[api]

War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation. With the absurd cost of these wars we could just buy the oil, or pay for megaprojects to replace it with gas (even gas to liquids), nuclear, and renewable power. There seems to be no rational explanation for the immense gravity well of Middle Eastern war and how it drags in Democrats and Republicans alike even if they seem initially opposed to it.

I also don't buy the religious or Israel explanation, as neither of these groups have that much influence. The need to constantly involve ourselves in the Middle East seems like an imperative that supercedes all other concerns.

I wasn't a fan of Trump and did not vote for him, but I did have a little bit of hope that at the very least he might be against these wars on "America first" grounds. Looks like the answer is no as his administration is slowly taken over by the war party.

It's almost like when presidents are elected they learn something nobody else knows.

[nostrademons]

It could simply be bureaucratic imperative. 26 years of war in the Mideast has created a whole generation of policy wonks whose expertise is the Middle East; if we cease to be at war in the Middle East, then all of their jobs are on the chopping block and all of their expertise is useless; therefore, they have a very strong self-preservation incentive to recommend policies that continue the war in the Middle East.

[thanksgiving]

> It could simply be bureaucratic imperative. 26 years of war in the Mideast has created a whole generation of policy wonks whose expertise is the Middle East; if we cease to be at war in the Middle East, then all of their jobs are on the chopping block and all of their expertise is useless; therefore, they have a very strong self-preservation incentive to recommend policies that continue the war in the Middle East.

I'm not saying everyone else's job is easy either but from an outsider's perspective I see the job at state department pretty challenging. Here's a quote from Condoleezza Rice's Wikipedia page:

> Following her confirmation as Secretary of State, Rice pioneered the policy of Transformational Diplomacy directed toward expanding the number of responsible democratic governments in the world and especially in the Greater Middle East. That policy faced challenges as Hamas captured a popular majority in Palestinian elections, and influential countries including Saudi Arabia and Egypt maintained authoritarian systems with U.S. support.

I'm sure there is some self-preservation going on, maybe explicitly or maybe even without someone thinking about it consciously but the other part is how much wiggle room do we have? Can we have the tough talk of "We don't negotiate with terrorists" while working with democratically elected governments with organizations that the government consider terrorists?

I keep thinking about this machine learning class where they talked about how classification and decision-making has always been a difficult problem. I think at the end of the blame goes straight up to the top, which is us the voting (or non-voting) public. At the end of the day, we are responsible for what our elected officials do or do not do regardless of the advice from the policy wonks. It is scary because I know so precious little about anything and yet I am to weigh all matters from oil pipelines to tariffs when I vote.

[sjg007]

Easier to extract the oil.. then in 20 years build the reactors etc... that being said electric transport will change everything. Oil rich countries need to diversify. That they maintain investments in western countries means that the west can use their countries for military and political dominance in the region.

Oil is cheap not sur why or if it is political. The Middle East might want to prevent tar sand etc... nato might want to destabilize Russia. Venezuela might be an outlier... I'm not sure why it's seemingly ignored.

[xherberta]

Yes, that's interesting. Similarly, Yellowstone-area grizzlies were supposed to lose protected status when the population reached 600. It's at 2,000, they're mauling people and livestock, and they're still protected. Bear-related federal jobs remain secure.

"There is no war but our war."-wag the dog

[HarryHirsch]

War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation

The conspiracy theory is that the war serves to dislodge the population and increase refugee flows to Europe to destabilize the region economically and politically. The war in the Middle East is in truth a war against the European Union, especially Germany. So the story goes.

[alva]

The truth is almost even stranger. Before the toppling of Libya, Gaddafi (whose relationship with the US is absolutely fascinating) made a very clear warning that this and the Arab Spring would lead to such an event. Many western governments have their fingerprints on the above events, but likely had not accounted for the side effects.

I would love to see the plans of the above events in my lifetime.

[curun1r]

The more plausible explanation, to me, is that it's part of the wealth transfer to the upper class. US Government contractors make billions off war-related contracts and US contractors have lucrative contracts in many Middle East countries that those countries are forced to accept in exchange for US military protection. On top of that, military action is a great way to divert the populace's attention while you're lowering taxes and otherwise screwing over the poor...just look at how well firing a bunch of missiles at an airfield worked for Trump.

If we allowed the Middle East to just work itself out without our meddling, there would be a lot of well-monied, powerful interests that would stand to lose a ton of money and they're willing to exert their influence to ensure that doesn't happen.

[photon-torpedo]

Seconded. These wars may not be in the interest of the US as a nation or of the US people, but those who profit from it have been doing so for a long time and gathered immense power, and are not willing to lose the source of their power. It's a kind of self-sustaining feedback loop.

[api]

I haven't heard that one.

I have heard that it is a proxy war against Russia or China, but I'm not sure that makes sense either. Russia in particular has tons of oil and doesn't need any from elsewhere.

The only thing that makes a little sense is that it's an end in itself: we must have war to support the war industry and it's associated jobs and social programs. It's not just corporations with an interest in this. For many poor Americans military service is the only way to advance, and military service signs you up for a much higher tier of social programs than the rest of the public. In truth America does have socialism. It's just enlistment to grave, not cradle to grave.

If there were a prolonged period without war, people would start questioning these expenditures.

[dragonwriter]

> Russia in particular has tons of oil and doesn't need any from elsewhere.

Russia seeks to deny it to potential geostrategic rivals. It's not a military advantage to have oil; it's an advantage to have it and deny it to your opponent.

Also, Russia may have enough for internal needs and modest exports, but that's perhaps insufficient for what is antiicoated in the event of a major conventional war.

