far west in Syria - it isn't their homeland; it's an invasion. The US uses them as a pretext to help bring down Assad, then, probably, Iran.

Under such circumstances, I can't back up the Kurds, in spite of my sympathies.

 

All at the expense of innocent civilians in Syria. The US is still fuelling that maddens today via funding and boots on the ground in Syria. The US and their buddies Saudi Arabia are helping to prolong the most catastrophic war of our times. How many countries are the US and their allies going to raise to the ground in pursuit of their own agendas?

Russia's economy is a basket case.

 

Really? What's their deficit, trade balance and how much debt do they have?

 

The russians, turks and iranians are all fighting in syria

To be honest I’ve forgotten why obama and his flunkies got involved there and if all foreign troops agreed to pull out that would be ok with me

 

Indeed, but I think you missed my point. My point is not that the United States will commit greater resources to ousting Assad at Turkey's behest, but rather that it won't be American resources that oust him. The Americans, I think, are going to back off. As our plan to support Sunni Arab opposition started going down in flames we thought it best to support Kurdish forces. We underestimated just how seriously the Turks take the matter.

As it becomes clear that the Turks aren't going to back down, we will.

It may never come to this. A political solution could be forthcoming that American, Turks, and Iranians can agree on.

But if Assad is ousted, it won't be done by Americans, but by Turks. The Americans will probably be fine with this outcome, and may even applaud it.

 

I don't think they benefited at all. Saddam was no friend of theirs, but from their perspective nothing could be worse than a Shia republic between them and Iran.

 

Trump critics tend to hyperbole.

 

What indicates his life long conservative creds? I never considered Powell to be a conservative and never really understood why he was part of the Bush Administration.

Flying helicopters in a war makes one a soldier but really says nothing about one's political views.

 

I think, in the Sauds' case, that secularism represented a bigger threat than them being Shia. Israel is just content to see chaos replace another neighbour's governance, and the MIC, well, the MIC gets richer.