LyrArc Article Gist
Scott Anderson of the NYT provides an indepth look at the Arab World and its fragmentation through the eyes of five people from each part of the Arab world- Egyptian, Kurd, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian. He says the countries that fell apart are precisely the ones that were formed by the British and the French, and Italy, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire  using divide and rule policies- Britain in Iraq, France in Syria, and Italy in Libya- without much thought given to setting up viable nation states. This is why Iraq has a Sunni-Shia divide, Syria has similar divisions, and Libya with a largely tribal based structure, never really held together after the colonial powers left, and were held together only by strong dictators. Today's problems trace back to these historical events. This is complicated by the largely young demographic and restlessness of the people for change coupled with problems of underdevelopment in education, tribal loyalties, religious loyalties, and lack of political and social structures that could keep the countries together as change and transition to democratic processes took place. The role of the military further complicated matters in Egypt. Even Iran experienced these divisions because of the intervention of the great powers including Russia in Iran since 1900, leading to swings between liberal governments, foreign power supported governments, and a swing back to religious leadership as at present. This is one view of the region, others are presented by Ramadan (Oxford),  Bernard Lewis (Princeton), and leaders in Qatar and Emirates, other experts, some of whom point to the failure in leadership and the elites to find solutions to the problems of underdevelopment, in education, health, infrastructure, and aspirations for a voice in their governance. As the same divisions left by colonial powers affected Asia- in India, China, and Korea, but a larger vision of progress prevailed through crises and difficulties.        ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Bill Keller compares the situation in 1940 with that of today. He sees isolationist tendencies in the U.S. today similiar to that which prevailed in the U.S. in 1940 when Roosevelt faced the Nazi invasion of Europe.

LyrArc Article Gist
Bill Keller of the NYT points out that getting Syria right means getting over the obsession over what went wrong in Iraq and looking objectively at the situation in Syria. He points to the failure of president Obama in grasping what the Assad regime has done to Syria, the refugees in Jordan, the use of artillery and air raids on civilian population, and inviting the support by fundmentalist Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia in the absence of U.S. and European support, making delay after delay by president Obama leading to a paralysis in response. Leaving the question for the future which was a worse U.S. response- the hasty action in Iraq or the paralysis in Syria?

LyrArc Article Gist
Friedman's ambivalent position on the situation in Syria on one hand in a recent op-ed on Israel pointing to the need for the U.S. to concentrate its attention on Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, instead of Bethlehem, Israel; and on the other speaking of the situation being out of control in Syria with the proxy war between Sunni and Shiite. U.S. public opinion and media opinion has consistently supported the struggle for freedom in the Middle East against dictatorial military regimes, yet the Obama adminstration has either followed the lead of France and Britain or acted in a vacillating manner.

LyrArc Article Gist
WSJ's Trofimov talks to some of the 2.5 million refugees and displaced people in the sectarian conflict in Iraq in 2015. He finds a mood of despair and resignation to a permanent partition of the country following sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The situation is being dictated by the facts on the ground as the refugees see little prospect of returning to their homes, and the different regions controlled by Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish forces with borders.

LyrArc Article Gist
This Journal editorial points to the 3 page letter from Gen. Dempsey that make a U.S. response in Syria seem difficult and laborious, cost $1 billion a month, and endless. Gen. Keane points to the Syrian air force operating from just 6 main air strips and with about 50 aircraft out of 100 operational, using this to terrorize the opposition and the countryside indiscriminately including civilian population. Taking these out with cruise missile and other strikes is all that is needed, not even a no-fly zone says Keane. Short of a proper response the U.S. and the Obama administration could only end up leaving the Assad regime in place for longer, says the Journal. Aid to rebel groups that can then do the work of completing the transition is the right strategy, says the Journal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Nawaf Obaid, a fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, is also senior fellow at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. Here he describes the events leading to the Saudi turndown of a seat on the UN Security Council. The Saudi foreign policy establishment made this decision after several weeks of debate in Jeddah considering the U.S. and Russia's effort to make only a muted criticism of the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the Security Council; and the U.S. effort to have the British, French and Saudis give up on demands for firm language in a Security Council resolution on action to be taken against the use of chemical weapons. For the Saudis, says Obaid, better not taking a temporary seat on the UN Security Council, than to be left a docile member without its own voice and the voice of others in the international community being heard. Obaid also points out that this is the beginning of Saudi effort to exercize its own influence in the Middle East, as it faces three separate developments in 2013- the Iranian rapprochement with the West under new president Rouhani, the Arab Awakening and the new consciousness in the Middle East, the U.S. policy under president Obama of not taking leadership in the Middle East. This also comes as the Saudis parted ways with the Obama administration on the role of the military in Egypt, and has differences with Turkey and Quatar on support for Islamic groups in Egypt and Syria....