[angry_octet]

More prosaically, Russia wants it's oil to be worth more. The crash in oil prices due to the US shale/fracking revolution, and Saudi pricing war to try to bankrupt the frackers, has smashed Russian oil profits, and caused Putin heartburn. Destabilizing the middle east raises oil prices, enmeshes the US in a no-win conflict, and imposes massive costs on EU powers, leading to xenophobia, rise of far right, and possibly the breakup of the EU. Win, win, win.

And POTUS likes Putin? What a doofus.

[codedokode]

Is not war in Syria a war for controlling the country? Current government (Asad) for a long time had good relationship with Russia and allows them to have military bases there. If West-backed opposition wins, they will allow locating there american bases instead of russian.

I guess that is the primary reason why West supports syrian opposition and why Russia takes part in the conflict.

[photon-torpedo]

The refugee flow is only a rather recent phenomenon. US military action in the Middle East has been going on for much longer. Recall the first Iraq war.

[sslayer]

Overall it's about SOTF. TPTB have a healthy respect for diversity. Conflict promotes innovation, ingenuity, and growth. The West has become domesticated, just like various breeds of animals and plants, the bloodlines become polluted. War, conflict, strife and struggle preserve the human race. But for how long??...

[sjg007]

Then it would be Russia driving it... that explains Syria but not Iraq/ Afghanistan

[mordant]

>I also don't buy the religious or Israel explanation, as neither of these groups have that much influence.

Um, Israel has yuge political influence in the US - successful secular Jews in the financial and entertainment fields donate large amounts of money to politicians. Their political sentiments are overwhelmingly Democrat, but they donate to Republicans, as well.

Search for 'AIPAC'.

[erikpukinskis]

My feeling (and I realize this is little more than a feeling) is that corporations need there to be pockets of instability, both globally and domestically, to create a baseline of anxiety which makes people afraid to challenge the status quo. This keeps wages down, prevents people from starting new businesses, discourages people from trying for for higher level positions, etc.

In other words, some light distant instability helps those in top stay there longer.

[agjacobson]

No. Automation and a large supply of workers keeps wages low.

Businesses hate instability.

[Noseshine]

> Businesses hate instability.

Which ones? How many billions of GDP are created by arms manufacturers directly and indirectly, add to this the vast part of the economy supplying and/or supporting the military one way or the other, from washing clothes to direct semi-military support ("contractors").

So you tell me they want stability? I guess you are right - but they want it for their own growth rate and profit margins.

[alva]

> War in the middle east is ruining the West. I don't understand it and I don't buy the oil explanation.

It is quite confusing. So many innocent lives lost, governments toppled, Western Gov. organised coups and plots and massive amounts of money.

The explanation for these actions could be quite simple once the rest is stripped away - Having essentially territorial control and military bases in the ME is extremely strategically advantageous. Control over territory (occupied or friendly regime inserted) is a tenant of power throughout history.

[pessimizer]

I don't think the answer is any deeper than that wars involve spending an enormous amount of money on contractors, and those contractors in turn fund politicians who will drive more business in their directions, then supply then with output from thinktanks that they fund to justify those decisions to their peers and the public, and ex-employees to hire into the bureaucracy. This, they do in a completely bipartisan manner, so their papers and bureaucrats are installed permanently, not turned over between administrations.

It's not a single-minded conspiracy with some deep reason. It's just basic economic incentives. There's nobody in the US who will make money from not attacking the middle east, and plenty that would. Policy in the US is determined by financial interest.

[mcphage]

> It's almost like when presidents are elected they learn something nobody else knows.

I should hope so! Otherwise what do we spend billions on intelligence organizations for?

[killjoywashere]

There's a few threads going on there, and it's too much for a Hacker News comment. There are entire university departments dedicated to this subject. I will offer some references for interested readers.

== Geography ==

Strategic control of the straits of Hormuz, the Suez Canal, and the Bosphorus, and Bab-el-Mandeb drive a huge number of commercial alliances.

== Israel ==

I separate this out from religion (below), because Israel's origin story is more than the sum of its parts. Read up on the the history of Zionism (1), Herzl (2), Weizmann (3), the Balfour Declaration (4), etc. I especially recommend Prof. Ruderman's Great Courses lectures on Jewish Intellectual History (5).

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Herzl

(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaim_Weizmann

(4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

(5) http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/jewish-intellectual-h...

== Population ==

Compare the population pyramids of the Middle East (1), Western Europe (2), and the US (3). You'll see a lot of young, unemployed workers in the Middle East. They live in dictatorships, which are often supported by foreign aid from Western democracies, traditionally considered a good investment in stability and UN security council votes, although certainly given to the dictators at the expense of the local population's human rights. Thus these angry young men have some grounds for pointing their anger at the West (4).

(1) http://regionalgeography.org/101blog/?p=1830

(2) http://www.indexmundi.com/european_union/age_structure.html

(3) http://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/20...

(4) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/

== US-Russia-China proxies ==

Syria, Afghanistan (twice now), Iraq (three times including the Iran-Iraq war), Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, Taiwan: all proxy fights. The Russians want buffer states between them and Western Europe (which has been known to invade from time to time). China wants fealty from the satellite states that have from time to time expressed more or less fealty throughout history. China has also recently (last 20-30 years) realized that African markets are under-capitalized and under-exploited, and they are fixing that. This affects North Africa and East Africa too (Muslim nations), not just Central and West Africa.

== Religion ==

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam really do have some friction in their holy texts, both historical and dogmatic, that make the mixing pot of Palestine something less than a beacon of peace in the world. I'll refer you again to the Great Courses: Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad (1).

(1) http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/confucius-buddha-jesu...