Complete American Withdrawal From the Middle East

[Kahn]

Title says it all.

I'm curious as to what the geopolitical consequences/benefits would be of a complete and utter withdrawal of our presence in the Middle East. The reason being, I'm far more interested in curbing the drug wars and bringing an end to the narco-states of South America.

I'm not quite sure why we're devoting so much of our time and energy to the Middle Eastern conflicts, though our government constantly assures us it's of the utmost importance we linger. I feel as though we shouldn't be involved there, unless it's strictly on a diplomatic/overseer type of premise.

[lliam]

The IS will rise and produce nuclear weapons. Then China and India will enter into a union with the IS and (US) America will be just bigger version of Europe.

[Kahn]

The IS will rise and produce nuclear weapons. Then China and India will enter into a union with the IS and (US) America will be just bigger version of Europe.

China and the IS forming a union is pants-on-the-head crazy.

They have nothing but ill will towards those bastards. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/china-declares-war-isis-after-6862200)

[lliam]

Well, in the US superheros wearing their undies over their pants. IMO that isn't less strange or such. Anyway, it was meant just ironically ... except the part with Europe.^^

[Kahn]

Anyway, it was meant just ironically ... except the part with Europe.^^

Care to elaborate? Do you mean balkanazation of the States or simply more European in policy/culture?

[Judean Zealot]

They would be severely undercut in terms of geopolitical influence, with Russia taking a global lead. You wouldn't end up with much of Latin America either - Russia and China would increase their influence on them as well.

America is so deeply polarised that to lose global military and trade hegemony is to risk the Union itself hemorrhaging and dissolving.

[sqishy]

I feel that US (and, by extension, UK/Russain/etc) influence-invasion in the middle east is what has caused the socio-geopolitical mess in the first place.

Was the UK (and others, but I do not remember) not at least partially responsible for drawing arbitrary borders between planned states in the region after WWII? Even that isn't going to help, taking you put an effective wall through the living region of certain populations (take the Kurds as example).

I have some strong views on the middle east and its mess being more due to colonial-like militaristic nations from afar, than from the region itself. I'm won't go further though, on motivation of being half-tired of it all.

[Kahn]

They would be severely undercut in terms of geopolitical influence, with Russia taking a global lead. You wouldn't end up with much of Latin America either - Russia and China would increase their influence on them as well.

I'm curious as to how China and Russia will be able to manage Africa, the Middle East, Eurasia, and Central/South America all simultaneously, if we were to completely remove ourselves and set our primary focus on Central/South America. I'd think their resources would be stretched so thin that their current efforts to create influence in those states (in Latin America) would decline as they drive up efforts in the Middle East and other areas upon our dismissal from the region.

America is so deeply polarised that to lose global military and trade hegemony is to risk the Union itself hemorrhaging and dissolving.

No argument here on this point.

I feel that US (and, by extension, UK/Russain/etc) influence-invasion in the middle east is what has caused the socio-geopolitical mess in the first place.

I couldn't agree more.

I have some strong views on the middle east and its mess being more due to colonial-like militaristic nations from afar, than from the region itself. I'm won't go further though, on motivation of being half-tired of it all.

I'm interested in reading an elaboration of this thought.

[sqishy]

I couldn't agree more.

I'm interested in reading an elaboration of this thought.

I basically hold the main military nations of the West and Russia to be having way more influence/effective power and less 'good helping out guy' sentiment than most people think.
I mentioned the arbitrary border drawing as an example. The Iraq war is another. The Iran nuclear deal thing is another. Air strikes on actual/purported IS areas is another. Installing govt officials for a country is another.

[West Coast Sheriff]

I think we need to bomb the hell out of ISIS! That being said, I wouldn't want to put ground troops in.

As far as South American conflict, America can't keep protecting others.

[Porpoise101]

China and India
That is almost as unthinkable as a sentence with 'Germany and Poland', 'Greece and Turkey'. Lol they won't be teaming up even in your dreams.

