Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.

Not trying to be rude. If you look at the list they are all in what could be called "The Greater middle east", there are many many interventions not listed outside that frame.
I know the tread is long, but we were both talking specifically about the "Area". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East If you look there is a part called "The Greater Middle East" Is not a perfect or real construct but it is useful (to me at least) in this argument.That includes Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Libya.

Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.

They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.

Stormrider wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.

They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.

No, none of them are part of the Middle East, nor have they ever been.

Bush II started using the term "greater Middle East" for political reasons, but its basically just slang for "Muslims that are vaguely brown, but not at all East Asian."

As an analogy, it would be like calling the Americas "greater Europe" because most of the people living there are Christian, and ruled by democratic governments.

Andrew1975 wrote:
True, but that relationship did not happen overnight. NATO is not even the first European mutual assistance pact. Think back to the 1800's and the dangerous time of revolution.

But none of those treaties were at all like NATO, or any other international alliance that presently exists. NATO has its own infrastructure, staff, and governing bodies. Prior European treaties were based on agreements between individual nations, and were often in conflict. Read about why World War I became World War I.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So one second they have great capabilities, and another they don't?

I never said that it did, you said that.

Even if I did say that, "military capabilities" is a very broad term, and in this instance I was using it to refer to force projection.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I said it may not be in the best interests of the US for the Arab League to unite, but it may be a very good idea for the Arab League.

You did say that, just now. You've not argued from anything other than "I don't want the US to do something."

Andrew1975 wrote:
A lot of people with great credentials thought it was near impossible, or at least improbable. Without outside pressure and threat I'm sure it would never have happened, but it's interesting what counties will do when they share even a few common goals.

First, credentials mean precisely nothing when it comes to determining if someone is making a good argument, which is why I said earlier that I don't like referencing my credentials.

Second, there are no significant common goals within the AL, or any common external or internal pressure or threat, nor is one likely to manifest soon. You can't just imagine them into existence.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Again people do matter as we have seen with Arab spring, or is that a governmental construct too? Who says aid would have to be unilateral.

Because the member states of the Arab League agree on almost nothing collectively, not even antisemitism anymore.

And no, people don't matter, not compared to the state, as we have seen with the Arab Spring. Lots of protests and attempted revolutions, none successful in mineral rich, Middle Eastern countries. The Egyptian state fell, but it looks like, as expected, the Muslim Brotherhood (a well established political group) is going to be the primary power.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Really. In the begining of desert shield the Saudi armored divisions did pretty well defending Saudi Arabia.

Wow, a countries military is able to defend that country on its own territory, and therefore is only marginally concerned with logistical operations. What a revelation. That also isn't what "coalition of the willing" generally refers to these days.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not saying the do it on their own I'm saying they do it as an alliance. As an alliance they could take Syria.

No, they probably couldn't, and if they could it would be a massive loss for all participants. The Arab League, collectively, has almost no force projection ability, they have no inter-military cooperative capacity, they have no independent military organization, and they don't get along politically. NATO has, and does, all of these.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You do know that the option is already being discussed right?

They're petitioning the UN and NATO, not discussing independent intervention.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Hungary is an in between state bordering Syria, that just recently got EU certification.

No it isn't.

Hungary is in Central Europe, and borders the Ukraine, Slovakia, and Romania, among others. It doesn't even border Turkey, which is the nearest Middle Eastern country.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But go ahead and continue, I just love when you seem to suggest my ideas come completely from left field.

I'm not suggesting it so much as saying it explicitly.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Again both the 6 day war and the War of Indepenence both show that Arab League militaries can be coordinated to work jointly. There success against or lack there of vs Israel, isn't the issue as Syria is not Israel.

Actually, they show that they completely lack coordination, cannot work jointly, and have abysmal force projection. Those were all central factors in both defeats.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes and the comparison of those situations to what the US is/was facing are fascicle at best.

Not really, as the central goal of both is nation building, the point being that it doesn't happen overnight, and takes a long time to do successfully. If it took the British decades to create successful governments on tiny Caribbean islands, and it took the US only 8 years to do something that might end up being a similar success in Iraq, your argument that the hostility of the population was an important variable isn't supported.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's obviously not one nation, but the nations combine share many features and ideas.

No, they don't, and its vaguely racist to suggest that they do. It is certainly ignorant of the actual culture of the Middle East.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I disagree. It took quite some time and huge amounts of resources just to deal with the insurgents before the real work of nation building could even begin.

They were concurrent events, and in fact tightly connected to one another.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

Totalwar1402 wrote:Since when have Sudan, Somalia and Afghanistan been part of the Middle East? No need to be rude, his question didn't hint at the Middle East being the subject and niether was your ansawr.

They're culturally and religiously similar, hence why they are included.

No, none of them are part of the Middle East, nor have they ever been.

Bush II started using the term "greater Middle East" for political reasons, but its basically just slang for "Muslims that are vaguely brown, but not at all East Asian."

As an analogy, it would be like calling the Americas "greater Europe" because most of the people living there are Christian, and ruled by democratic governments.

I'm not saying they are either, just the fact that they are included in a discussion of greater overall strategy in the ME and surrounding sub-regions. Sub Saharan Africa has netted some pretty nasty Al-Qaeda members and Afghanistan housed the brain trust of the organization for a while so it's a legitimate, but still technically inaccurate, statement.

Stormrider wrote:
I'm not saying they are either, just the fact that they are included in a discussion of greater overall strategy in the ME and surrounding sub-regions. Sub Saharan Africa has netted some pretty nasty Al-Qaeda members and Afghanistan housed the brain trust of the organization for a while so it's a legitimate, but still technically inaccurate, statement.

Its not even really legitimate, because there's a lot of variance across not only the Middle East, but the larger Muslim world. Its basically symptomatic of Westerners, especially Americans, having next to zero knowledge about the Middle East, and the larger Muslim world. That's understandable, but still annoying.