heh…
I think NATO still exists because it provides a reliable customer our defense industry and because Europe and US see it as mutual advantageous. I’m sure the Russians like it, too, because it gives them a reason to continue to meddle in Eastern Europe.
With apologies to Aretha Franklin, “Who’s meddlin’ who?”
The US has done some catastrophically stupid meddlin’ in the Middle East. But US disengagement from the Middle East is a fantasy.
A few specifics:
Like it or not, most American feels the US has a unique responsibility for Israel’s security. Perhaps you disagree with either the goal or the methods, but this “special relationship” remains a political reality for anyone seeking high office in the US. This one fact alone dictates that the US will be involved in Middle East politics, however “stupid” you may find this.
While the world needs to de-carbonize, fast, the fact remains that for at least the next two decades, the Middle East’s oil reserves will be a major global strategic objective for, well, pretty much everyone. Europe, India, the “Asian Tigers”, China, Russia, … everyone. So the US will be drawn into the area whether or not we “want” to be there. Better to be pro-active.
Expanding the scope, Please discuss this idea that “NATO should have been scrapped” with any Lithuanians, Latvians, or Poles you know. You want to acknowledge the Kurds push for independence. Why aren’t you willing to stand with people who replaced authoritarianism with EU-style democracy during your lifetime? Do you really think Putin wouldn’t try to take back “lost” territories, especially Kiev, if these small countries didn’t have the EU and NATO behind them?
Again, I am not defending US actions in the Middle East. I have been a vociferous opponent of the Iraq war since before it began, for example. But dis-engagment is a fantasy. Given that fact of real-politik, I contend working with the Turks is a better choice than working against them or ignoring them.
And by the way, if you are willing to stand up for the Kurds, why the Turks? There are millions of Turks who support a democratic and peaceful Turkey that respects human rights. Many Turks risk their lives for these ideals. Shouldn’t we be supporting them as well?
I argue that keeping Turkey in the Western Alliance system is a vital part of supporting these courageous people. After all, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Guatemala, and many other authoritarian states have transitioned to more open, democratic societies as part of the American security apparatus. Including Turkey.
More stuff we agree on.
The US does press Turkey about the genocide. Several American congresscritters make a lot of noise about this, which helps immensely.
For the Kurds, I think Taiwan is a useful analogy. The US still officially observes a “One China” Policy, while making it abundantly clear that the US considers the “breakaway province” a vital US interest.
The Kurds have the misfortune of not being surrounded by water and instead being split across three polities, but the US is doing something similar. On the ground, we do help (some) with Kurdish Autonomy. Perhaps we should do more – that’s a great topic. But just like “officially” recognizing Taiwan for the independent, democratic country it is would cause more problems than it would solve, so it is probably best to not do anything officially dramatic vis-a-vis the Kurds and Turkey.
Also, Turkey is trying to “make nice” with its “Mountain Turks.”
If the Armenian Genocide were “made official” and well documented, everyone’s feelings would be hurt. Including the Armenians and the Kurds.
Also known to Trekkies as the plot of “The Enemy Within”
Oh, I agree completely, from a perspective of what Americans will vote for. But I can dream, can’t I? 
The Israelis are tough, and have licked their neighbors enough times that they would be stupid to try anymore. I believe they can take care of themselves, or at least buy our arms with at least some of their money instead of our own. As far as Israel’s enemies, I don’t think our presence there is moderating so much as provoking. And Israel’s enemies seem perfectly happy to take our money while continuing business as usual behind the scenes. I think states like Iran are more likely to reform due to internal pressures than anything we do.
True, but whoever has it has to sell it to get much benefit. Why should I care who is putting the middle east’s oil on the world market, when it’s unlikely to be anybody worse than the current regimes?
Maybe that’s a sign that Europe should be making sure their militaries are up to the task of defending themselves. Perhaps in a mutual aid pact of some sort. NATO is essentially a Western European-American alliance, ill suited to defending eastern europe. Absent NATO, new alliances that make sense for eastern europe could form.
And that was the big question that came up with NATO expansion- if they invaded Lat/Lith/Estonia, are we really throwing ourselves into a full on shooting hot-war with Russia, right on their border? Or are we really launching nukes? I’m as happy for their independence as anybody, but that’s not practical and that’s not ending well. We’ve gotten ourselves into a pact where we are obliged to defend a tactically indefensible position. Even if Russia wanted to invade, potential world outrage seems to be what’s really defending them. Or a lack of clear benefit-compared-to-cost to Russia.
I’ve probably blown this discussion out of proportion, but my argument is that we should work with them on things is makes sense to work with them on, and not work with them in areas it doesn’t make sense. For us. As it is it seems they do already from their end. But we’re throwing other groups under the bus in order to pretend to be “allies”, when the reality is that each country is going to do what’s best for itself anyway when push comes to shove.
I’m happy to support these courageous people, but I think their fate is far more up to whichever direction Turkish culture goes, and that’s up to the Turks.
Are we sure we have causality here? Each of those situations had their unique particulars, which would probably take way too much time to get into individually, but I’m not sure it wasn’t in spite of rather than because of our security apparatus? Since that apparatus was often not just a military base and promise of some defense against aggression- it often included some pretty unsavory stuff. I’m especially surprised you would include Guatemala in the list as an example of success!
I would like to see the US adopt a model of engagement with the world through leading by example, and engaging the world through trade. I know the world is a rough place and a barrel of a gun trumps pacifism absent someone elses guns, but in the long run people want peace and prosperity and as long as there is a chunk of the world providing a visible example the rest will bend towards that in the long run. I think at least some of the places that have gotten much better in the last 30 years liberalized because they saw the benefits that The West had gained and said, we’re sick of this shit, we want that! But it has to come from within. If they don’t want it, or if only a small minority wants it, we can’t force it down their majority’s throats.
Thanks for the links, glad to see this!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
