Leeds Ram

At the time Russian interest in Syria was minimal. It only started re-occurring post Iraq as Russia began wanting to expand its influence outward again.

Pretty much yes. The war on terror consuming much of Bush's doctrine had two main planks. The elimination of terrorist groups via military action and the growth of democracy in the region. The Bush administration believed terrorism grew in states which were overly authoritarian due to the lack of political space and also the tendency of authoritarianism actually to be quite poor governors of states themselves. This is pretty correct, and if you read the academic literature on terrorism, they're not that far wrong. Authoritarianism breeds poor resilience for states to act, lowering capacity to deal with problems when they emerge due to poor decision-making, cronyism, and using the military as a police force. The second plank was using military action to stop terrorism. This involved measures with dubious legality such as extraordinary rendition but also using a doctrine called 'pre-emptive self defence'. This was the belief that rather than waiting for someone to attack you, who you know is going to attack you, you attack them first. This is much more controversial and led to the mistaken belief Iraq had WMD. Of course, this doctrine also plays into the fact that authoritarians oftentimes try to look stronger than they really are. However, even though the Iraq invasion was handled terribly, by 2008, post-surge, the country actually had relative stability until the collapse of Syria and the rise of IS which continues to have a lasting effect. The freedom agenda was incomplete precisely because the US tried to work with authoritarian regimes in the region undermining their moral credibility in pursuing more democractic governments. That and the morally dubious, extra legal methods used to address terrorist organisations further hindered their ability to pursue meaningful change. However, if the US had gone in harder, such as tackling Syria, along with Iraq, cleaning up the fascist Ba'ath states once and for all, this would, in my opinion, have made life much easier for the US in Iraq and made the region a much better place. The Arab Springs which brought about the possibility of widespread change would have had more of a chance of success if Bush had established a clearer and better track record of delivering democracy to the region.

There really is. You can make an easy argument to say Obama let the biggest opening for democracy in the region in a generation go by the wayside. His open support for authoritarians is one of the big reasons why we are where we are in the region. Much more so than Bush's incomplete freedom agenda.

Yes the post war planning for the Iraq was terribly incompetent. Some have argued however the 'freedom agenda' laid the groundwork for the Arab Springs which Obama failed to support on any consistent level.

got my ticket for vale. UTR

I meant Bush was better than Obama more generally on the Middle East. Obama flattered to deceive really.

Biden and Blinken especially has tried to get the US presence and interference in the ME way down to prioritise other FP issues. This obviously has come at a time when the administration is on the ropes domestically and diplomatically has Russia and China which they want to prioritise. I think they're less hypocritical and trying to stop the region falling into chaos, which could still happen. Obama was not as good as Bush was who was the first US President to call for Palestinian statehood if memory serves me correctly. Obama's stance on the Arab Springs was also nothing short of disgraceful and has helped cement a political order which is one of the reasons the region finds itself where it is now.

The Palestinian resistance when it was secular was just as bloodthirsty as Hamas is tbh.

Not only did we lack quality we also completely lacked fight. It's one of the reasons I hate that Danny Mills and Alan Stubbs skit on being part of the 'worst team in history'. They were part of a collective who should hold their heads in shame (barring perhaps Darren Moore) for their time and taking a pay cheque while contributing absolutely f*** all. It's one thing to be crap, it's another to be crap and basically go on the pitch without even the desire to win. A while ago I looked back at some old Paul Jewell interviews from that season and he basically said the same thing.