Leave all that aside. WHY is the US in the ME in the first place? One obvious answer is that the US is the successor to British colonial activities in the region. Another, complimentary answer is one word: Oil. By what legal theory is the US engaged in LEGAL military activities in foreign countries with which no state of declared war exists?

The US is an illegal occupying force in the region. It is fallacious propaganda to ascribe evil to a man who very effectively engaged in resistance to the illegal occupying force.

Oh, yeah. As to blood on hands, who is responsible for the deaths of easily a million Iraqi civilians? How about all the dead Libyans and Syrians? It is true imperial hypocrisy to accuse others of excessive bloodshed.

Finally, don't take any of this as admiration for any sort of military behavior. It is all odious, but size does matter when it comes to wanton slaughter. The US is an aggressor in this situation, and the ten ton gorilla of slaughter. Those who resist aggressors rank lower in blame.

The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure, with BOTH Iraq and Iran
 

By The Saker

[URL]http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52809.htm[/URL]
The blowback has begun

January 05, 2020 "Information Clearing House" - First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections once the official sources make their official statements).

1 Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.

2 The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

3 Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.

4 The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason“

5 The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of its sovereignty.

6 Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite. I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized.

7 The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see here). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming next.

8 For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque, Iran. This indicates that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen. The text in the flag says “Oh Hussein we ask for your help” (unofficial translation)

9 The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait.

10 Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message, probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation!“. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to yield victory…

Analysis.[follows]

[QUOTE=kladner;534462]Leave all that aside. WHY is the US in the ME in the first place? [/QUOTE]So, it's all right for Iran to be illegal occupiers in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, as long as it's in the name of fighting against the good ol' USA.

I'm not sure how far back "in the first place" goes. I suppose you could go back to the time of the Pharaohs.

Invasion and conquest are nothing new to the Middle East. In [i]Lawrence of Arabia[/i], Audar tells Lawrence, "The desert has dried up more blood than you could think of."

The region didn't become Islamic because of missionaries, you know. It was made so by the "Invincible Sword of Islam," AKA the Moslem Conquests, which also invaded and illegally occupied a sizable portion of Europe.

[i]Il Duce[/i] is threatening Iraq with "sanctions like they've never seen before, ever" if they insist on US troops leaving. In view of what they [i]have[/i] seen before, that's quite a threat:

[url=https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/the-mongol-sack-of-baghdad-in-1258/]The Mongol Sack of Baghdad in 1258[/url]
[quote]The Islamic Golden Age -- from the 8th to the mid-13th century -- genuinely was one of the periods of greatest flourishing of human knowledge and progress. And Baghdad was its focal point. A truly global repository of human knowledge, this Arab-Muslim imperial capital also welcomed -- indeed encouraged -- scholars from across the known world. As its wealth and fame grew, more and more scholars and engineers were drawn to the city, from all over civilization. But in January 1258, a vast Mongol army reached the city's perimeter and demanded that the caliph al-Mustasim -- the nominal spiritual authority of the Islamic world -- surrender.
<snip>
For many historians, the arrival of the Mongols into the heart of Muslim faith and empire is the single most devastating moment in the history of the Muslim Middle East. It's easy to see why—and hard to argue otherwise—because the Sack of Baghdad would mark the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

Rather than submit, the Abbasid caliph challenged the Mongols to try and storm his city, if they dared. The nomadic army from Asia -- led by Hulagu Khan, one of Genghis Khan's grandsons -- did indeed dare. Doing what they are most famous for, the Mongols thrashed Baghdad. In 10 days of unremitting violence and destruction, Baghdad and its inhabitants were completely, and utterly vanquished. Almost without exception, the population was either put to the sword or sold into slavery. The River Tigris ran red -- to cite one of the most over-quoted, and overwrought phrases in history -- with the blood of slaughtered men, women and children.

After this, every building of note in Baghdad including mosques, palaces, and markets was utterly destroyed, among them the world-famous House of Wisdom. Hundreds of thousands of priceless manuscripts and books were tossed into the river, clogging the arterial waterway with so many texts, according to eyewitnesses, that soldiers could ride on horseback from one side to the other. And, of course, the river turned from red to black with ink.
<snip>
Apart from the human casualties, there was the destruction of the 500-year old city itself. Fires were set so that the fragrant scent of sandalwood and other aromatics was smelled up to 30 miles away. If you're looking for an example of a city razed to the ground, Baghdad in 1258 would be a good choice. After a week Hulagu, ordered his camp out of the city, and moved upwind, away from the stench of rotting corpses. And this from a man who'd not only engaged in numerous slaughters before Baghdad, but whose culture dictated, as we saw earlier, that they never wash their clothes.

