Comments on: U.S. Interests in the Persian Gulf http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:45:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: GoodMans234god http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/comment-page-1/#comment-15749 GoodMans234god Mon, 25 Dec 2006 12:57:21 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/#comment-15749 <strong>very good post</strong> very good post

]]> By: Eugene Gholz http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/comment-page-1/#comment-7587 Eugene Gholz Thu, 14 Dec 2006 11:53:11 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/#comment-7587 I very much appreciate David Rothkopf's clarification, especially on the Iraq withdrawal issue. It is often hard to be clear about everything in a short op-ed -- or to know how the punchy language of an op-ed will read to people other than the author! This helps. And of course I did not intend to imply that Mr. Rothkopf sought Gulf War III -- of course, he (and other sane people) would prefer if the U.S. could achieve its objectives without fighting a war. But I did want to point out that in each of the cases that Rothkopf cites in his op-ed, the U.S. would have other choices that would avoid war. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rothkopf's prediction that Gulf War III is likely (and his argument that it would make sense for the U.S. to fight Gulf War III for the particular reasons that he listed). And I thought this was an important issue to raise on the blog, because we so often get trapped into thinking relatively narrowly about America's strategic options; we all assume that the U.S. is closely engaged, and that leads us to tend to favor activist policies when restraint might be a better alternative. In fact, I think restraint would often be a better alternative, but the real point of the blog is to introduce the idea to the debate -- and to encourage people to recognize the range of choice in strategy that the U.S. actually has. I very much appreciate David Rothkopf’s clarification, especially on the Iraq withdrawal issue. It is often hard to be clear about everything in a short op-ed — or to know how the punchy language of an op-ed will read to people other than the author! This helps. And of course I did not intend to imply that Mr. Rothkopf sought Gulf War III — of course, he (and other sane people) would prefer if the U.S. could achieve its objectives without fighting a war. But I did want to point out that in each of the cases that Rothkopf cites in his op-ed, the U.S. would have other choices that would avoid war.

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Rothkopf’s prediction that Gulf War III is likely (and his argument that it would make sense for the U.S. to fight Gulf War III for the particular reasons that he listed). And I thought this was an important issue to raise on the blog, because we so often get trapped into thinking relatively narrowly about America’s strategic options; we all assume that the U.S. is closely engaged, and that leads us to tend to favor activist policies when restraint might be a better alternative. In fact, I think restraint would often be a better alternative, but the real point of the blog is to introduce the idea to the debate — and to encourage people to recognize the range of choice in strategy that the U.S. actually has.

]]> By: David Rothkopf http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/comment-page-1/#comment-7381 David Rothkopf Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:38:39 +0000 http://blog.psaonline.org/2006/12/13/us-interests-in-the-persian-gulf/#comment-7381 Although I have never taken the time to respond to a blog commentary on something I have written before, I do so in this case for two reasons. One I respect what PSA is doing and two, there are several assertions in the above summary that leave me rather uncomfortable. These are, no doubt, due to lack of clarity on my part in the op-ed that is referenced in the above entry. This makes me even more inclined to offer the correction. The first is the assertion that my article in any way suggests that "withdrawal is futile so we might as well stay." Quite the contrary, I believe I implied in the article and I have certainly said often elsewhere that Iraq is not only a dangerous distraction from our real and greater interests elsewhere but that our woefully mismanaged operations there have actually exacerbated linked problems throughout the region and the world. We should wind down our involvement in Iraq and refocus on priorities elsewhere, many of which are in the region. The second is that the reasons that I list why we might be drawn into a Gulf War III are reasons why we "should" fight a Gulf War III. Like any sane individual, I certainly hope we do not fight such a war. The purpose of my article was to suggest that the region is rife with other threats that, if history is any indication, are likely to grow more complex and dangerous and may well require action by the US--especially if we disengage in the wake of Iraq, grow timid in the face of real threats because we were overly aggressive in the face of a false threat, and do not make the resolution of these other regional issues our top priority. Naturally, addressing those issues we should first utilize as much in the way of political, diplomatic, economic and other firepower before we consider military action. But to withdraw completely from the region, to stand down on these issues, is to dramatically increase the likelihood that our interests (oil, combatting terrorist threats that impact us or our allies) are endangered. Finally, at no time do I suggest we should give Israel a blank check. I believe we should support our one dependable ally in the region. I believe it is a fallacy to think that were we to step back from support of Israel...or if Israel were to resolve its issues with the Palestinians as all must wish...that somehow our problems in the region, with extremists, concerning steady supplies of oil to world markets, concerning succession issues in key countries in the region, etc. would immediately abate. Clearly they would not. As for a number of the other points made in the piece...such as those suggesting we would be better off without a long-term military presence in the region...well, with those I disagree and a fair and respectful debate is called for on such issues given their importance and the failures to date of our policies in the region. But I did want to make sure that even if I was insufficiently clear on the above points in my article or if my points were misinterpreted, that I could clarify them here...and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. Although I have never taken the time to respond to a blog commentary on something I have written before, I do so in this case for two reasons. One I respect what PSA is doing and two, there are several assertions in the above summary that leave me rather uncomfortable. These are, no doubt, due to lack of clarity on my part in the op-ed that is referenced in the above entry. This makes me even more inclined to offer the correction. The first is the assertion that my article in any way suggests that “withdrawal is futile so we might as well stay.” Quite the contrary, I believe I implied in the article and I have certainly said often elsewhere that Iraq is not only a dangerous distraction from our real and greater interests elsewhere but that our woefully mismanaged operations there have actually exacerbated linked problems throughout the region and the world. We should wind down our involvement in Iraq and refocus on priorities elsewhere, many of which are in the region. The second is that the reasons that I list why we might be drawn into a Gulf War III are reasons why we “should” fight a Gulf War III. Like any sane individual, I certainly hope we do not fight such a war. The purpose of my article was to suggest that the region is rife with other threats that, if history is any indication, are likely to grow more complex and dangerous and may well require action by the US–especially if we disengage in the wake of Iraq, grow timid in the face of real threats because we were overly aggressive in the face of a false threat, and do not make the resolution of these other regional issues our top priority. Naturally, addressing those issues we should first utilize as much in the way of political, diplomatic, economic and other firepower before we consider military action. But to withdraw completely from the region, to stand down on these issues, is to dramatically increase the likelihood that our interests (oil, combatting terrorist threats that impact us or our allies) are endangered. Finally, at no time do I suggest we should give Israel a blank check. I believe we should support our one dependable ally in the region. I believe it is a fallacy to think that were we to step back from support of Israel…or if Israel were to resolve its issues with the Palestinians as all must wish…that somehow our problems in the region, with extremists, concerning steady supplies of oil to world markets, concerning succession issues in key countries in the region, etc. would immediately abate. Clearly they would not. As for a number of the other points made in the piece…such as those suggesting we would be better off without a long-term military presence in the region…well, with those I disagree and a fair and respectful debate is called for on such issues given their importance and the failures to date of our policies in the region. But I did want to make sure that even if I was insufficiently clear on the above points in my article or if my points were misinterpreted, that I could clarify them here…and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

]]>