[rdudekul]

There is an apathy around bombing civilians in Islamic countries, especially if done by another Islamic country. It is considered just a matter of business/strategy to supply weapons to Saudi Arabia, even when the extent of Human rights violations there are fully known. This problem can be resolved only when there is a broad recognition that all Humans are equal, regardless of religion, caste etc.

[ReptileMan]

On the other hand interventions turned 2 Islamic countries from otherwise stable entities into total disasters. Syria, Lybia are failed states. If Gaddafi and Assad were allowed to deal with the crisis it would have been all over by now with less death toll.

Egypt escaped their fate narrowly just because the military took control.

[yyyk]

What happened in Syria was precisely the result of allowing Assad to 'deal with the crisis'.

[ReptileMan]

Not at all. It was to prevent bloodbath of rebels and regime change as a side dish. But then Assad turned out stronger and with better allies and the quagmire was born.

[yyyk]

The West never ever wanted regime change in Syria, as corroborated by Ford and others. The entire purpose was to keep the rebels in leash, and the bloodbath was the expected result.

[Ericson2314]

You may not like Morsi but he was not running a failed state.

Ugh, can we not be against both wanton foreign intervention and backing military juntas?

[ReptileMan]

Egypt was going downhill.

You can be against whatever you wish. Real world takes precedence.

Once you cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war all bets are off.

The us has had successful state building with Germany Japan and South Korea and totally failed with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

And the whole Latin America is... complicated.

In hindsight the proper solutions are aplenty, but so far how to intervene or whether is a cointoss for the outcome.

[amirkdv]

> There is an apathy around bombing civilians in Islamic countries

I suppose you mean the bombed civilians are in Islamic countries rather than the apathy. FWIW, I first thought you meant the latter.

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm certainly no defender of the US's Middle East strategy, but I don't think apathy has much to do with it. Disengaging with the Middle East would just require a different kind of apathy. We'd have to read about many of the same bombings, massacres, civil wars, and say "I hope they figure it out but this is not our problem".

[amirkdv]

I think you're mixing up the motivations and sentiments of those in power and the general public.

US foreign policy is not motivated by an empathetic response to address "bombings, massacres, civil wars". That's only relevant in the calculus of managing the public narrative.

Empires don't enter military conflicts to save or better lives. They do it to control resources and counter regional or global imperial competitors.

[SpicyLemonZest]

Sure, but I think the sentiments of the general public are the free variable here. Electing only kind hearted politicians seems like an infeasible strategy.