That's different than what I was saying. My view is that Iran (and Saudi Arabia) and many other middle east countries have an ideological basis, and a lot of that relates to Koranic and historical attitudes to Judaism. A strong Jewish state is anachronistic to the ideology of their regimes.

I do not agree with that. It's because they see Israel as the last vestige of European colonialism in the middle east. Both of us are likely oversimplifying it, but I think it has more to do with that than whatever it says in the Qur'an (and I've only read Surahs 1 to 3, so I wouldn't know too much about that).

Israel would be fine. It can defend itself; it has a growing economy; it is able to absorb large numbers of immigrants; it has a vibrant democracy; and more energy reserves than it knows what to do with. I think that the rest of the Middle East would be worse off. It's not clear that Saudi Arabia and Iraq could defend themselves. Without the US, I'd also be worried about Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic nations, and other European countries.

Maybe, maybe not [be just fine]. But if the US withdrew from everywhere, I think it depends on what Iran did. If Iran immediately attacked to gain their hegemony over a de facto hydrocarbon superstate, then the "arab" powers would have their attention diverted elsewhere, and be too busy to attack Israel (assuming they wanted to). But it's likely *something* would provoke it. After alll, how many people knew or predicted Iraq would prepare to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, before 1990? Certainly surprised the CIA...

Hacker:

I do not agree with that. It's because they see Israel as the last vestige of European colonialism in the middle east. Both of us are likely oversimplifying it, but I think it has more to do with that than whatever it says in the Qur'an (and I've only read Surahs 1 to 3, so I wouldn't know too much about that).

A good opportunity for both of us to read more.

The Quran references Jews and the Old Testament; these regimes can put together that the Jews of the Bible are the ancestors of the Jews of Israel. Yes they spent some time in Europe. There are a few who deny the connection to slur Jews, but that's an extreme minority.

From Wikipedia:

The Quran speaks well[citation needed] of the relationship it has with former books (the Torah and the Gospels) and attributes their similarities to their unique origin and saying all of them have been revealed by the one God.[126]

According to Sahih al-Bukhari, the Quran was recited among Levantines and Iraqis, and discussed by Christians and Jews, before it was standardized.[127] Its language was similar to the Syriac language.[citation needed] The Quran recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Tanakh, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details. Adam, Enoch, Noah, Eber, Shelah, Abraham, Lot, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job, Jethro, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, Aaron, Moses, Zechariah, John the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned in the Quran as prophets of God (see Prophets of Islam). In fact, Moses is mentioned more in the Quran than any other individual.[128] Jesus is mentioned more often in the Quran than Muhammad, while Mary is mentioned in the Quran more than the New Testament.[129] Muslims believe the common elements or resemblances between the Bible and other Jewish and Christian writings and Islamic dispensations is due to their common divine source,[citation needed] and that the original Christian or Jewish texts were authentic divine revelations given to prophets.

Hacker:

Maybe, maybe not [be just fine]. But if the US withdrew from everywhere, I think it depends on what Iran did. If Iran immediately attacked to gain their hegemony over a de facto hydrocarbon superstate, then the "arab" powers would have their attention diverted elsewhere, and be too busy to attack Israel (assuming they wanted to). But it's likely *something* would provoke it. After alll, how many people knew or predicted Iraq would prepare to invade Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, before 1990? Certainly surprised the CIA...

Israel's survival is not predicated on US support. It certainly is substantially helped, but it is generally recognized that the IDF is capable of defending itself against both Iran and the Arab world.

A complete US withdrawal from the world scene is extremely unlikely in any event, so it's a moot point really.

Well Sassenach I won't debate that point; in a way it is moot because of its unlikelihood any time soon. Then again none of us are geopolitical prophets. There was a documentary called The World Without U.S. a little jingoistic, but it did show weaknesses in several areas of the world. Meanwhile, you see this dude making a speech on TV running for president; Niall Ferguson and a bunch of other political scientists, even a member of the Taiwan Parliament, Japanese Parliament, other political scientists and so forth were in it commenting, and some dude named James Riley who was apparently once our ambassador to North Korea as well as other high-ranking postings. He (Ferguson) thinks Israel would be screwed. I'd give it 2 to 1 odds personally. Mostly the Arab states as I said would be a little too distracted, and even powerless, to destroy Israel. But I think that Israel ironically enough is probably the only power with a coherent enough government and a serious enough military to defeat an Iranian invasion of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia.

