Thinking Too Much of Ourselves

A criticism of criticism. The fellow is from Brookings, which is institutionally suspect on Middle Eastern issues because it receives vast funding from Qatar; however, I see little wrong with the major point he's making on this occasion.
Those who said there will be war may not have realized there already was war.... Iran... may find new ways to escalate, but Iran had already been escalating. The regime of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, with its Iranian patrons, led by Soleimani, has been waging a brutal assault on Syrians for more than eight years. War, in short, has been happening—costing hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians their lives—since long before Donald Trump ordered the drone strike against Soleimani.

In the aftermath of the strike, critics of the Trump administration’s foreign policy, particularly on the left, have described the move as one more rash American intervention that’s sure to further destabilize the region. Yet this formulation gives U.S. policy, for all its flaws, too much credit. Not everything is America’s fault; others are sometimes to blame; and no one, not even the weaker parties, are devoid of agency or freed of responsibility. The burden of de-escalation does not fall entirely on the United States; Iran, too, can choose to de-escalate.
Actually, his minor point is pretty good too.
There is also the problem of Trump himself. Because killing Soleimani was very much his decision—reflecting the impulsiveness and disarray a decision by him implies—it seems fair to assume that one’s view of the president will affect how one interprets the fallout from Soleimani’s killing. Correcting for subconscious bias isn’t easy, but at the very least, observers should be aware of the Trump effect.
Well, indeed. One might begin trying to correct for this particular one by examining how one responded to President Obama's very regular targeted killings -- or whether you felt like the War Powers Act was being openly flaunted by Team Obama in its decision to overthrow Libya for no apparent reason.

Maybe Major General Solemani was higher profile than most of Obama's victims -- though he was a Major General out of uniform, operating in a foreign country while under UN travel sanctions and US State and Treasury designation as the terrorist head of a terrorist organization that is itself a subset of a terrorist organization. He wasn't a higher profile victim than Qaddafi, though; and President Trump didn't overthrow a whole country just to get at him.

Speaking of which, Turkey is apparently moving forces into Libya to try to quell the remaining fires of the civil war Obama kicked off nine years ago. They have, of course, chosen to back the wrong side; but it's also the side Obama had picked, quite a few of whom were al Qaeda affiliates in the grand days of that movement. The Trump administration doesn't seem to care about Libya one way or the other, and will likely let the Turks decide the issue if they are able. Trump, at least, doesn't share the opinion that America is indispensable to these conflicts.

5 comments:

Cassandra said...

Grim, Grim, Grim. How soon you bitter gun-clingers forget.

Obama always landed on the right side of history, and anyone who dared to question his wisdom was just wrong.

Not to mention stupid. Or was it evil? It's so hard to keep these things straight, but then we're just not Obama, are we?

I miss Ben Rhodes, and his unique brand of humility. Though how he kept it up whilst surrounded by easily led fool...err...journalists covering foreign policy from DC and parroting talking points helpfully supplied by Herr Rhodes is anyone's guess.

We shall not see their like again, I fear.

*sob*

E Hines said...

It's interesting to me that the NLMSM still, after all this time, does not understand Trump or his decision-making. I wonder whether the NLMSM even is trying.

Trump is impulsive and disarrayed. It couldn't possibly be that he insists on operating at the speed of business instead of the speed of politics.

Trump is impulsive and disarrayed. It couldn't possibly be that he acts like the guy in charge, not just the one sitting at the head of a committee table.

The guy in charge, when he truly is in charge, is not bound by the inputs of his advisors--those inputs are advisory, not directive, the lament of Fiona Hill notwithstanding. The guy in charge has the only vote that counts at that conference (it isn't a committee) table.

There may be much with which to disagree regarding Trump's policies, particularly in foreign policy (though IMNSHO, tariffs as foreign policy and the recent removal of an Iranian counter from the Monopoly board are quite good). But it's just barely possible that he's not at all impulsive or in disarray.

Eric Hines

ymarsakar said...

or whether you felt like the War Powers Act was being openly flaunted by Team Obama in its decision to overthrow Libya for no apparent reason.

There were several reasons.

Qaddafi was stock piling gold and attempting to create an African central bank that issued gold backed currency, causing Nato to replace the regime.

Libya had one of the highest living standards of Africa. After America brought its unique brand of democracy and justice to the place... that is no longer the case.

And this is why foreign countries are afraid of the CIA so much. They actually know what happened to Diem and Qaddafi.

ymarsakar said...

Maybe Americans should be afraid of the CIA too? Naw, Trum kept hiring Hussein lackeys because they were ... hrm, what did Americans keep repeating about Mueller and COmey? Straight shooters? DC pedo corrupt tyrants are "straight shooters", eh.

ymarsakar said...

Trump, at least, doesn't share the opinion that America is indispensable to these conflicts.

he's too ashamed to show America's flag there. He should have gotten enough debriefings to know what really happened to the country and what the USA did.

Besides, the Alliance has bigger fish to deal with domestically, than another foeign adventure that will just side track things.