And next, Syria?

[CNT36]

This is the point.

The West does not fear destabilization;

Yes, it does (not that a united entity called The West is a reality but I think I know who you mean). If it lost control in a region important to its interests, that it has heavily invested in dominating, it would be from its point of view a catastrophe.

it fears strong, hostile states.

Assad until he started killing protestors had tried to improve relations with the west, retreated and offered concessions (abroad and at home) even entering into serious negotiations with Israel. Is this what you mean by strong and hostile?

So it destroys them.

Does it? The strongest who quite often are hostile toward "The West" seem to be doing pretty well.

 

[phildwyer]

Does it? The strongest who quite often are hostile toward "The West" seem to be doing pretty well.

Look at Israel's traditional enemies.

Iraq: a heap of smoldering rubble
Libya: fractured chaos
Syria: civil war
Egypt: teetering on the brink of anarchy

Cui bono?

 

[camouflage]

This is the point.

The West does not fear destabilization; it fears strong, hostile states. So it destroys them.

I agree, the United States doesnt want stability anywhere. Secure between two oceans it dominates utterly and in command of world trade... it prefers all un-vassalized others to be bogged down in conflict that the US doesn't actually need to win. The EU is no threat, China doesn’t present a real danger either as the more progress it makes trying to develop itself the more likely it is to shatter. A new Ottoman Empire could be useful at first, it'd be thoroughly bogged down anyway, and Russia is surrounded and vulnerable and largely effectively landlocked. A resurgent Japan could eventually become an irritant. For the most part though no rival centre of power is likely to emerge in the next few decades to challenge the US.

Feeding these internecine wars and smashing sovereign independantly minded states is the US equivalent of watering the roses in the garden of everlasting dominance.

So far everything's coming up Sam.

 

[phildwyer]

I disagree, the United States doesnt want stability anywhere.

That's what I said. You agree.

 

[camouflage]

That's what I said. You agree.

oh yeah... I guess I just saw 'phildwyer' an assumed I was against.

fixd

 

[Casually Red]

Lad I know who's an ex-squaddie and still keeps in contact with people styill in his old regiment/the army just mentioned that "So, despite statements to the opposite, I have been reliably informed this morning that British troops will be deploying to Syria next month for a 3 month tour! Afghanistan Mk II?"

How true/vague that is we'll only see soon I guess.

the Cyprus based ships that were supposed to collect the CW turned around and fucked off without it . Syria has now missed the handover deadline as a result of that and rebel attacks on the convoy route that had to be cleared before it could move. .

 

[CNT36]

Look at Israel's traditional enemies.

Iraq: a heap of smoldering rubble
Libya: fractured chaos
Syria: civil war
Egypt: teetering on the brink of anarchy

Cui bono?

Egypt and Israel had been on good terms. Egypt even gave a neighbourly hand to Israel in dealing with the natives. So it was far from hostile. The end of Mubarak and the struggles inside Egypt haven't great for Israel. The Syrian civil war with all the risks it brings to Israel seems a pretty mixed bag. The destruction in Iraq has benefitted Iran. I'm not sure how any of this supports your earlier assertion or why 'The West' has suddenly become Israel. 'The West' wants stability and the destruction of independent states can be part of that. I don't understand how the loss of an ally is of benefit to either the west or Israel.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Syrian opposition trying to reclaim the revolution from the Jihadis.

The most serious clashes yet between the Syrian opposition and a prominent al-Qaida group erupted in the north of the country on Friday as a tribal revolt against the same organisation continued to rage inIraq's Anbar province.

Opposition groups near Aleppo attacked militants from the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria (Isis) in two areas, al-Atareb and Andana, which are both strongholds of the fundamentalist Sunni organisation.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/03/syrian-opposition-attack-alqaida-affiliate-isis

 

[TomUS]

Syrian opposition trying to reclaim the revolution from the Jihadis.

It's about time. There may be some hope for the Syrian revolution after all.

 

[phildwyer]

Egypt and Israel had been on good terms. Egypt even gave a neighbourly hand to Israel in dealing with the natives. So it was far from hostile. The end of Mubarak and the struggles inside Egypt haven't great for Israel. The Syrian civil war with all the risks it brings to Israel seems a pretty mixed bag. The destruction in Iraq has benefitted Iran. I'm not sure how any of this supports your earlier assertion or why 'The West' has suddenly become Israel. 'The West' wants stability and the destruction of independent states can be part of that. I don't understand how the loss of an ally is of benefit to either the west or Israel.