Hulagu left Baghdad a broken and depopulated city. Even if those left alive had wanted to rebuild, they lacked the numbers, the resources, and the skills to do so. The death and destruction were such that it would be more than a decade before anyone from Baghdad performed the hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. In attacking Baghdad, Hulagu also destroyed the network of canals that irrigated the arable land thereabouts. Famine and plague followed the Mongol horde to Baghdad as elsewhere. It's easy to see why they're often tagged with a reputation as the most destructive of all the great empires.[/quote]

[QUOTE]So, it's all right for Iran to be illegal occupiers in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, as long as it's in the name of fighting against the good ol' USA.[/QUOTE]Justify this assertion. Iran has been a prime factor in the defeat of ISIS, and gets credit for this outside of the US and its lackeys.
Once again, by what legal right does the "Good" Old US of A have to attempt to establish hegemony in this region?

Comparing the current US occupations to ancient history is a non sequitur. It also does not answer the question of "why" and by what right other than might.

Lawrence of Arabia is reference to previous colonial adventures from which the region is still suffering, and to which the US is the successor.

The ME produced Islamic forces which indeed invaded various places. Europe produced the Crusaders. Of course, those were holy christian warriors, so they can't be compared to the brutal Sword of Islam.

The Mongol Sack of Baghdad was undoubtedly horrific. Would you care to speculate on the numbers of casualties and displaced people that caused? Compare and contrast with the effects Shock and Awe, and the US invasion in general.

Of course, I am just an irrational hater to hold the "Good Ol' US of A" accountable for millions dead or displaced.

Enjoy your exercises in sophistry.

I'm pretty sure the Yemeni government didn't invite the Iranians in to foment rebellion. Iran's creation of the Houthis in Yemen is about as "legal" as the US's creation of the Contras in Nicaragua. The official rationale at the time was, not surprisingly, quite similar to Iran's today: we were resisting Soviet hegemony.

I'm not sure when the governments of Lebanon or Syria invited the Iranians in. Lebanon was in chaos when Hezbollah was born, having been in a state of civil war since 1975. Also, something like 20,000 Syrian troops were in residence in Lebanon starting shortly after the civil war began, staying until sometime in the 2000's.

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi government gave its official blessing to the Iranians' presence a considerable time [i]after[/i] they showed up. At this point it's hard to say who's giving whom permission to do things there.

The Iranians are of a different ethnicity, speak a different language, and are of a different sect of Islam than most of the Islamic inhabitants of the countries they're playing in. Their continued presence holds the prospect of insurgencies with both ethnic [i]and[/i] religious hatreds playing themselves out.

Now, a number of Iranians -- 56 was the last figure I've seen -- have died tragically during Soleimani's funeral ceremonies. A rush in the multitudes resulted in a lot of people getting trampled. I don't think there's any real blame to be cast; these deaths appear to be accidental. But perhaps the government of Iran will demand revenge for these deaths also.

Since Iran has sworn revenge, it will be jolly fun to blame the Iranians for [i]anything[/i] bad that happens. Let's see here -- how about the earthquake that just struck Puerto Rico? Sure -- the Iranians are to blame! It was the stampede at Soleimani's funeral that caused it! Ridiculous, you say? Well, the good ol' USA got blamed for the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami -- I kid you not.

BTW, after Acting Defense Secretary Esper -- literally -- laid down the law about military attacks on cultural centers, it seems that [i]Il Duce[/i] has backed off his foolish threat. I believe that he realized he was facing the prospect of the scenario I proposed: him ordering such an attack, and his order being refused.

I would not bet against Iran achieving its announced objective of the US being obliged to abandon the region, in the not-too-distant future. I imagine Vladimir Putin is licking his chops.

[b]EDIT:[/b]

[url=https://apnews.com/add7a702258b4419d796aa5f48e577fc]Iran strikes back at US with missile attack at bases in Iraq[/url][quote]Iranian state TV said the attack was in revenge for the killing of Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, whose funeral procession Tuesday in his hometown of Kerman prompted angry calls to avenge his death, which drastically raised tensions in the Middle East.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard warned the U.S. and its regional allies against retaliating over the missile attack against the Ain Assad air base in Iraq's western Anbar province. The Guard issued the warning via a statement carried by Iran's state-run IRNA news agency.

