SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SirRealist who wrote (17409)1/30/2002 1:36:10 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
SR, I respect your arguments as always, but the point you are arguing here is an essentially different point from the one I made.

Your argument is that the US's Mideast foreign policy was not weak and should not be considered weak. My argument was that the Arab world considers that our behavior was weak and therefore regards us with some measure of contempt. I am thus arguing about their perception of our behavior, not our own perception or anybody's rational assessment, for that matter. Perhaps I was not clear enough on that point.

though one might make the case that failing to nail Saddam & the Republican Guard was a strategic error, our show of force and high rate of success there does not define 'weak' very well at all.

The consensus is that Saddam Hussein has turned his survival into a propaganda victory for himself -- he stood up tall against the Great Satan America and survived. If he has sold this story, how does this make us look? Weak or soft, take your pick. Lesson: The US does not have the stomach to be a great power. Whine and look helpless on camera, they will ease up on an enemy instead of finishing him off. Do you think maybe Arafat noticed?

Somalia? They dragged a few Rangers' bodies through the streets and we turned tail and ran. Again, this is their perception, not ours. Beirut (which is in my time frame; the Mideast has a very long memory)? They killed 250 Marines; we ran without hitting back. Again, it shows (in their minds) that we haven't got the guts to take casualties. We have heard this argument openly from Bin Laden et. al. time and again. Why don't we believe they are sincere?

Which leaves Israel/Palestine. You are suggesting our behavior was weak because we tried to broker peace. Just as a majority of Israelis wanted. Just as the Palestinians claimed to want. Just as regional neighbors hoped could be obtained.

The Israelis want it. I dunno about the Palestinians. But the neighbors clearly lied when they said they wanted it; Egypt and Saudi Arabia have worked hard to subvert it. The Zionist bogeyman is far too useful to lose. (What they really want imo is "justice" = no Israel) Also, I do believe that our post Gulf War behavior rewarded Arafat and hurt Israel, by rescuing Arafat from political oblivion and by squeezing Israel for concessions. Thus we hurt a staunch ally and rewarded someone who had spit in our face in the Gulf War. Lesson: Insulting and defying the US is a low-cost option.

What's next? Shall we compare the 'appeasement' of Arafat with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler?

Why not? There is a certain similiarity in their megalomaniac mindsets. Consider also that everything Arafat has gotten in his long career, he has received for doing terrorism or promising to stop doing terrorism.

I do not believe our behavior was weak. More importantly, we earned and 'deserved' nothing.

Put yourself into the Arab mindset. Our behavior showed that we were a) too compassionate* to destroy an enemy when we had the chance, b) too soft to take casualties, and c) too weak and lacking in honor to punish even open insults and defiance. In their eyes, we lost our 'hayba', the awe that a great power needs to project. Thus, their readiness to increase their own 'face' by insulting and defying us.

* 'compassionate' is not a compliment in their world view. Arab leaders think like the ancient Romans; compassion is for women.