Why is there not a third alternative to be at least considered — that there is something really broken in a lot of Islam as practiced today (just as there was a lot of sh*t broken with Christianity in, say, the 14th-16th centuries) and that Islam as practiced in many Middle Eastern countries is wildly illiberal (way more illiberal than any failings of Israel, though you wouldn’t know that if you were living on a college campus). But, that we don’t need to saddle up the troops and try to change things by force…
Yes, I know the first response to all folks like me who advocate for non-intervention is “Munich” and “Czechoslovakia”. So be it. But if we sent in the military every time someone yelled “appeasement” our aircraft would be worn out from moving troops around. And we seem to be totally able to ignore atrocities and awful rulers in Sub-Saharan Africa.
As a minimum, I would like to see a coalition of Arab states coming to us and publicly asking us for help — not this usual Middle East BS we hear that Saudi Ariabi (or whoever) really in private wants us there but publicly they will still lambaste us. Without this support we can win the war but we have no moral authority (as we did after WWII) in the peace. Which is one reason so many of our interventions in the Middle East and North Africa fail.
via The Un-discussed Foreign Policy Alternative | Coyote Blog.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments