That UN video is interesting. None of them manage really capture the gravity of the situation.
1. The first ladies claims on what is being reported as happening inside of Syria is merely an existential one. Okay so those views exist. She presents a single view with no qualifiers as to who all is making it, no information on the sample. It's a fuzzed out aggregate of a sentiment. It's further being filtered through to expedient phrasing for the sake of the person making the argument.
2. No doubt conflict divides nations. But it's foolish to act as if all Syrians view themselves as strictly as Syrians and likewise all Iraqis just view themselves as strictly being Iraqis. The repeated references to the US as if it has a single intent, plan, goal, or acting constituency. Making it seem like the US's primary goal is to root out any secular muslim majority state, which is a gross misrepresentation of every aspect of the situation. Firstly, Tunisia is the state under the arab spring that which is most widely consider a success and garners the least reason to merit bellicose involvement. Turkey the bastion of secularism in the region has long been the United States best ally in the region. Close ties have also been maintained with Lebanon. The issue with Syria is that you have a dynastic leadership that allies itself with Russia, not that the leadership is nominally democratically secular. His transition to power was forced through. They lowered the minimal age of the presidency just to keep up legal appearances over the whole situation. It's no wonder the nation broke out into the Damascus spring which inevitably gives reason to rile up the islamists at the same time.
3. If an outside force gets involved they will cause collateral damage, and it isn't necessarily clear that the US should stay hands off. Especially given the power dynamics in the region. Continuing the double talk of the US's proxy states completely ignores all the other powers that have a hand in the regions policy, even between Arab nations. Further it downplays plays the long lasting affects that occurred as Britain attempt to colonized then promptly decolonize the region after dividing it up, leaving the US to clean up their mess. Then Russia trying to force their way into the region during the cold war. The arming of those willing to fight was never intended to militarize (in the modern sense) islamists who wholesale resist western secular liberalism. We know by the regions own resistance to secularization and westernization in the late 19th century into the 20th century that the resistance isn't merely due to "our more recent meddling" but long predates the era of western involvement in the region. There has been a long tradition of resisting secularism as the debauched values of western society that leads a people away from upholding traditional caliphate which would restore Quranic values as the means of setting society right. But that's never worked because they're has never been agreement on the interpretations of those ideals, which is a huge source of political dissidence in the regions.
4. I see the situation in the middle east more and more painted through the lens of recent wrongs that all parties commit or make but especially the US and the west. Which is further flavored through the intent and values of our far right, leaving less and less room for unpleasant truths and hitting problems head on. Very little is seen through the eyes of the global modernist secular movement through the late 19th early 20th century, movements that the middle east actually took part in prior to suffering opposition and spring back.
5. Oil can't be ignored as being part of the escalation of the tenuous situation. Once again, first starting with theocratic resistance of secularism that later is inflamed by the British presents and negligent pull out, further flamed by the Russia's hawkish advance on the region. Then comes the move by tyrannical dictators to nationalize oil at the expense of a then already free and global economy; The fallout of such a move was to be disastrous. The amount of self-scorched earth tactics of setting oil fields on fire alone just goes to show how much these nations wanted to hold the world by it's throat by ransoming the largest reserves of oil on the planet. Islamism was intentionally promoted through mudrasas and justified through the setting of Islamic teachings to given reason and meaning as to why the west was to be opposed wholesale and reclaim an idealized past. As if the US was solely concerned with itself, it also had responsibilities to keeping oil open for the whole world. It's embarrassing that OPEC allowed such power moves to be even explored by member states when they were all already benefiting from ownership rights to liquid gold.
6. Then we get stuck kowtowing with the Saudi's because they end up as one of the few playing "the game right" on the global economic stage. But then in turn they use that headroom to fund global Islamism. All while the US has no choice but the keep the flow of oil open for the sake of the world. This was back in the days when the US was had far less access to it's own oil reserves and natural gas, there was no option to hunker down and try tariffs or blockades to hold of the regions transgressions.
Look... I am all for getting the west to clean up it's own act, but it's not just our right wing. When I hear those U.N. people speak on these issues. It all sounds like nothing but talking points. Points that are only salient in a single dimension of rhetoric. A type of rhetoric that I increasingly see in the jejune, openhanded, contingent of what is mostly the left. It's no wonder then that over the past 30 years, that the worst of the right has in turn been given increased jurisdiction and influence in managing that powder keg of a situation. All that same contingent (primarily a subset of the left) finds unparalleled virtue in any foreign individual who can dance the same placating peace lily rhetoric as the ideal of what an ally is. When it comes to domestic policy I can't help but smile at the left, but with foreign policy things feel increasingly tenuous. Choosing pleasant appearances over a deep understanding of just what the problem is, and why the region continues to struggle by it's own hand and not just the United States strong arming over oil. Maybe being hands off is part of the solution, cutting our defense budget and investing more into our own country. But man is it tiring and sickening to see the UN perpetually opening wounds out of ignorance and continue to bemoan the perpetual state of having to defend their poor helpless virtuous noble peoples against the 1st world nations, the true blind party. God just look at Liberia and ask yourself if the UN actually does anything other than first responder relief to a crisis. More often then not the hobble a region for generations, while most other 3rd world nations have made tremendous strides over the past 60 years by taking up economic expediency. Honestly I see the regions future depending on global economic pressures forcing increased growth on industry giving people a future in the private sector but a modicum of stability needs to be achieved through continued bilateral support against Islamism.
I really want an aquatic biome.
