[Political Interest]

The third part of your solution can't work because Americans are major players in the world.

America's global position is contrary to real American national interest and the interest of American citizens. The USA was not founded to be a global power. Didn't the founding fathers warn against empires and entangling alliances? America spends billions on maintaining this empire when these resources could be invested in its own homeland. You can bring your boys home and use them to defend your own borders. It doesn't benefit you or anyone else to have a global presence.

No more superpower games?
Tell that to Russia (major power not superpower) and to Turkey and Iran (Wanna be major powers)

Iran needs to get out and stay at its borders they are destibilizing the whole region
there are major protests taking place now in Iraq and Lebanon and its all because of unwanted Iranian presence and influence (In Iraq thats the main issue in Lebanon its part of the issue but they have other problems aswell)

Iran, Turkey are regional powers. Russia is able to effectively mediate the situation, it does not favour any one power in the region. The far Western powers of USA, UK and France need to get as far away from the imperial legacy as possible and their support for the most unpopular regimes, Israel and Saudi Arabia is not doing any favours to anyone.

Iranian influence, Turkish influence, this is the internal politics of the MENA region. It's not the business of Europe, America or anyone else to interfere there unless our help is specifically requested, and even then it needs to happen in a multi lateral context.

Some what ironic that you talk about putting down stupidity, when there appears to be abundant stupidity within the so called realist foreign policy school. I'm sorry but this verges on narcissism, feeling we are entitled to have hardmen who put down stupidity and protect minorities. Maybe Pinochet fulfilled the first two, but the situation of Chile in 1973 was totally different to Syria, Egypt, Iraq or Yemen in 2019.

What solution would you prefer?

Please don't don't take this personally because some of what you seem to be saying now seems to pass for consensus in western discussion. In this pathetic fantasy world, Saddam Hussein is seen as some of pillar of Middle East stability. Saddam spent nearly his whole time as supreme leader up until 1991 at war. The only reason he didn't start any more wars between 1991 and 2003. was that he was very strictly contained. A framework of containment that was already starting to come undone and was completely unsustainable in the long term.

Saddam Hussein was a pan-Arabist. Naturally expansionism was necessary for him to consolidate power around his regime and the state he governed. Kuwait was not a Western interest, nor are the Saudis. Nor is the State of Israel. Saddam Hussein's government posed no threat to the West and his removal has decreased the stability of both the Middle East and Europe.

As soon as he was out of his box, Saddam would have upped his aggression. This wouldn't have been stupidity on Saddam's part. Saddam's crusade / jihad against the West, against Israel, against Kurdish nationalism and against the Shia was vital to give his regime a raison d'etre. The regimes of demented aggressors like North Korea, and bullying expansionist nationalist China survive because they have purpose, they have a reason to inspire loyalty, even devotion.

Saddam Hussein never had any designs on Europe or America and he couldn't realise them even if he wanted to.

Sensible, reasonable, economic reformist regimes like Michael Gorbachev's collapse.

Gorbachev's rule produced chaos.

At least in the Middle East. Franco may have been able to potter along in his final years, devoid of any real ideological mission, but that's very dangerous for the regimes of the Muslim world. Part of the problem for both Gadaffi and Assad was that their regimes had lost their revolutionary zeal. What purpose did they serve? what about them would inspire loyalty and devotion from the ordinary citizens? Dictatorial regimes need to create instability in their environment in order to create stability for the regime.

None of those countries lost their ideological mission. Those secular Arab nationalist ideologies did not have much support by the 2000s.

However a mission is not enough. The strongman must also turn the country into one giant pyramid scheme of corruption. The strongman must run the country like a Mafia boss building concentric circles of loyalty and investment in the regime. No economic development is the last thing on the successful dictators mind. Its not even just the economy that gets sacrificed for the needs of loyalty. The dictators number one priority from his military / security apparatus is not winning wars with foreign powers, but guarding against internal coups.

One party states can survive very well if they are properly governed and the elite rule in the interests of the people they govern. Saddam Hussein's inadequate leadership was not a cause for the West to invade Iraq. The Iraqi people could have done this themselves or some other regional power. Yes, that would have produced instability but we in the West should not actively encourage regime change just because they do not follow democracy and don't dance to our geopolitical tune.

[annatar1914]

The problem with you god botherers, and when I say god botherers I don't care of your colour creed or religion.

If you didn't ''care'' you wouldn't have posted these comments of yours

If you're thick enough to belive in some super god like entity as brainwashed Islamic dickheads do, then you're just as bad.

Proof?

You are just as radicalised and brainwashed as some ignorant kid from a Madrassa in Pakistan.

Again, proof? I have no doubt that you believe you have all the answers and are the epitome of rational thought and all, but seems to me that you might have made some rather large conceptual leaps if you cannot make the distinctions between theistic religions.

The koran and the bible are fairy tales, grow the fuck up

With such an emotional profanity-laced diatribe as yours, I doubt you are the one to be giving others lessons in maturity-or well reasoned discourse for that matter. Grow up. You'll figure out along with the rest of us if there is a God or not, be patient, death comes to us all soon enough.

[Hindsite]

America's global position is contrary to real American national interest and the interest of American citizens. The USA was not founded to be a global power. Didn't the founding fathers warn against empires and entangling alliances? America spends billions on maintaining this empire when these resources could be invested in its own homeland. You can bring your boys home and use them to defend your own borders. It doesn't benefit you or anyone else to have a global presence.

That was once true and I wish it was still true. But today, evil has expanded all over the world. Being an isolationist nation will not work now. Who else is going to counter evil extremists that want to rule the world? For example, do you really want to live under Islamic extremist rule?

[Political Interest]

That was once true and I wish it was still true. But today, evil has expanded all over the world. Being an isolationist nation will not work now. Who else is going to counter evil extremists that want to rule the world? For example, do you really want to live under Islamic extremist rule?

Cooperation against common threats in a multi-lateral context is different to super power games. The US, Russia and China all have an interest in defeating extremism. But this is an interest that needs to be pursued on its own outside super power intrigue. American isolationism would make this more sincere and would eliminate obstacles to cooperation in order to solve the real issues. But this is the main problem,the effort needs to be made to get rid of ISIS and Al-Qaeda without any geopolitical agendas on the side.

And I'm not advocating that the West support dictators, but the West should not seek to overthrow them or promote regime change either. Just deal with whoever is the internationally recognised government in any country and help them against radical groups that seek to destroy all of us. If people in any Middle Eastern state want democracy or regime change, that is their own effort, we can't help them or try to destabilise foreign states just for ideological reasons or cynical moves forward on the international chess board.

[Hindsite]

If people in any Middle Eastern state want democracy or regime change, that is their own effort, we can't help them or try to destabilise foreign states just for ideological reasons or cynical moves forward on the international chess board.

My only experience is playing on chessboards in the USA, Belgium, Germany, and Okinawa, Japan.

[late]

My only experience is playing on chessboards in the USA, Belgium, Germany, and Okinawa, Japan.

Historians used to describe international relations as the Great Game. It made a lot of sense at the time, before WW1 I think there were 5 empires.

The funny thing is they backed themselves into WW1 trying to avoid the destruction of their empires that resulted from that war.

It's a metaphor.

[Hindsite]

Historians used to describe international relations as the Great Game. It made a lot of sense at the time, before WW1 I think there were 5 empires.

The funny thing is they backed themselves into WW1 trying to avoid the destruction of their empires that resulted from that war.

It's a metaphor.

I know. I was just having a little fun.