LyrArc Article Gist
Helene Cooper and Worth point to the vacillating response to the Arab Spring and movement for democracy and freedom in the Middle East of the Obama administration and President Obama. The dangerous overtones of this lack of U.S. leadership in the region as the U.S. completes a withdrawal from Iraq without an agreement for a residual presence, sees diplomacy reaching an impasse with Iran's development of nuclear weapons, and the Syrian civil war drawing in Turkey with its long border with Syria, and drawing in Saudi Arabia as a defendor of Sunnis in Syria. The stakes for Russia in Syria were minimal compared to that of people in the Middle East and the U.S., yet it had an outsized influence with its early military assistance to the Assad regime and the lack of U.S. leadership to resolve the situation in Syria in favor of the democracy movement.

LyrArc Article Gist
Ben Van Heuvelen documents in the Washington Post what Ali Nabhan and Bradley pointed out in the WSJ in May 2009, that the officers in the Iraqi army lacked the training and discipline to act as an effective fighting force. These early indications proved correct and were ignored by the Iraqi government and the Obama administration till it was too late with the fall of Mosul and the ensuing chaos in Iraq.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. Defense Secretary Panetta describes plans to support forces of the Free Syrian Army during the summer of 2012. The efforts had the backing of key members of the National Security team and Secretary of State Clinton. The plans were rebuffed by president Obama and the election campaign team because of the approaching November 2012 election and the president's hesitation to get involved in the Syrian war. Plans were developed by CIA director Petraeus, supported by General Demsey of the Joint Chiefs, and Leon Panetta. Plans were to vet forces in the Syrian resistance, to provide training and arms. After Petraeus resigned because of an extramarital affair and Clinton had a concussion, these plans were not taken up again. This shows that by summer 2011 the consensus was for supporting Syrian democracy forces in the Obama administration, only to be held back by president Obama. This is likely to be a question for future generations of Americans as they assess the record of the U.S. in the Middle East and the missed opportunity. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Critics of the Obama administration's so-called "light footprint strategy" for the Middle East say it is more about keeping distance from problems in that region. This is a reaction to the extensive involvement of the U.S. in two wars in that region and intuitively makes sense, as well as being in line with American public opinion to focus on problems at home. The shift or pivot to Asia of president Obama also comes in that context. The problem with this approach is that this ignores the fact that most of the momentum and effort for the freedom struggles throughout the Middle East from Tunisia first, then Libya, Egypt, and now Syria, comes from within. The lead role is now being taken by France and Britain, with German public opinion also lined up in support. The U.S. in forfeiting its role as a facilitator with strategies such as "no-fly-zones" is losing the opportunity to gain the goodwill in the Middle East with cost that is negligible in comparison to the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan, and comes after the huge U.S. effort to remove one dictator in Iraq. A minor followup effort is all that is required from an administration that pushed for the "surge" in Afghanistan. When history is written the investment of the Obama administration in Afghanistan may show little results, if what is considered by the media and experts as an unpopular and undemocratic government of Karzai falls in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal. There is little doubt in public opinion in the U.S. and worldwide that the movement for freedom and democracy in the Middle East and democratically elected governments will become a lasting facet of the new Middle East. It also provides huge opportunties for trade and investment as is shown by the gains made by Turkey in just 2 years. This is why the Obama adminstration policies in the Middle East show a lack of grasp of the facts showing the Middle East as opportunity more than threat for the next decade, especially in its overreaction to the Bush era policies. This happens as there is a demographic explosion of young people in the Middle East. An administration that was keen to sense the demographic changes in North America, has failed to grasp this fact and why the struggle in the Middle East flashes daily on television screens young people carrying on the struggle. A pivot to Asia means a pivot to the Far East more than Asia because India is part of the South Asian-Middle Eastern region, which presents another paradox because as China is slowing the entire South Asian-Middle Eastern region of Asia is where future growth is expected to accelerate in the next decade. ...