New at Reason
Michael Young runs down the records and public promises of the White House hopefuls on the Middle East. Can you believe a word they say? And does it matter?
Comments to "New at Reason":
Mr. Nice Guy | February 14, 2008, 12:16pm | #
This is neat, as I swear I was driving in the car today and thinking that I had not seen Michael Young in a while here, and thought "I wonder who he wants to invade now? Arkansas (look at those dangerous theocratic results for Huckabee)?"Pro Libertate | February 14, 2008, 12:33pm | #
I'd support an invasion of Arkansas.J sub D | February 14, 2008, 12:37pm | #
I'd support an invasion of Arkansas.Because they lack a justice system, I recommend that Mississsippi go to the top of the list.
Priorities, folks.
Warren | February 14, 2008, 12:53pm | #
Dear Reason,Pretty please, with sugar on top, find someone new to cover the Mid East. Someone without family in the region. Honestly, Jessica Simpson would be an improvement.
Not cancel my subscription... yet
Warren
R C Dean | February 14, 2008, 1:06pm | #
Because they lack a justice system, I recommend that Mississsippi go to the top of the list.Actually, Arkansas, Mississippi, and some other states were "invaded" by troops under federal command back in the civil rights days.
John | February 14, 2008, 1:42pm | #
I love how everyone on Hit and Run, none of whom have so much as set foot in the region all run down Michael Young, someone who has lived and worked there for God knows how long.Dear Reason,
Could you pretty please with sugar on top make sure that Warren never has to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear no matter how true? It makes him really uncomfortable and creates the danger that a rational thought might float through his mind.
Thanks and still not subscribing
John
Kolohe | February 14, 2008, 2:21pm | #
Can you believe a word they say?Yes in the case of Iraq, no on anything else
And does it matter?
Yes in the case of Iraq, no on anything else.
In the shadow of Iran's growing power in the Gulf, there is no realistic withdrawal option in Iraq. The United States fought a war against Saddam Hussein's army in 1991 to deny Iraq hegemony over the oil-rich region after the invasion of Kuwait. That goal hasn't changed with respect to Iran.I'm sure glad we haven't allowed Iran to establish hegemony over the middle east in this past decade. Otherwise oil prices might have doubled or tripled. Oh wait.
Seriously, this talk of Iran hegemony is way overblown. Are they our friends? No. Do they act contrary to US interests? Yes. Do they bear watching? Yes.
But, does the state of their economy help or hinder their ability to increase their geopolitical power? Oil helps, but with other structural problems, my answer overall would be 'hinder'
The Saudi's Kuwaiti's and other gulf states would unite to form a counterbalance to any perceived outsized growth in Iranian power. Iran has few natural allies in the region: (portions) of Iraq, (portions) of Palestine/Lebanon and (very small) portions of Pakistan. I believe more agressively aiding these portions to leverage and consolidate power will *increase* the intesity of conflicts in these areas - which would actually *decrease* the power of Iran.
I mean, what's the worse case scenario now: an open civil war in Iraq, right? And so Iran gets openly involved on the side of its allies in the east. Which motivates its enemies, who remeber the Iraq/Iran war the same way 1938 Germans would remeber Versailles. So yeah, Iran may get a hold of a little more oil, but they also get a hold of a whole lot of clusterfuck. Much like someone else I know.
Shannon Love | February 14, 2008, 2:32pm | #
I think that history shows rather clearly that real-world conditions and institutional imperatives override any philosophical leanings Presidents might have had before they entered office. As a result, US foreign policy does not vary significantly with the change of Presidents.Johnson strongly opposed Kennedy's intervention in Indochina yet found himself fighting the war he personally opposed. Reagan's military buildup actually began in the last year of Carter's administration, Bush's pre-9/11 counter terrorism policy did not differ significantly from Clinton's.
We often emotionally invest in Presidents far more power and discretion than the office and conditions actually allow.
John | February 14, 2008, 2:33pm | #
"The Saudi's Kuwaiti's and other gulf states would unite to form a counterbalance to any perceived outsized growth in Iranian power. Iran has few natural allies in the region: (portions) of Iraq, (portions) of Palestine/Lebanon and (very small) portions of Pakistan. I believe more agressively aiding these portions to leverage and consolidate power will *increase* the intesity of conflicts in these areas - which would actually *decrease* the power of Iran."If Iran has nukes, they can unite all they want and it won't do them a bit of good. As long as Iran stays conventionally armed, you are right. But if they get nukes and put them on ballistic missiles, all bets are off. At that point they can pretty much play local bad boy about all they want. They can just stop screwing around and execute any of their population that doesn't agree with them, what the hell is the rest of the world going to do about it? Start a nuclear war? Stop buying their oil? Not likely. They can also terrorize any of their enemies in the region with impunity and fun any terror group they like with no worries of retaliation. Right now if an Iranian sponsored terror group hit the US or Europe hard, we could do another Kosovo like campaign and bomb them into submission or at least hurt them very bad. If Iran had nukes, would anyone risk a nuclear war with them by attacking them no matter how provocative their actions? Again, not likely. Nuclear weapons are the Mullahs get out of jail free card. They have everything to gain by getting them and nothing to lose by trying.
