One of the problems is that, politically, it is very hard to do nothing. People get elected to Do Something... and it is usually "better" to do something bad and stupid (especially if the bill won't come due for a while) than it is to seemingly do nothing.
When I say better, I am talking largely about domestic political response, rather t…
One of the problems is that, politically, it is very hard to do nothing. People get elected to Do Something... and it is usually "better" to do something bad and stupid (especially if the bill won't come due for a while) than it is to seemingly do nothing.
When I say better, I am talking largely about domestic political response, rather than actual results... because the reality is that foreign policy is mostly driven by domestic politics, barring extreme circumstances.
Even then extreme circumstances often dictate the necessity of action, despite action potenially being a bad idea. It was literally impossible, after 9/11, for the US to NOT invade Afghanistan. Not because invading Afghanistan was a good idea, but because vengeance was necessary.
It WAS entirely stupid to invade Iraq at the same time. It was entirely stupid to stay in Afghanistan as long as we did--because apparently the Soviet experience there taught us nothing.
I am all for doing things like protecting SLOCs (like the actions against the Houthi attacking ships or Somali pirates). I am all for helping allies that have been invaded contrary to international law (like Kuwait for Desert Shield/Storm or Ukraine).
I am definately not in favor of getting involved in civil wars, especially in the Middle East.
More specifically, it was to keep the price of oil (and thus gasoline) down. Both to keep the consumer price down and to keep overall energy costs down.
Except once OPEC decided to use their leverage(and with all the other various disruptions, mostly caused by us or related to Israe)l, to control the price, that kind of went out the window.
One of the problems is that, politically, it is very hard to do nothing. People get elected to Do Something... and it is usually "better" to do something bad and stupid (especially if the bill won't come due for a while) than it is to seemingly do nothing.
When I say better, I am talking largely about domestic political response, rather than actual results... because the reality is that foreign policy is mostly driven by domestic politics, barring extreme circumstances.
Even then extreme circumstances often dictate the necessity of action, despite action potenially being a bad idea. It was literally impossible, after 9/11, for the US to NOT invade Afghanistan. Not because invading Afghanistan was a good idea, but because vengeance was necessary.
It WAS entirely stupid to invade Iraq at the same time. It was entirely stupid to stay in Afghanistan as long as we did--because apparently the Soviet experience there taught us nothing.
I am all for doing things like protecting SLOCs (like the actions against the Houthi attacking ships or Somali pirates). I am all for helping allies that have been invaded contrary to international law (like Kuwait for Desert Shield/Storm or Ukraine).
I am definately not in favor of getting involved in civil wars, especially in the Middle East.
Can’t disagree at all. I just find it annoying that bill keeps trying to get Dems to absolutely popular shit all the time.
Why did we get involved in civil wars in the Middle East? To preserve our access to their oil and fighting communists like Mosaddegh in Iran.
More specifically, it was to keep the price of oil (and thus gasoline) down. Both to keep the consumer price down and to keep overall energy costs down.
Except once OPEC decided to use their leverage(and with all the other various disruptions, mostly caused by us or related to Israe)l, to control the price, that kind of went out the window.