While it's true that Israel managed to buy some time by making peace with the current regime in Egypt, that was an extremely fragile position. The Egyptian people remain irreconcilably opposed to Israel, and there's always the possibility that someday an Egyptian government might reflect that opinion.

But if the Egyptian state is weak, divided or best of all in a state of permanent anarchy and chaos, then it doesn't much matter who controls it because they aren't going to be in a position to seriously threaten anyone.

This logic is being applied to the entire middle east.

 

[phildwyer]

I'm not sure how any of this supports your earlier assertion or why 'The West' has suddenly become Israel.

Seriously?

You're not sure why "the West" (let's say the USA if you prefer) always acts in Israel's interests?

This is a bit of a mystery to you is it? An impenetrable enigma is it? One of those unfathomable geopolitical complexities, the reasons for which are entirely inaccessible to logic or reason? Is it? Seriously?

 

[teqniq]

Whilst your idea is in some ways attractive Phil, I think the reality may be a whole lot more complicated.

This article which mostly concerns Hezbollah and their role in the conflict is interesting as is this comment from one of the players actually there concerning Israel:

As for the old foe, Israel, he said: "None of their borders are safe now and this is not a good thing for them. They cannot be happy with the momentum anywhere in the region, especially Syria. Egypt is perhaps the only border that gives them comfort. The rest are outside of their control."

 

[CNT36]

Seriously?

You're not sure why "the West" (let's say the USA if you prefer) always acts in Israel's interests?

This is a bit of a mystery to you is it? An impenetrable enigma is it? One of those unfathomable geopolitical complexities, the reasons for which are entirely inaccessible to logic or reason? Is it? Seriously?

I was wondering more why you had stopped talking about The West and shifted to Israel like you have just shifted to the USA (who I think you may have meant all along). It is not an impenetrable enigma it is not true. The US acts in accordance with its own perceived interests if they happen to be the same as Israel's then they will be acting in Israel's interest. The US doesn't pay Israel's way because it is subservient to Israeli interests and far from always promotes them.

 

[phildwyer]

I was wondering more why you had stopped talking about The West and shifted to Israel like you have just shifted to the USA (who I think you may have meant all along). It is not an impenetrable enigma it is not true. The US acts in accordance with its own perceived interests if they happen to be the same as Israel's then they will be acting in Israel's interest. The US doesn't pay Israel's way because it is subservient to Israeli interests and far from always promotes them.

How does supporting Israel serve the interests of the USA?

The Arabs have the oil.

 

[phildwyer]

Whilst your idea is in some ways attractive Phil, I think the reality may be a whole lot more complicated.

This article which mostly concerns Hezbollah and their role in the conflict is interesting as is this comment from one of the players actually there concerning Israel:

I'd rather fight Hezbollah than the Egyptian army.

 

[teqniq]

I'd rather fight Hezbollah than the Egyptian army.

The Egyptian army are regarded as lazy by some of their own people moreover they have no recent full-scale combat experience whereas Hezbollah do though I am unsure what this has to do with your theory.

 

[thriller]

I'd rather fight Hezbollah than the Egyptian army.

Yes, you would rather fight Hezbollah-the people who fought Israel to a stand still in 2006.

Contrast that to the Arabs who have a history of military failure after failure against Israel. I was on holiday in Egypt in 2010 and was shocked to hear our tour guide claim that Egypt won the 1973 War.

 

[phildwyer]

The Egyptian army are regarded as lazy by some of their own people moreover they have no recent full-scale combat experience whereas Hezbollah do though I am unsure what this has to do with your theory.

Yes but the Egyptian army has tanks and artillery and air support and is obviously a much more formidable proposition than any guerilla force no matter how dedicated.

 

[camouflage]

I'd rather fight Hezbollah than the Egyptian army.

one's a political fighting force with deep roots in the community, the other are an over-endowed riot-squad.

 

[teqniq]

Not convinced Phil but nevermind.

 

[camouflage]

Not convinced Phil but nevermind.

