International "The U.S. has no national interest in the Middle East any more."

[JDragon]

Statement from another thread that I found interesting enough to discuss separately:

The US is completely energy independent and the ME is on the other side of the planet. We have no national interests in the ME anymore.

What do you think, War Room? Do you agree?

 

[WTF2008]

There are people in the US government that make those decisions that personally benefit from SA money.

 

[AndroidRage]

Is that why Trump still sucks Saudi dick?

 

[Factory]

"The U.S. has no national interest in Syria any more"

[x] Yes

I don't like your poll. I mean c'mon, pretty much everyone has interests in the middle east...

 

[JDragon]

Is that why Trump still sucks Saudi dick?

Maybe we need to differentiate. In PolSci, there are roughly two main views: one (neo-realist) that assumes that there is an 'objective' national interest, and one (social constructivist) that assumes that the national interest is the outcome of domestic discourse.

 

[JDragon]

"The U.S. has no national interest in Syria any more"

[x] Yes

I don't like your poll. I mean c'mon, pretty much everyone has interests in the middle east...

What kind of question would you have preferred instead?

Something like 'that warrants ever putting boots on the ground there' to specify more or...?

 

[Factory]

What kind of question would you have preferred instead?

The one I posted. The US withdrawed from Syria and not from the entire middle east region. They are still there, so denying any interests seems nonsense to me.

Nobody would allow this anyway.

 

[Amerikuracana]

No, but it has 1/50th the interest it has pretended to have the last 40 years, and it definitely has an interest in not wasting trillions of dollars that do absolutely nothing for American people.

 

[Lonesome Crow]

As of 2018, the US exported 7.6 million barrels per day and imported 9.94 million barrels a day for a net total of 2.34 million barrels of oil imported daily. Therefore, we are not completely energy independent:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

So that part of the statement is false.

According to this info:

http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil-suppliers-to-china/

43.1% of China's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. North Korea gets almost all of their oil from China.

China is a rival and the potential for some sort of conflict with North Korea exists.

Being able to turn off the spigot to the magic black liquid that fuels the engines of our rivals and enemies is most certainly in our National Interest.

 

[Arkain2K]

You know that saying about how all lives matter, but some lives just matters more than others?

Yeah, that's it.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I believe anyone in the WR can easily rate the countries in the Middle East to see who still matters to us, who matters only temporarily, and who we quite frankly don't gives a shit about.

It would be accurate to say our national interest in the Middle East decreased sharply ever since we are no longer at the mercy of OPEC. And the strategic allies that previously scored a 10 on that scale (that we must protect at all cost on grounds of national security) would now get a 7 at best (meaning we would fight along side them, but they would have to buy all their own shit and we wouldn't be their meat shield).

One day we will achieve 100% energy independence, and then we probably wouldn't gives a damn if they ends up steam-rolling each other again like Iraq did to Kuwait. I wouldn't be surprised if Beijing ends up sending boots on the ground in Gulf War III though, since their country would cease to a halt without Arabs' black gold.

As for now, we're just supporting a few assholes in the Middle East because they're our regional assholes, and they're useful in keeping other assholes we don't like from taking over.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Statement from another thread that I found interesting enough to discuss separately:



What do you think, War Room? Do you agree?

Absolutely.

We are energy independent again.

The Petro dollar is the only thing calling this into question, and I don't think you need Saudi oil to back the dollar.

This is actually what Trump gets. We don't need NATO. We don't need the ME. They need us.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Is that why Trump still sucks Saudi dick?

No, he sucks Saudi dick because he is for sale to the highest bidder like a good little traitor whore.

 

[VivaRevolution]

http://www.worldstopexports.com/top-15-crude-oil-suppliers-to-china/

43.1% of China's oil comes from the Persian Gulf. North Korea gets almost all of their oil from China.

China is a rival and the potential for some sort of conflict with North Korea exists.

Being able to turn off the spigot to the magic black liquid that fuels the engines of our rivals and enemies is most certainly in our National Interest.

Sounds like a great way to start WWIII.

It's like arguing we need 1,000's of nukes to destroy the world.

Maybe, but I dont really give a shit, because we will all be dead.

 

[Mendacious]

Absolutely not true. We have an interest keeping SA stable and keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to keep the oil flowing. Just because we are supposedly self sufficient with oil doesn’t mean that 1) we will be tomorrow 2) that it wouldn’t hurt our allies 3) that we wouldn’t see an increase in oil prices even though our oil supply is technically untouched by any attack on SA or Iran.

Also, Yemen still hosts al-Qaeda and the Gulf Arabs surely are not going to handle them and unlike Syria, Turkey and Iran aren’t going to fill the vacuum without us.

 

[Confucamus]

If not oil, security is a smart reason to keep intelligence assets active in the Middle East. Look how ISIS was able to grab so much territory so quickly. Can't allow that to happen again. Israel's safety would be in jeopardy as well if we completely withdrew.

 

[Rational Poster]

We will always have an interest in promoting global stability in all regions on Earth, it's our Earth and we need global trade just to maintain the status quo.

Even if we don't directly trade with them, we benefit by them being stable enough to trade with others. Stability in the region controls the price of oil internationally, for example. It also makes their trading partners wealthier for us to trade with for other goods and services. Bilateral trade dependency enforces peace.

Also, we broke it so we bought it.

 

[kpt018]

We will always have an interest in promoting global stability in all regions on Earth, it's our Earth and we need global trade just to maintain the status quo.

Even if we don't directly trade with them, we benefit by them being stable enough to trade with others. Stability in the region controls the price of oil internationally, for example. It also make their trading partners wealthier for us to trade with for other goods and services. Bilateral trade dependency enforces peace.

Also, we broke it so we bought it.

This and when everyone is increasing wealth it makes war less likely.

 

[Dirt Road Soldier]

Israel's safety would be in jeopardy as well if we completely withdrew.

So?

 

[Liquid Smoke]

I don't like your poll. I mean c'mon, pretty much everyone has interests in the middle east...

I'm interested in their spicy cuisine.

 

[MicroBrew]

Statement from another thread that I found interesting enough to discuss separately:



What do you think, War Room? Do you agree?

I didn't pick a choice because there isn't a "I am not sure, and it's complicated" option.

It all depends on who you ask. The donor class, the Neoconservative supporters, the interventionists like Hillary and Co. , the establishment that sides withe Europeans will all say the US has a national interest, because Islam and Christianity are from there and even though we don't need MidEast oil, other countries do so we should control MidEast oil.

For the average American, be they some working/middle class person in the city or suburbs or rural America, there really isn't a reason to get involved militarily , from a purely amoral self-interest standpoint.

Some folks will claim that if we leave, China and or Russia will step in, but neither one is going to go in with boots on ground, cause they know it will cause enormous losses in treasure and lives. Russia has been involved in Syria in a limited capacity, mostly just providing air support and advisers on the ground. Neither Russia or China are dumb enough to emulate our Iraq war type action.

It's special interest groups, P.R. firms, lawyers representing foreign interests , lobbies and the CFR types that want to keep the US in the MIdEast.