More People Joining the Terrorists Thanks to Continuing Indiscriminate Drone Attacks

These are good questions. As to the former, it reminded me of a recent ATW post wherein he stated that Assad is preferable to Syrian revolution, simply because it's the "lesser of two evils". I don't agree with that, because it presupposes that Syrians (to use a handy example, but this would apply to any ME nationality) are predisposed to intolerance and/or barbarous violence. Certainly, the countries there have a plethora of problems, from a variety of historical/cultural/religious underpinnings - but to blindly state that a murderous dictator is necessary to keep the population from imploding is beyond cynical...

Anyhow, it's hard to say exactly. Some countries appear to be slowly moving in the right direction. Others...not so much. That's a debate in itself, honestly.

As to the latter query - of course they would. They would absolutely relish the opportunity. And I doubt it would be any easier for the ME with a different superpower overlord. Would it be worse? I doubt that too.

 

I agree that long term things will be better for the US if it were to withdraw, or at least greatly reduce its presence in the Middle East. In the short term it will likely will lead to more chaos. The US is too involved to just suddenly pullout and further many of the countries in the region look to the US has a counterbalance to Iran. If the US just left suddenly there would likely be an arms race in the Persian Gulf and much greater hostility between Saudi Arabia and the Emirates versus Iran.

 

Just to point out the US is still heavily involved in South America and changes in that region weren't due to the US leaving.

 

One other problem with a US withdrawl from the Middle East is that there are many who will want the US involved. I often think of the US as a rich uncle who likes to meddle in the affairs of the rest of the family. No one likes the rich uncle meddling but when someone has a problem they expect the rich uncle to help out and he is resented if he doesn't help. Consider that some of the rhetoric from the Syrian rebels has been they will remember who helped them and who didn't is a not so veiled threat at the US and other Western countries for not doing more.

 

This article was previously posted in this thread, but I've added his testimony before Congress as well.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...says-drone-strikes-make-them-stronger/275248/

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JIb0wMfOFhw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

But, but, but I thought they hated us for our freedoms

 

I think we're once again talking past each other ( again) on what is "security", because "security" is NOT just "what policy will save the most American lives". It's what's best for America as a nation, a singular entity with a culture and purpose. Otherwise, if "security" was "what policy will save the most American lives", the proper security American response to Pearl Harbor would have been to let Japan do as they please, since a lot more Americans died in the Pacific Theater than at Pearl Harbor, not to mention America could have made a crapton of money selling stuff to the IJA. Security is a series of complicated questions with many different factors, including among other things under the current circumstances, ensuring that the United States has access to oil production.

Furthermore, your assumption is that it's the "elites" who would have the most to lose from putting the global oil market in the hands of foreigners. But who's going to suffer the most during an oil shock, or when the Middle East is on their period? It certainly won't be the elites, they can take the hit, or they live in the more expensive cities with good public transportation.

 

Hold on. You really think it's the rich who are going to be hurt by a doubling of gas prices in the event of a big ME war? There's no need for conspiracy theories about 'elites' - the US is involved in the region because we buy a whole lot of oil from there and the lives of a lot of people in this country and many others would get a lot worse if that supply were to become unreliable.

In any case, I expect you'll get your wish before too long. As batteries get better and alternative energy sources are developed, the economic consequences of a disruption in the supply of oil from the Middle East will become a lot less dire and we'll be a lot more willing to stay out and let the chips fall where they may. Clearly, you think this is a good thing. I think you're going to see Syria and Egypt replayed across the whole region.

 

America will never be able to kill all terrorists obviously. Someone asked what the end game is??

I'll tell you something will happen one day so horrific that it will eclipse 9/11 many times over. And what then??

For the most part I agree with Mathloom on this topic. But humanity doesn't. People in governments and corporations that want money and power from war will never stop. I hope one day that people will evolve and have some type of utopia.

Alas

 

In the end? There is no end. There's only the moment the story teller stops talking. There is no end game with terrorism, just as there is no end game for murder. But that does not mean America will sit back and do nothing.

This is something I have maintained for a long time. Where the capitalist and the socialist see Utopia, I see the Axiom. I don't want a utopia, or perfection. Because a world where everything is perfect...is a world where humans are utterly irrelevant.