Well, a few projects aren't needed anymore, especially since the US is getting out of the middle east, defense probably should trim the fat. As should a couple other programs that aren't really needed or are detrimental.
English
-
[quote]especially since the US is getting out of the middle east[/quote]We will always be involved in the Middle East, it's too strategic to not be involved there.
-
I talking as a less direct presence then what is currently in place. I agree, to many assets to protect.
-
[quote]I talking as a less direct presence then what is currently in place.[/quote]Elaborate.
-
Small scale operations as opposed to large scale invasions, still keeping large bases there just in case, monitoring of local political climates. Though I honestly lack the qualifications to make anything less than a semi-educated guess.
-
Your semi-educated guess is what will most likely happen. I study this sort of stuff and that's honestly what I think and know what will happen to the Middle East regarding our involvement. Like I said, it's too strategic to abandon. Don't take it personal, but I thought you might have been one of those Floodians who has no idea what they're talking about. I had to make sure. You know?
-
I highly doubt I have any knowledge of what I'm talking about. And since you seem to have a decent amount of knowledge on this subject. Let's take an example, if the US just pulled out of the Middle East, like, just said, "-blam!- it, we're out". And left Israel and the rest of Middle East to each other, the situation would likely escalate to quite possibly the point of total war. Which, may end in a Samson option, making a decent section of US assets(read: oil, that black stuff that powers our cars) unuseable, or significantly more difficult to get to. So, with this knowledge, which, military tacticians and US executives probably have a better idea of what would happen than myself, is it possible that the US is not there to protect itself and Israel from the Middle East, but to protect it's assets and Middle East(who control a large amount of those assets) from Israel?
-
[quote]is it possible that the US is not there to protect itself and Israel from the Middle East, but to protect it's assets and Middle East(who control a large amount of those assets) from Israel?[/quote]The US strategy in the Middle East is to promote a "happy medium", so to speak, between promoting mutual interests of Israel and us and the Arab nations and us. We try to promote peace between the Arab states and Israel, as a conflict would be detrimental to our interests in the region. The question you asked is something I've seen quite a lot, actually. To be honest, I don't really know what my take on that is. If anything, I am leaning towards that since Israel has the best military in the region (especially their air force). They are more than capable of defending themselves in the onset of war. A large deal of why we're there is because of our strategic interests in the region, which includes security partnerships, vicinity to Iran, trade, and a plethora of other things.
-
I see, I was simply making an observation, mostly due to that Israel is more than capable of defending itself. People who state that "Israel is good on it's own so the US should not be there" seem to forget that the US has a very good incentive to protect Arab nations(and the assets the provide) as well as protecting Israel and partaking in retribution for 9/11 attacks.
-
Edited by Mags: 7/25/2013 4:06:07 AMCorrect, good sir. Getting into personal opinions now, which doesn't mean a whole lot, but I also believe we have a duty and a right to help promote regional security. I also feel like, with the help of the international community via multilateral operations or by Building Partnership Capacity programs, we should intervene in troubled areas akin to what the French did in Mali; this goes for humanitarian interventions and counter-terrorism efforts. I will probably get flak for this being the Flood and the internet, but I agree with a lot of foreign policy platforms set forth by conservatives (yes, that includes a few by Dubya). However, I don't believe that unilateral operations are the best way forward.