You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

flyawayhigh ago

Question. Is this the deliberate implementation of long-standing policy?

Shaden ago

I'm not even sure myself what the long-standing policy is supposed to be for the Middle East. I understand why Halliburton would benefit from the invasion of Iraq, which so far has allowed them to control the majority of the oil there. But with Syria I would say that the policy was always to watch them fall apart, considering Obama went to Congress to ask the American people if they wanted to invade.

Honestly, I can't see how the U.S. benefits from both countries destabilizing other than the continued excuse of the War on Terror. Assad is supported by Russia and isn't being ousted any time soon, and if the Iraq War as proved anything it is that removing dictators without plans in place is foolish. However, the long-standing policy might be to contain the Middle East forever, so destabilizing countries makes sense in that regard.

flyawayhigh ago

The policy is ... keep a few critical pieces of the world together and break up the rest. :)

Whether it is the USSR and now even the former republics, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Africa or the Middle East. Break it all up. Divide and conquer. Hegemony.

I've read many policy papers, and that's a theme throughout.

Shaden ago

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining that, now I think the Middle East is less complicated in my head.