That is very true Shannan Love. A President Obama or Clinton or McCain is not getting out of Iraq. If anything Iraq is a bigger problem for Clinton and Obama because once President they will face a revolt from the get the US out of North America wing of their party if they don't get out of IRaq quick, something neither one of them will be able to do.
Paul | February 14, 2008, 2:51pm | #
I think that history shows rather clearly that real-world conditions and institutional imperatives override any philosophical leanings Presidents might have had before they entered office.In the street vernacular, I'd like to say "Booya". I don't know what prompted the two minutes hate on Michael Young, his article was merely a lengthy observation on how a new administration will treat the Middle East, not a treatise on how Mr. Young thinks it should be done.
But maybe articles with big words confuse.
ChrisO | February 14, 2008, 2:54pm | #
Outside of the Iraq issue, for which "clusterfuck" is an appropriate description, I don't think it really matters what steps any of the candidates advocate. The Middle East was a treacherous snakepit when the Roman legions were tromping around the region, it remains so today, and it will be so long after everyone reading this is gone. Our foreign policy should emphasize not getting involved in every regional pissing match. Oil, on the other hand, is important to us for the foreseeable future, and there's nothing wrong with protecting that interest.Personally, I couldn't give a shit whether the Judean People's Front or the People's Front of Judea has the final say over the "Holy Land." It's highest and best use would probably be as a giant parking lot.
Kolohe | February 14, 2008, 2:57pm | #
John-Nukes are a problem (so is ICBM technology). I do not wish Iran to get either of them at this point.
But Young's thesis in that part of his article was
"The US cannot pull out of Iraq because it needs to stay there to counteract and prevent Iran hegenomy"
So if Nukes are the only way Iran can get hegenomy, the question is does the US staying in Iraq help, hurt, or make no difference in Iran obtaining Nukes?
I do not see a solid case for our presence in Iraq interdicting the ability for Iran to get nukes - and it defintely does not deter them from trying
John | February 14, 2008, 3:02pm | #
"So if Nukes are the only way Iran can get hegenomy, the question is does the US staying in Iraq help, hurt, or make no difference in Iran obtaining Nukes?"I think the US staying in Iraq doesn't make a difference in that regard. Long term it does because Iraq is the other natural power of the region. Short term, no. We could stay or go from Iraq and we still face the same problems with Iran.
anon | February 14, 2008, 3:19pm | #
I love how everyone on Hit and Run, none of whom have so much as set foot in the region all run down Michael Young, someone who has lived and worked there for God knows how long.and you know this how?
Ali | February 14, 2008, 3:24pm | #
I lived there. For, like, 22 years!Ali | February 14, 2008, 3:33pm | #
I skimmed through the whole thing and was wondering, what a waste of time that was reading it. Did anyone see anything new?J sub D | February 14, 2008, 3:39pm | #
Actually, Arkansas, Mississippi, and some other states were "invaded" by troops under federal command back in the civil rights days.Given your hyperbole of "invasion" during the civil rights day, I take it you think forcing the rednecks to obey the law was a bad thing.
Am I right?
Calidore | February 14, 2008, 4:05pm | #
The region has always been adept at imposing its rhythms on others as a means of resisting change.That's what locals always try to do vis a vis "hegemonic" or centralizing powers. The middle east is in no way unique as far as this is concerned.
Ali | February 14, 2008, 4:31pm | #
Calidore-Plus, it is the leaders (and their backers) who do not want change. The people? You bet!
Calidore | February 14, 2008, 4:44pm | #
Ali,I suspect that some of "the people" want "change" that many might find problematic. Change via the fashion of Peter the Great or via the masses has never been a wholely satisfactory endeavor (and it has often been quite unsavory).
Paul | February 14, 2008, 4:45pm | #
Plus, it is the leaders (and their backers) who do not want change. The people? You bet!Ali, are "the people" what the mainstream media tediously refer to as "Arab Street"?
What change, pray tell, does "Arab Street" want? I've been following Middle East politics for decades and frankly, I can't tell.
Warren | February 14, 2008, 4:59pm | #
John,Ah yes now I see. All that inconvenient truth has made me irrational. And here I was thinking everything about the Mid East made me equally uncomfortable.
Now I see how Micheal Young living and working in the region for "God knows how long" gives him credibility, and couldn't possibly prejudice his reporting.
Thanks for setting me straight. From now on, nothing but rational thoughts for me!