But my point is, give it another pain in the ass involvement by a future president, near an election where the opponent runs on an isolationist platform and...well, only Allah can foretell the outcome. And that outcome will not be good for a lot of people. Especially if the Social Security and all that comes to the forefront as an increasing problem that we need a shitload more cash to fix. Think of that, slash the military budget in half and not only fix health care, education and social security, but return a bit of it to the taxpayers at the same time. This would be VERY tempting for the American People. As one of them, living among other Americans, I can absolutely vouch for that.

I have heard a few mid eastern students at UMBC say how surprised they were that the American people are so isolationist (not in those words exactly) but basically, how we really don't want to get involved, or really have any world power at all. If we could safely do so---they are surprised to learn in many cases---we'd go back to pre-1941, or even pre Spanish-American War, level of involvement in the world's affairs. Americans want nothing to do with the world's problems. A lot of foreign exchange students are floored to learn that.

Like I said, I think that if such a president seriously presented himself as such, he'd win. Just depends on the timing....

Well you live there and I don't, but that strikes me as a very doubtful proposition. Support for the military is an article of faith for essentially every elected representative in the whole nation. I find it hard to believe that anybody could be elected on a platform of slashing the defence budget in half, or that they could ever get it through Congress even if they did get voted in on that platform. How many Congressional districts have tens of thousands of jobs directly or indirectly reliant on the US military ?

Well it depends, what if it came down to a choice between preserving Social Security or keeping the military at its current size? We're already spending money like Christmas is 365 days a year. How long can that keep up?

Besides, we could go isolationist without having to downsize the military. More of a redeployment of assets.

Perhaps you're right about the jobs depending on Defense and so forth. Lockheed Martin itself is based in Maryland; that's several congressional districts and both our senators right there who would vote against slashing the budget. But like I said, what if the budget were raided a bit, but not necessarily to the point of cutting it in half? And we cannot see what the future will bring; perhaps some event that will leave Americans so disgusted at foreign intervention that we decide on that "redeployment" I just mentioned.

I'd say it's more likely that you'd increase taxes than (meaningfully) cut the defence budget. Either that or just cut social security.

The closest thing you have to an isolationist candidate atm would probably be Rand Paul. Even he isn't the sort of man who'd want to simply withdraw from the world stage though. He might be reluctant to get involved in any more wars in places like Libya or Syria but that's a far cry from being the sort of president who would abandon traditional American allies like Israel.

Sassenach wrote:A complete US withdrawal from the world scene is extremely unlikely in any event, so it's a moot point really.

True, but it is interesting to think about.

With a sudden US departure, I wouldn't necessarily anticipate massive invasions, but I do think that certain countries would flex their muscle. Russia would be even more aggressive in Ukraine and the Baltics; Iran would be more aggressive in the Gulf, and with it's support of Syria and Hezbollah; China would flex its muscle particularly against Taiwan, but also vis-à-vis Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, India, and the Philippines. North Korean and ISIS would be even crazier.

Powers would react to the changed landscape. The Sunnis may decide to work overtly with Israel as to help protect them from Iran. In fact, the overriding military interest may precipitate a resolution of the Palestinian situation, or they may just agree to disagree on that. Germany, South Korea, Poland, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, etc. would beef up their own defenses. Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and others may pursue nuclear weapons. It would be wild.

ray

With a sudden US departure, I wouldn't necessarily anticipate massive invasions, but I do think that certain countries would flex their muscle. Russia would be even more aggressive in Ukraine and the Baltics

;
Russia is suffering major from its economic sanctions. If the threat to remove their financial institutions from the SWIFT system is enacted they will be entirely isolated and essentially bankrupt. That's probably what's keeping them from more overt action in Ukraine - not any imagined US military intervention...(That this hasn't happened is entirely due to the need for Russian gas in Europe I think.)

