Wednesday, December 16, 2015

Republican Lies and Distortions About the Middle East

One of the reasons it is so difficult to comment on the actual content of what the Republican presidential candidates said last night is that so much of it was simply untrue. By the time you are done fact-checking, there isn't much there there.

The debate produced a lot of material for the fact-checkers to work with. But most troubling, given the topic they were focused on, was the complete lack of understanding and/or truthfulness about what is actually going on in the Middle East. A perfect example of that was the claim from Ted Cruz that the Obama administration "toppled former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt." One can only assume that Cruz is ignorant of the whole "Arab Spring" rebellions of 2010/11 and the fact that it was the people of Egypt who forced him to step down.

For a more comprehensive review, Ishaan Tharoor has written: The Middle East dreamed up at the Republican debate doesn't really exist. He begins by talking about Cruz's proposal to "carpet bomb" ISIS.
Cruz's emphasis is on tough, withering, relentless action, but you can't bomb the Islamic State to smithereens without contemplating an enormous civilian death toll. That places Cruz in the same camp as Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who has for years now been bombing civilian areas in his own nation's cities with barrel bombs and other crude, indiscriminate forms of munitions...

Cruz and, to varying extents, other candidates onstage appeared to view the Middle East as a kind of set for "American Sniper" -- a woebegone place of dusty towns crawling with bad guy extremists and not much else.
It wouldn't be the first time a Republican confused the real world with the movie version.

Tharoor goes on to talk about Carson's proposal to move Syrian refugees to the Hasakah governorate in northeast Syria, which "is still a theater of war and the site of bitter clashes between Kurdish militias and the Islamic State," as well as the complex realities of working with various Kurdish parties and militias. But then he got to what I noticed in the proposals we heard last night from Kasich, Rubio and Christie.
But none of this was being deliberated in Las Vegas, of course.

Instead, there was a vague embrace of Sunni Arab elites — namely the ruling royals of countries like Jordan and Saudi Arabia — and a parallel demonization of Iran, a regional bogeyman on the other side of a sectarian divide with the Saudis.
The truth is that the neocons in the Republican Party want the United States to take sides in the centuries-old battle between the Shiites and the Sunnis in the Middle East. Specifically, they want us to take the side of the Sunni majorities in countries like Saudi Arabia against the Shiites in Iran. That means aligning with the country whose oil wealth has been used to support groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. Here is how Kasich put it last night:
Assad is aligned with Iran and Russia. The one thing we want to prevent is we want to prevent Iran being able to extend a Shia crescent all across the Middle East. Assad has got to go...

I don't want to be policeman of the world. But we can't back off of this. And let me tell you, at the end, the Saudis have agreed to put together a coalition inside of Syria to stabilize that country.

He must go. It will be a blow to Iran and Russia.
In the Republican mind, we have friends and we have enemies. Saudi Arabia - which has one of the worst human rights records in the world - is a "friend. Russia and Iran are "enemies."

That is exactly why Republicans are so vehemently opposed the the deal that was recently negotiated with Iran to stop their development of nuclear weapons. As President Obama told David Remnick prior to the conclusion of those negotiations, it sets the stage for a potential geopolitical realignment in the Middle East.
Ultimately, he envisages a new geopolitical equilibrium, one less turbulent than the current landscape of civil war, terror, and sectarian battle. “It would be profoundly in the interest of citizens throughout the region if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,” he told me. “And although it would not solve the entire problem, if we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between Sunni, or predominantly Sunni, Gulf states and Iran in which there’s competition, perhaps suspicion, but not an active or proxy warfare.
For all their bluster about the President being weak and ineffective, this is the real reason Republicans oppose his strategy in the Middle East. They can't conceptualize peace in the Middle East short of a military solution that provides a win for our friends and defeat of our enemies. In other words...forever active or proxy warfare.

1 comment:

  1. Their ignorance is bottomless. Not so long ago Rubio, supposedly the foreign-policy whiz in this menagerie, was claiming that Obama was holding back from fighting ISIL too hard because he didn't want to offend Iran -- as if ISIL and Iran were allies, when in fact they're bitter enemies.

    Seeing things through a Sunni-vs-Shiite prism is somewhat more accurate, but again, it's not that simple. ISIL and (most of) the Kurds are Sunni, yet they're bitter enemies, while Shiite Iran is helping the Kurds (there's a linguistic/ethnic link there which I'm sure none of the Republicans are aware of). Even in Syria, not everyone is driven by sectarian hatred. Asad's wife is a Sunni.

    For that matter, the population living under the oppressive rule of ISIL is mostly Sunni, with large Christian minorities here and there. They're the ones who would be killed in large numbers by the indiscriminate bombing the Republicans seem to want, which would turn other Sunnis (whom the Republicans view as allies) against us. They haven't even remotely thought this through.

    Thank goodness we have Obama running things instead of these blunderers.

    ReplyDelete