Herodotus, a well crafted post. I followed you perfectly. However, where you and I fundamentally disagree is with your conclusion.
Now be honest, you knew you were opening up a can of worms with this particular paragraph. Not many could let this one slide without rebuttal. ;)
You covered the main interests America has in the Middle East; the free flow of oil, promotion and protection of Israel, as well as spreading and defending democracy. All of these interests stem from one central theme: the desire for stability in the Middle East. Stability in that region, as anyone could tell you, is important to the global community as a whole. It supports stable production, prices, and flow of energy.
Moreover, don't assume our military presence in the Middle East is strictly there as a conflictive force. As Ambassador Chas. W. Freeman made mention in a speech of his, “We need access to the region for our military because we can't travel between Europe and Asia or vice versa without going through it or over it. The Arabian Peninsula is the size of Western Europe. Tens of thousands of aircraft cross it each year. [….] In terms of its location astride strategic lines of communication, the Middle East is an area that is vitally important to our ability to act as a world power. No wonder Al-Qai'da focuses on breaking the Saudi-American relationship and making cooperation between us infeasible!”
Thus, I would argue that the United States would be set at a strategic disadvantage as a super power if it were to attempt to achieve its interests through a proxy, as you suggested. You must certainly recognize that.
As I argued in my post before this, your assumption that the threat America posses to radical Islamists will fall in priority with the retreat of American influence in the Middle East holds no water. I would ask you to further explain your reasons for believing this specific contention. Refer to my prior post for my thoughts on this.
Hope you slept well. ;)
Originally posted by Herodotus
View Post
You covered the main interests America has in the Middle East; the free flow of oil, promotion and protection of Israel, as well as spreading and defending democracy. All of these interests stem from one central theme: the desire for stability in the Middle East. Stability in that region, as anyone could tell you, is important to the global community as a whole. It supports stable production, prices, and flow of energy.
Moreover, don't assume our military presence in the Middle East is strictly there as a conflictive force. As Ambassador Chas. W. Freeman made mention in a speech of his, “We need access to the region for our military because we can't travel between Europe and Asia or vice versa without going through it or over it. The Arabian Peninsula is the size of Western Europe. Tens of thousands of aircraft cross it each year. [….] In terms of its location astride strategic lines of communication, the Middle East is an area that is vitally important to our ability to act as a world power. No wonder Al-Qai'da focuses on breaking the Saudi-American relationship and making cooperation between us infeasible!”
Thus, I would argue that the United States would be set at a strategic disadvantage as a super power if it were to attempt to achieve its interests through a proxy, as you suggested. You must certainly recognize that.
Originally posted by Herodotus
View Post
Hope you slept well. ;)
Comment