Iran would be more aggressive in the Gulf, and with it's support of Syria and Hezbollah

Irans militias and Shiite sponsored militias are the most effective forces in the battle against ISIS. Whether or not the US is less involved than today that won't change. The only thing that would change its military involvement would be major US intervention. In which case they would probably focus on the US forces instead of ISIS.

Ray

China would flex its muscle particularly against Taiwan, but also vis-à-vis Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, India, and the Philippines

.
Why? Its the internal struggles in controlling the aspirations of the Chinese, especially the burgeoning middle class that is the major concern for the ruling regime. Military adventurism that pisses off all its export markets would work against that... China is so intertwined in the fortunes of the rest of the world that it can't afford to destabilize those commercial interactions. Especially because internal unrest is their greatest worry.

Ray

North Korean and ISIS would be even crazier

That's not really possible with North Korea is it?
I do think that without Western air power and assistance ISIS could do even more damage - especially to ethnic minority groups in the region.

I'd say it's more likely that you'd increase taxes than (meaningfully) cut the defence budget. Either that or just cut social security.

Hmm you haven't been hanging around Washington lately, have you?

I'm not exactly a Sinophobe (one who fears China) but you have to admit that, even in democracies, when one goes to war it *usually* seems to inaugurate a brief "honeymoon" period between the government and the people. I remember how popular George I got after he started to form the coalition for the Gulf War. Ditto with George II during the buildup to Gulf War 2.0. So if China did decide to invade anybody, the people might very well rally around the little red flag, rather than oppose it. I don't think they have to worry about a revolution from the growing middle class, if they ever get super-aggressive.

China is likely the only thing keeping the North Korean regime just barely at the point of teetering, without teetering. Yet, I would imagine that they have become a "liability" to Beijing within the last decade. If North Korea did do anything outrageous, Beijing would pull the rug out from under them.

I have to admit, Sass., that the U.S. going isolationist is not too likely. But we cannot ignore the possibility. Fortunately, I have long since sold off my LMT shares (at a decent profit I might add, though if I had *waited* a year or two, OMG) so I won't get too hurt by it. (And if a tax break results from isolationism, I'll probably buy something else.) No one knows what the future holds, but I do imagine one of two possibilities occuring. 1) another power rises that is on par with the United States, globally. 2) the election of a president who makes us literally as isolationist as possible. The current, unipolar state of affairs cannot last forever.

I think Ray Jay's assessment of what would happen is accurate, by the way. Nature abhors a vacuum.

hacker

The current, unipolar state of affairs cannot last forever.

Most scholars believe that we are in a multipolar world.
You seem to be stuck in the neocon alternate reality.

Today, world opinion is essentially unanimous about the end of unipolar or bipolar ideology of the Neo-conservative spectrum. Multi-polarity appears to many as the obvious alternative to both. But before mistaking the multi-polar alternative for a scientific certainty, it is worthwhile to retrace the thinking and rethinking of an acknowledged pragmatic voice of the Bush Administration about the sequence of changing world-views between 2005 and 2008.
Not much needs to be said about the passage from unipolar to multi-polar analysis. Unipolarity was empirically refuted by the failure of the US-led “coalition of the willing” in the Iraq war. The interesting aspect is the post-Iraq war, search for realist alternative by the Head of Policy Planning of the State Department of the Bush Administration. Almost inevitably, one might say, the search resulted in finding the classical balance of power prescription of the 18th and 19th centuries applied to the perceived situation of the 21st century. Of course, it seemed attractive for an US Statesman to be the “balancer” of such as system like Metternich, Palmerston or Bismark in their times. The history of those older balance of power plays shows however, that multi-polarity is a structure that can easily turn against the “balancer” if other players feel threatened by his influence and coalesce against him.

https://policyanalysis.wordpress.com/20 ... non-polar/

Ricky:

ray

With a sudden US departure, I wouldn't necessarily anticipate massive invasions, but I do think that certain countries would flex their muscle. Russia would be even more aggressive in Ukraine and the Baltics
;
Russia is suffering major from its economic sanctions. If the threat to remove their financial institutions from the SWIFT system is enacted they will be entirely isolated and essentially bankrupt. That's probably what's keeping them from more overt action in Ukraine - not any imagined US military intervention...(That this hasn't happened is entirely due to the need for Russian gas in Europe I think.)