As for the issue at hand, I think the Middle East shouldn't be abandoned. Just treated as other regions like Asia or Europe. As for Central and South America, I think it is important as those conflicts are what are pushing lots of people to us. Also having stable friendly neighbors would be good. It would be like having a bunch of Canadas!

[Sir Suomi]

The place is a clusterfuck, beyond all hope. The savage bastards want to kill themselves into extinction, have at it. Not a drop of American blood should be spent on involving ourselves in the middle east.

However, on the topic, I somewhat flirt with the idea of a US-led drug-cartel crackdown on Central and South America. We'd see a lot more positive benefits eliminating these cartels than some whom cracks down on his own people.

Not like I'm opposed to killing ISIS and other terrorist group members, however.

[Vlerchan]

This is both partial and incomplete. I'll write from the least to most extreme interpretations. This presumes that Europeans don't increase defence expenditure to defend their own interests

Withdrawal from Land-wars:
Expect longer and bloodier conflicts in the regions affected. Expect a refugee crisis of a greater duration.
Expect increased Russian involvement in these conflicts.
Expect a higher long-run price of oil. This has a diverse set of consequences from strengthened economic prospects for the Russian to more expensive production [imports] in general. However I'm of the opinion that the shale revoloution will have global oil prices top-out at 50 - 60 dollars.
Withdrawal from Sea-lanes:
Expects more pirates in the gulf of Aden.
Expect a fun number of decades watching the Iranians and Pakistanis and Indians contest for control of crucial Sea-lanes in the Indian sea.
Expect higher prices for production [imports] in general.
Breaking diplomatic ties with Israelis and Sunnis:
Expect the Saudis to have nuclear arms within half a decade. The likelihood is that these will be purchased from the Pakistanis.
In general the U.S. tends to secure the continuance of the Sunni regimes in exchange for their behaviour as regional actors. The U.S. leaving would offer a considerable amount of freedom here and I have no idea what the outcome would be.
Expect Israelis to push to expand settlements to a much greater extent than current.

I don't feel that withdrawal from ground wars would be too bad. I think the latest redirection of recourses towards East and Central Asia is superior.

The other options would be nuts.

[lliam]

Care to elaborate? Do you mean balkanazation of the States or simply more European in policy/culture?


Neither of both. I meant the political mediocrity of Europe in relation to the political stage in this world.

[Exocet]

Actually,if the US minded their own business with their British dogs,the middle east wouldn't be such in a mess right now. Not telling it was a heaven since day one,but your interventions just worsen the things.

What's happening there is a result of your interventions and policies,the US must take all the refugees that saw their houses,families and whatsoever destroyed because of your interventions.

The place is a clusterfuck, beyond all hope. The savage bastards want to kill themselves into extinction, have at it. Not a drop of American blood should be spent on involving ourselves in the middle east.

However, on the topic, I somewhat flirt with the idea of a US-led drug-cartel crackdown on Central and South America. We'd see a lot more positive benefits eliminating these cartels than some whom cracks down on his own people.

Not like I'm opposed to killing ISIS and other terrorist group members, however.

The Americans [With those Israelis ] are by far the worst terrorists that ever existed. ISIS are amateurs compared to you guys.

Posts merged. Please use the edit button next time. ~Mars

[phuckphace]

I think a lot of the predictions in Vlerchan's post above will end up coming true eventually, although it won't be preceded by a nationalistic "this was a bad idea let's keep to ourselves now" withdrawal. rather, a "we're out of money and can't afford this" kind of withdrawal.

I see a reduced American influence on the horizon as our ongoing "Brazilification" picks up speed. of course, some of that is dependent on who wins this coming November, but assuming we're on course to become the Brazil of North America, we won't be able to maintain global hegemony much longer once the critical demographic tipping point is reached. to put it simply, when whites stop doing all the meaningful jobs because there aren't very many of us left, the America we know today will disappear and be barely able to hold things together at home (on a good day) much less on a global level. picture a giant, continuous favela from sea to shining sea - that's 'Murica in 2050.

this is especially bad news for our greatest ally because whites are pretty much the only group that broadly supports Israel - everybody else sides with the Palestinians.