"We are warning all American allies, who gave their bases to its terrorist army, that any territory that is the starting point of aggressive acts against Iran will be targeted," The Guard said. It also threatened Israel.

Ain Assad air base is in Iraq's western Anbar province. It was first used by American forces after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled dictator Saddam Hussein, and later saw American troops stationed there amid the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. It houses about 1,500 U.S. and coalition forces.[/quote]No word yet on casualties or damage. It sounds to me like Iran wanted to do [i]something[/i] quickly. The choice of target seems to have been made with some care.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;534547]I'm pretty sure the Yemeni government didn't invite the Iranians in to foment rebellion. Iran's creation of the Houthis in Yemen is about as "legal" as the US's creation of the Contras in Nicaragua. The official rationale at the time was, not surprisingly, quite similar to Iran's today: we were resisting Soviet hegemony.

I'm not sure when the governments of Lebanon or Syria invited the Iranians in. Lebanon was in chaos when Hezbollah was born, having been in a state of civil war since 1975. Also, something like 20,000 Syrian troops were in residence in Lebanon starting shortly after the civil war began, staying until sometime in the 2000's.

I'm pretty sure the Iraqi government gave its official blessing to the Iranians' presence a considerable time [i]after[/i] they showed up. At this point it's hard to say who's giving whom permission to do things there.

The Iranians are of a different ethnicity, speak a different language, and are of a different sect of Islam than most of the Islamic inhabitants of the countries they're playing in. Their continued presence holds the prospect of insurgencies with both ethnic [i]and[/i] religious hatreds playing themselves out.[/QUOTE]
Wow, so much willful ignorance and red-scare paranoia on display in just a few paragraphs ... so let's just throw a little actual factual background in and let readers make their own more-informed judgment:

o Any analogizing between the Yemeni Houthis and Nicaraguan Contras is laughable - the Houthis have existed in Yemen for just a wee bit longer. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_insurgency_in_Yemen]Wikipedia[/url]:
[quote]In 1962, a revolution in North Yemen ended over 1,000 years of rule by Zaidi Imams, who claimed descent from the Hashemites. Sa'dah, in the north, was their main stronghold and since their fall from power the region was largely ignored economically and remains underdeveloped. The Yemeni government has little authority in Sa'dah.

During Yemen's 1994 civil war, the Wahhabis, an Islamic group adhering to a strict version of Sunni Islam found in neighboring Saudi Arabia, helped the government in its fight against the secessionist south. Zaidis complain the government has subsequently allowed the Wahhabis too strong a voice in Yemen. Saudi Arabia, for its part, worries that strife instigated by the Zaidi sect so close to Yemen's border with Saudi Arabia could stir up groups in Saudi Arabia itself.[/quote]
A bit of clarification re. the connection between the Zaidis and Houthis is to be found in the Wikipedia article on the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthis]Houthi Movement[/url]:
[quote]The Houthi movement (/ˈhuːθi/; Arabic: الحوثيون‎ al-Ḥūthiyyūn [ħuːθijˈjuːn]), officially called Ansar Allah (ʾanṣār allāh أنصار الله "Supporters of God") and colloquially simply Houthis, is an Islamic political and armed movement that emerged from Sa'dah in northern Yemen in the 1990s. The movement was called Houthis because its founder is from the Houthi tribe. They are of the Zaidi sect, though the movement reportedly also includes Sunnis.[/quote]
As is the case with Iraq, Yemen has both substantial Sunni and Shia populations; the Houthi, being predominantly Shia, have an obvious religious-affiliational tie with Iran. The Saudis were the ones who escalated the civil war into major-atrocity/scorched-earth levels, and got their US pals involved as well. Colonialism and western meddling again form a backdrop. DrS's "I'm pretty sure the Yemeni government didn't invite the Iranians in to foment rebellion", in referring to the corrupt, western-and-Saudi-allied regime, now deposed, is both technically accurate and highly misleading.

o "I'm not sure when the governments of Lebanon or Syria invited the Iranians in." -- So at least you admit that said governments *did* invite the Iranians in. So let's flip the script: when did the governments of Lebanon and Syria invite the US forces in? And I don't recall the Iraqis exactly inviting the Americans in back in 2003 ... the current uncomfortable and now-moribund "status of forces" agreement re. US troops there is strictly an awkward legacy of that illegal invasion and subsequent military occupation.

