nate33 wrote:I understand this viewpoint. It's reasonable and is shared by many (but not all) economists. But it's not one I share. I think the Trumpian argument that our leverage is maximized in one-on-one negotiation is correct. It's the best way to leverage the fact that we have the biggest consumer market in the world. Reasonable people can differ on this.
Agreed. If Trump actually does tradecraft using, you know, experts and facts and stuff during the negotiations, this is definitely a philosophical discussion point. I think its fair to say that most don't think Trump's approach will improve things, but you're right, reasonable people can disagree on the overall stance toward international relations.
sfam wrote:Regarding the Assad comment, I'm not sure you understand the implications of that in terms of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocents dying. Does that concern you? Putin is already backing Assad. He virtually never targets ISIS positions - he targets Assad's resistance. There will be no end of the civil war - that policy makes the refugee crisis worse, as we have already seen. The long term implications of this policy will be lots more exported terror. I consider that an unstable outcome.
nate33 wrote:I don't confess to be an authority on the Middle East. One has to spend their entire professional lives studying the issue to have a reasonable grasp of all the complicated nuances and power brokers. What I do believe is that Middle Eastern culture does not easily facilitate widespread democratic governance. The culture is too tribal. Whatever tribe who gains power will inevitably use the trappings of power to boost his own tribe at the expense of others. Civil war follows, with extremist groups like ISIS and Al Queda gaining a foothold in the chaos. We've seen it happen over and over again.
The only way order is maintained is via authoritarian government - preferably by a secular leader. If we are unwilling to tolerate rather unsavory dictators, then we will condemn the region to never-ending civil war. Obviously, Assad is a pretty bad guy. But the power vacuum left when he is weakened or removed from power is even worse. There are no pleasant solutions.
Unlike your upper argument, reasonable people don't really disagree on this point, unfortunately. There's pretty much widespread agreement on both sides of the national security establishment - Yes, there are no pleasant solutions, but the one proposed by Trump is not bad, its horrific.
I've only spent the past three years in detail studying violent extremism in the middle east, primarily from a data persective. I certainly know many "country" experts, in addition to MENA (Middle East North Africa) experts. Each country has its own context and drivers of conflict. The notion of a single Islamic mindset is farcical - even to those who haven't studied much of anything. If you know there is a "Sunni" grouping that is different from "Shia" groupings, this gives a pretty strong clue. The fact that there is even a snake cult in the US that calls itself Christian can give you some indication of the diversity thought that can exist.
Totally agree that the George Bush model of forcing democracy on the Middle East was not successful. Most looking at it could have told you that prior to the Iraq invasion though. Nobody in the Obama Administration was doing this. Nor, incidentally, is propping up dictators who don't have support of their people a convincing strategy. As we've seen in Iran, this has really bad, long term consequences. Democratic transition doesn't happen over the spring - it is a multi-decades long struggle that has to be driven from within.
And yeah, the tribal nature in some places is its own challenge. This is critical for survival at the local level, literally. I could tell you some personal experiences of how this works in Iraq. The strong ties they have with their community and across their tribe is how they survive the many hard times - like right now, for instance. Unfortunately, those same exact cultural behaviors and deep trusted ties that enhance survival at the local and provincial level become endemic corruption at a national, Federated government level. Your job is still to "protect your tribe" and long standing agreements - this is in direct conflict with the notion of a meritocracy. This is challenging in that it goes to the core of their society - something that won't be fixed by outlawing cousin marriages, BTW.