[Sir Suomi]

Actually,if the US minded their own business with their British dogs,the middle east wouldn't be such in a mess right now. Not telling it was a heaven since day one,but your interventions just worsen the things.

I won't argue that the roots of the problems can be traced back to the drawing up of borders back in the 40's. But I find it hard to excuse the behavior of a lot of the residents of that region simply because of "muh borders".

What's happening there is a result of your interventions and policies,the US must take all the refugees that saw their houses,families and whatsoever destroyed because of your interventions.

Oh, yes, that's a great idea. Then we can become another France, Germany, Britain...no, fuck that idea entirely. Excluding Iran and shitty arms deals in the region, I don't think the United States has any reason to feel responsible for the situation in the Middle East. Yes, we were involved when we shouldn't, but it was really only after they were, you know, already killing one another.

The Americans [With those Israelis ] are by far the worst terrorists that ever existed. ISIS are amateurs compared to you guys.

Remind me when we start strapping bombs to our chests and live-stream beheadings.

[Vlerchan]

But I find it hard to excuse the behavior of a lot of the residents of that region simply because of "muh borders".
It isn't just 'muh borders'. The borders were drawn to place ethno-religious groups - that have historically been quite hostile towards each other - on top each other to contest a political environment with no tradition of pluralism. This has literally never worked out in any region it has ever been attempted in.

It probably would have been a volatile region regardless. However the border were redrawn in a concious effort to hamper the petrostates from following a coherent policy-agenda above that of their superimposed ethno-religious cleavages.

I don't think the United States has any reason to feel responsible for the situation in the Middle East.
The U.S. overturned a secular strongman that had maintained a certain order in his territories. It then preceded to allow a power vacuum to take hold and a pretty virulent strain of Islamism to fester within it - and then expand. Islamism which itself owes to Iran as being a quite significant inspiration as a political movement.

There moves were in their interests and I can accept and understand that. Given it's the manner in which all states act I don't feel there's some special ethical dimension here: that the U.S. should need to pay out compensation to the losers (France - Libya - anyone?). I actually think this was inevitable anyways and the U.S. just sped it up.

But abdicating responsibility for events as they actually happened is pretty horrifically ahistorical.

---

this is especially bad news for our greatest ally because whites are pretty much the only group that broadly supports Israel - everybody else sides with the Palestinians.
It's strange because I can only imagine Israel being more expansionary if their relationship with the U.S. didn't handcuff them to a certain extent.

[phuckphace]

It's strange because I can only imagine Israel being more expansionary if their relationship with the U.S. didn't handcuff them to a certain extent.

eh, I doubt it. they're surrounded on all sides by hostile nations. most of Europe opposes them ("hurr genocidal apartheid state durr"). they spend an enormous amount on defense, which, even with the billions we send them annually still puts a strain on their economy. it looks like the kind of precarious position that can only exist with the sponsorship of a major superpower - if the US stopped backing them I don't think Israel as a state would be long for this world.

[sqishy]

America is so deeply polarised that to lose global military and trade hegemony is to risk the Union itself hemorrhaging and dissolving.

Even the presence of Trump himself is adding potential to this, indeed. (Strictly not on topic, but felt need to reply in agreement.)

[Vlerchan]

they're surrounded on all sides by hostile nations.
I meant to connect that to the earlier point I made about settlements. To rephrase: I imagine that with the U.S. finished with them we would see a lot more building in the occupied zones. That it has nuclear weapons (probably) is enough insurance.

I don't think Israel with go conquesting across the Middle East.

[Judean Zealot]

eh, I doubt it. they're surrounded on all sides by hostile nations. most of Europe opposes them ("hurr genocidal apartheid state durr"). they spend an enormous amount on defense, which, even with the billions we send them annually still puts a strain on their economy. it looks like the kind of precarious position that can only exist with the sponsorship of a major superpower - if the US stopped backing them I don't think Israel as a state would be long for this world.

You realise that we were being embargoed during the 1948 war, right?

[phuckphace]

You realise that we were being embargoed during the 1948 war, right?

good point fam