I think phil is under the profoundly wrong impression that big conventional armies are more difficult for a nominally democratic but militarily super-advanced nation like Isreal or the United States to take on than lower-level but relentlessly dedicated insurgencies. Not to mention that if Egypt ever did go to war against Isreal all their weapons would become empty lumps of metal that fall apart quickly, and also food crisis.

 

[thriller]

Well I wouldn't go that far in claiming their weaponary will fall apart. They, along with the Saudis have US purchased weapons. It is just the Americans always ensure the weapons they sell to the stupid arabs are never as advanced as what they practically give away to Israel. Of course weapons aid has been suspended so Egyptians are looking elsewhere.

 

[teqniq]

camouflage whilst you may be right this has kinda gotten away from Phils' theory of the U.S. being quite happy with chaos in the region and possibly even helping it along. I still contend that whilst attractive and even possibly to some extent true it has flaws inasmuch as it fails to take into consideration the actions and interests of local actors. Consider the under-the-table alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, strange bedfellows indeed perhaps but they have been united in what they perceive as mutual concerns in Syria. Moreover as the Hezbolloah commander in the graun article states Egypt is currently the least of Israel's concerns.

 

[phildwyer]

I think phil is under the profoundly wrong impression that big conventional armies are more difficult for a nominally democratic but militarily super-advanced nation like Isreal or the United states to take on than lower-level but relentlessly dedicated insurgencies.

It depends what you mean by "take on."

It can be harder to defeat an insurgency. But fighting a war against a state the size of Egypt (let alone against a combination of such states) would completely dominate Israel's economy and civil society for the duration--and that's the minimum price they'd have to pay, which assumes they'd have no military problems at all, which of course can never be assumed.

Not to mention that if Egypt ever did go to war against Isreal all their weapons would become empty lumps of metal that fall apart quickly, not to mention the sudden food crisis.

1973 was closer than people think. 1967 too. Yes Israel would probably win another war with Egypt, but it would be a major pain in the bum for them.

 

[phildwyer]

Consider the under-the-table alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia

With the Saudi Arabian government.

Which is widely perceived as a Quisling regime put in place for the specific purpose of making peace with Israel, not least by its own citizens.

 

[teqniq]

To be fair I should have said government but I am not entirely convinced on that one either Phil. There's the whole Shia/Sunni thing which predates Israel by a wide margin.

 

[CNT36]

How does supporting Israel serve the interests of the USA?

The Arabs have the oil.

Its hardly an impenetrable enigma or unfathomable geopolitics I'm sure logic and reason will help you work it out. Perhaps you should look into the subject a little.

 

[CNT36]

While it's true that Israel managed to buy some time by making peace with the current regime in Egypt, that was an extremely fragile position. The Egyptian people remain irreconcilably opposed to Israel, and there's always the possibility that someday an Egyptian government might reflect that opinion.

But if the Egyptian state is weak, divided or best of all in a state of permanent anarchy and chaos, then it doesn't much matter who controls it because they aren't going to be in a position to seriously threaten anyone.

This logic is being applied to the entire middle east.

So its best to create a state of chaos where a hostile group could take power? There was no guarantee that it would collapse and that the people wouldn't get a government in line with their own thoughts on Israel. Chaos is likely to lead to more nonstate actors getting involved who seem to be more effective at fighting Israel than many states. If it was all part of the plan why did Israel's US puppet support Mubarak until the last moment?

 

[phildwyer]

Its hardly an impenetrable enigma or unfathomable geopolitics I'm sure logic and reason will help you work it out. Perhaps you should look into the subject a little.

In terms of realpolitik, the best interests of the USA would be served by supporting the Arabs, because the Arabs have the oil.

In terms of realpolitik, the USA makes all kinds of problems for itself by supporting Israel, most importantly (but by no means limited to) endangering its oil supply and putting itelf at risk from terrorism.

So we conclude that other factors than realpolitik determine US middle eastern policy.

 

[phildwyer]

So its best to create a state of chaos where a hostile group could take power? There was no guarantee that it would collapse and that the people wouldn't get a government in line with their own thoughts on Israel. Chaos is likely to lead to more nonstate actors getting involved who seem to be more effective at fighting Israel than many states. If it was all part of the plan why did Israel's US puppet support Mubarak until the last moment?

It's not really serious to suggest that the simultaneous implosion of all its traditional enemies is anything other than a boon to Israel.

Once again I am struck by how little Westerners are informed about the true situation in the middle east.