So there is no relevance to the US nuclear umbrella and our NATO commitments? That stuff is just meaningless in your world view?

Ricky:

Iran would be more aggressive in the Gulf, and with it's support of Syria and Hezbollah

Irans militias and Shiite sponsored militias are the most effective forces in the battle against ISIS. Whether or not the US is less involved than today that won't change. The only thing that would change its military involvement would be major US intervention. In which case they would probably focus on the US forces instead of ISIS.

Non-sequitur alert. Yes, ISIS exists and is relevant to the equation. But there is still a conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia as it relates to influence around the Gulf. Regimes can do more than one thing at a time.

Ricky:

Ray

China would flex its muscle particularly against Taiwan, but also vis-à-vis Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, India, and the Philippines

.
Why? Its the internal struggles in controlling the aspirations of the Chinese, especially the burgeoning middle class that is the major concern for the ruling regime. Military adventurism that pisses off all its export markets would work against that... China is so intertwined in the fortunes of the rest of the world that it can't afford to destabilize those commercial interactions. Especially because internal unrest is their greatest worry.

China has territorial disputes with the countries that I've mentioned and has been asserting their view, and sometimes with military shows of force. It is logical to assume that they would do more of that without a US presence. The countries that I mentioned are all looking for a large US presence and in fact have communicated that to the US. This is part of the reason for Obama's desired shift towards Asia.

Ricky:

Ray


North Korean and ISIS would be even crazier

That's not really possible with North Korea is it?

It is.

ray

So there is no relevance to the US nuclear umbrella and our NATO commitments? That stuff is just meaningless in your world view

Its a question of what influences Putin's behavior.
If the complete isolation from the world economy is the point at which he stops, the rest is redundant.
And if he is willing to ignore that hurdle, and actually invade Ukraine or Lithuania with Russian troops clearly identified as such ... he's decided that the NATO commitments and the nuclear triggers aren't going to be fulfilled or used. And he's also decided that Russia will find another way to exist rather than within the modern economy. I don't think that's at all likely. He's made deals with China on energy to prop up his economy, so he doesn't have to back down on Ukraine yet.
But I do think that the threat of Communism is over. And with that th dynamic where one party is quite willing to tear down the world structure is over...
Putin wants Russia to be part of the modern world. Not to remake the economic system of the entire world.

ray

Non-sequitur alert. Yes, ISIS exists and is relevant to the equation

My point was, Ray, that the US isn't that relevant unless it wants to commit enormous resources in the recent Iraq adventure.

ray

It is logical to assume that they would do more of that without a US presence

.
The military presence doesn't have to be large in order to stop the Chinese. Only large enough that China would have to confront US forces, , and in doing so they would trigger a drastic change to their economic circumstance... What would they do with all those US treasury notes in the event of a military confrontation and the possibility of a state of war?
Its too complicated a world today for China to let a minor confrontation with Viet Nam upset the status quo.

Ricky:

Putin wants Russia to be part of the modern world. Not to remake the economic system of the entire world.

It would seem based on both word and deed that he wants to restore the territorial position of the Soviet Union to a certain extent. Otherwise, why invade Ukraine after taking Crimea? It hasn't been good for his economy.

Ricky:

My point was, Ray, that the US isn't that relevant unless it wants to commit enormous resources in the recent Iraq adventure.

"Isn't that relevant" is the same thing as saying "somewhat relevant". The hypothetical was about he US disappearing from the international scene. So you've conceded the point.

Ricky:

The military presence doesn't have to be large in order to stop the Chinese. Only large enough that China would have to confront US forces

Yes, but again, the hypothetical was about the disappearance of the US from the international scene. So, again, you've conceded the point.