smuj - Quite so.
GlobalNav,
I understand the US's historical perspective on this. Given that the US's principal strategic rival over many decades was the USSR, it made sense to ally with jihadists to harry the Soviets' southern flank and hinder their efforts to build alliances in the Middle East. It was a good strategy in as much as it achieved its primary aim and was compatible with good relations with the Saudis, which brought access to oil and helped the US's secondary post-WW2 aim of discouraging French and British colonialism in the region.
The trouble is, today, the Russians are no longer the principal grand strategic threat, certainly not to the US and not even to the Europeans. Putin's activities in Crimea and East Ukraine are significant roadblocks to normal relations with Europe, but no-one on this continent believes that his intentions are anything more than re-establishment of what he sees as Russia's historic zone of influence or buffer zone, whatever terminology you choose. Whether you think Russia is entitled to that is beside the point, and clearly where you reside in Europe has an effect. But the vast majority of us are not desperately unsettled by it; deterrence has prevented aggression against NATO members and, provided we maintain a credible deterrent (something the recent SDSR took care to address) then there is no reason why it should not continue to do so.
The problem for the US's tried-and-tested strategy is that its allies in the region, the Saudis and like-minded folk in Qatar and Turkey, are increasingly seen in Europe as "the problem" - indeed a grand strategic problem of far greater relevance to Western Europe than anything Moscow can threaten. The supplanting of traditional Islamic practices by Wahhabism, endorsed and exported with Saudi backing, has to a great extent underscored the current conflict in the Middle East and risks driving a wedge into societies wherever a significant Muslim minority exists. I offer that the US is better-placed than most to resist this effect thanks to its particular culture of patriotism and its small Muslim community. The same defences do not exist in Europe, where traditional patriotism has been dismantled over recent decades as a defence against nationalistic warfare, and where history, proximity and now a refugee crisis greatly complicate our relations with the Muslim world.
The result is that many of us are deeply uneasy over the US's strategy and worry that, through our traditional pro-US, anti-Russia, pro-Saudi, anti-Iran stances, and constrained by Turkish membership of NATO, we have got ourselves too firmly entrenched in the "Assad must go" camp to have any hope of meeting our strategic objectives at acceptable cost. Even the Daily Mail has not fallen for the "70,000 moderates" line. That is why we are very worried about our NATO treaty commitments dragging us into conflict with Russia when they seem, to many, to have a better grand strategy than we do. The parallels between the current mess and the system of alliances that helped bring about WW1 are quite uncomfortable.
Last edited by Easy Street; 29th Nov 2015 at 00:35.