I read the article, it didn’t propose any solutions, just an opinion that the US should withdraw from their closest allies in the region.
That doesn’t sound like a tenable option, particularly when there’s real opportunity for these nations to have actual normalized relationships and be a counterbalance to Iran and China in the region.
A major world shipping lane goes through there, and of course, the area is also resource rich. I don’t foresee the US abdicating their stance as the guarantor of free trade; it would be geopolitically dangerous (and clueless) to do so.
What’s more, the author doesn’t address that the current foreign policy - up until recently, and may again still - worked pretty well for the west. Oil flowed and ships sailed. Incursions primarily stayed within the region. A perfectly ideal solution? Of course not, but utopias are exceptionally rare throughout history.
And yes, the headline is clickbait. It infers that the multi-decade US strategy is wrong, but then mentions in multiple instances, that the strategy hasn’t yet had a chance to play out due to foreign actors. Shouldn’t we fully test the experiment first before doing a 180 and snubbing our allies in the region?
I see you didn’t read the article and are just responding to the headline.
I read the article, it didn’t propose any solutions, just an opinion that the US should withdraw from their closest allies in the region.
That doesn’t sound like a tenable option, particularly when there’s real opportunity for these nations to have actual normalized relationships and be a counterbalance to Iran and China in the region.
A major world shipping lane goes through there, and of course, the area is also resource rich. I don’t foresee the US abdicating their stance as the guarantor of free trade; it would be geopolitically dangerous (and clueless) to do so.
What’s more, the author doesn’t address that the current foreign policy - up until recently, and may again still - worked pretty well for the west. Oil flowed and ships sailed. Incursions primarily stayed within the region. A perfectly ideal solution? Of course not, but utopias are exceptionally rare throughout history.
And yes, the headline is clickbait. It infers that the multi-decade US strategy is wrong, but then mentions in multiple instances, that the strategy hasn’t yet had a chance to play out due to foreign actors. Shouldn’t we fully test the experiment first before doing a 180 and snubbing our allies in the region?
Maybe the author should have chosen a better headline? If you want me to read something, maybe don’t begin with some bullshit that’s clearly untrue?
You sure, though? I mean US is the biggest enabler of it and also active participant. I really wouldn’t say clearly untrue.