You might want to check out this pictorial timeline and summary of how we got to where we are in the Middle East over at Pat Lang’s place. Here’s a snippet of the summary commentary:
If all of this doesn’t makes sense, that’s because it can’t, and there is a reason for that:
US clients pursue interests that are diametrically opposed with US goals and the US doesn’t have a coherent policy, with the neocon/neoliberal/R2P wings infighting with the residual realists. In continuity with the Bushmen before them, they also fancy the idea of global benevolent hegemony and the American civilising mission to remake the world in its own image. Also, they are limited in their freedom of movement, which the conduct of three key US allies illustrates…
As I see it there are two fundamental problems:
- Bad assumptions
- A basic inability to establish priorities and stick by them
I thought it was a good rundown, but I doubt anybody who supports this nonsense actually cares about logic. They are willing to arm al-Qaeda as long as the terrorists promise to be good boys, and they will disparage anybody who oppose arming al-Qaeda as supporting terrorists.
None of this is going to end well, and they will quickly have forgotten who decided arming the terrorists to overthrow secular governments was a good idea.
The point about the bases, airfield, and ports is important, but it works both ways. If the US began pulling out of the Middle East, things would change quick. Russia could not back everybody in the region, and Saudi Arabia cannot defend itself against the Girl Scouts. I would tell NATO to shove it, also. Turkey can keep their bases, and they can rely on the Europeans for help.
The rest of the world needs the US far more than the US needs them, but they and Americans believe the opposite.