Warren
anon | February 14, 2008, 5:00pm | #
What change, pray tell, does "Arab Street" want? I've been following Middle East politics for decades and frankly, I can't tell.The "Arab street" is not a monolithic group. Different people want different things just like the rest of the world. You have your typical socialists, religious zealots, corporatist, well-fair queens, nationalists, etc, etc,.
Kevin B. O'Reilly | February 14, 2008, 5:05pm | #
Can you believe a word Michael Young writes? And does it matter?Ali | February 14, 2008, 5:06pm | #
Calidore- Some of the things the people may want are indeed going to be problematic. But we can't say that all of what the people want is going to be problematic. It is like killing the bear with the bee (or whatever the two animals in that story were).Paul- They want many things. It could be things that any person anywhere in the where wants: jobs, better economy, freedoms (including religious), etc. Some of what they want may be problematic, but see my comment to Calidore. Also, have you heard of the "kifaya" movement? It is one example of what the Arab street wants. It is easy to believe that all what the Arab street wants are throwing Israel into the ocean and defeat the "devil". That is only part of what some of the people want. Neither do all people want that, nor these are the only things some want.
Ali | February 14, 2008, 5:09pm | #
As an example, the Arab street does not want this. It only takes reading the Arabic version to find out how badly many Arabs do want freedom.peachy | February 14, 2008, 5:16pm | #
Just two observations. First, Mr Young has acquired a justified reputation for being, well, wrong. And since many of the regulars here were right when it came to Iraq, a certain degree of skepticism is only proper. In this particular case - and this should in no way be construed as an endorsement of any other articles by Mr Young, past or present - I'm inclined to think that he has an excellent point. The Middle East has been a ratfuck for three millenia at least, so why should we expect that to change in the next four years?Second, although my personal tally cannot compare to Ali's, I lived in Egypt for four years, and have travelled in Israel, Jordan, Syria, the UAE, Bahrain, Turkey and Cyprus. So I'm thinking that at some point I must have set foot in the region, not so?
I avoid all articles by Reason contributors with the surname "Young". This rule has served me well over the years.
Paul | February 14, 2008, 6:03pm | #
You have your typical socialists, religious zealots, corporatist, well-fair queens, nationalists, etc, etc,.Anon, so we're no closer to gleaning the "change" the "the people" want than we were 10 minutes ago, five years ago, 500 years ago. Cool, now I know it wasn't just me.
Erik Al-Donderowi | February 14, 2008, 8:11pm | #
I love how everyone on Hit and Run, none of whom have so much as set foot in the region all run down Michael Young, someone who has lived and worked there for God knows how long.That's absolutely FUCKING right. Where were you guys when I was standing on a street corner in Abu Dhabi during a sandstorm in 1982 handing out pro-democracy fliers, huh? And I couldn't even check out the chicks walking by on the street for fun, cause they're all wearing burqas!
And whose tent do you think the Saudi Liberty Caucus got started in? Me again! And you call yourselves libertarians?!
Ali | February 14, 2008, 9:12pm | #
Very well done, crimethink, very well done indeed! Al-Dandarawi (kinda close) is actually a famous family name in Egypt, fwiw.Calidore | February 14, 2008, 10:02pm | #
The Middle East has been a ratfuck for three millenia at least...I would just observe that at times the middle east has been a fine place to live. For example, in many ways Parthia (at its height) wasn't a bad place to be born in.
Lousy place to be a Republican Roman soldier in, however. The Imps did a bit better. (And sure, that was a generalisation - but the region has had its share of troubles. I'm not sure Mesopotamia ever really recovered from the Mongols passing through, and the coastal strip from Antioch to Gaza has been worked over by just about significant power in the history of the eastern Med. Poor chaps.)
Sami | February 16, 2008, 1:46am | #
Just to point out:1. Division among Palestinians as justification for inaction to get Israel comply with the rule of law is a red herring. The schism between Fatah and Hamas was engineered and nutured by the US at Israel's behest.
2. Presidential elections in the US are nothing more than a charade for selection of a potential puppet in possession of a bonding agent for glueing presidential lips to Israel's backside. Wake up, America.
3. When the US Federal Bank is back in public ownership and DC has been decontaminated from the neocons, there will be change for the better; until then it doesn't matter who occupies the Oval Office, even a monkey can order compliance with Israel's whims!
Why is Michael young a correspondent for Reason Magazine? His writings seem sober, fair, and well-informed, and his conclusion (that not much would change in American policy toward the Middle East no matter who becomes president) is well-supported. This is the sort of analysis one would expect to find in Foreign Affairs. But if Ron Paul and his supporters are any indication, the tendency of Reasonoids and Libertarians generally is to see Iraq as a Tri-lateral plot and the Neo-Conservatives and Realists (both of whom often draw Young's approval) as statist proto-Faschists. One can see Young working in a McCain (or a Clinton) administration. One can hardly see most of the Reason editorial board working for anyone other than Ron Paul.