o "I'm pretty sure the Iraqi government gave its official blessing to the Iranians' presence a considerable time [i]after[/i] they showed up." -- Your usual unsourced-claim-elevated-into-alleged-fact ploy. Others of us are far less sure of this than you are. W.r.to the recent assassination, it has been established beyond doubt that General Soleimani *was* in Iraq on a diplomatic mission at the official request of the Iraqi government. Your above statement is just you pissing in the wind to try to distract from that inconvenient truth.

o "The Iranians are of a different ethnicity, speak a different language, and are of a different sect of Islam than most of the Islamic inhabitants of the countries they're playing in" -- Well, you'd better be more specific about "most places", [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia_Islam]because[/url]
[quote]Shias form a majority of the population in Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Iran, and Iraq, as well as a plurality in Lebanon. Shias constitute 36.3% of the entire population (and 38.6% of the Muslim population) of the Middle East.

Shia Muslims constitute 27-35% of the population in Lebanon, and as per some estimates from 35% to over 35–40% of the population in Yemen, 30%–35% of the citizen population in Kuwait (no figures exist for the non-citizen population), over 20% in Turkey, 5–20% of the population in Pakistan, and 10–19% of Afghanistan's population.[/quote]
On the other hand, I think it would be quite accurate to again script-flip this to "The Americans are of a different ethnicity, speak a different language, and are of a different religion than most of the Islamic inhabitants of the countries they're playing in".

Thanks for the enlightening history, Ernst.
EDIT: .....and demographics.

Good post, Ernst.

Azerbaijan? That's usually not mentioned as part of the Middle East, but no denying it's there. I'm guessing you mean the former SSR, capital Baku, rather than the region of the same name just across the border in NW Iran.

So, the Houthis emerged as an armed force in the 1990's. All on their own, I'm sure.

I guess Saudi Arabia and Egypt don't count in the demographics of the Middle East.

I also note that, while Shia may constitute upwards of 40% of the Muslim population of ME, they constitute something like 90% of the population of Iran. Giving percentages of the population of the ME exclusive of Iran might give a different picture.

I note that, in countries where the Shia form minorities, they are often impoverished minorities. Of course, Iran has its own impoverished Shia, but perhaps fewer than they might. During the Iran-Iraq war, they employed many of their poorest people as suicide soldiers. They have named streets and buildings after some of them. Desperate times... Children riding bicycles toward enemy lines fortified with machine guns, and lobbing hand grenades, suffered [i]very[/i] high casualties. There are even reports of children being issued with "Keys to Paradise" and used to clear minefields by marching through them (as mentioned, for example, in the autobiographical "graphic novel" [u]Persepolis[/u]), though such tactics would not work against antitank mines, which would probably not go off if a person stepped on them.

With Iraq, I simply had [i]my[/i] figures wrong. Thank you for the correction.

And I find your "script reversal" very apt there, in particular WRT our 2003 invasion. The cluelessness of Team Shrub in the runup to that disastrous enterprise is painful to recall. It would be a cakewalk. We would be greeted as liberators. I recall a Tom Toles cartoon of the period, with Doctor Shrub visiting the latest among a whole ward of bedridden patients -- countries we'd invaded, portrayed as dismembered people who haven't been reassembled. "I've seen this before," he says.

I note an exception, however. The "US soldiers" (so described by the regime) who protested the recent rise in gas prices in Iran were of the same ethnicity, same religion, and spoke the same language as other Iranians.

I also note, WRT the missiles Iran fired at our bases in Iraq: From the satellite image of Ain Asad Air Base, it appears that those missiles can be targeted [i]very[/i] precisely. I'm sure that this was part of the message Iran was delivering with that attack. I also note that, rather than our precautions and warning systems, there were no human casualties because Iran went to considerable effort to avoid inflicting them, both in their choice of targets, and in warning non-US foreigners who might be in harm's way.

This stands in stark contrast to the way they've run their proxy operations in Iraq.

I also note that Iraqi officials said they would be summoning Iran's Ambassador to protest the attack's violation of Iraqi sovereignty, but I haven't seen anything about that actually having happened.

I don't think I'm being "paranoid" about Russia (I'm guessing that's the object of your "red-scare" reference). In the second place, Putin [url=https://apnews.com/d7a14668d38806ae02583ce388eb09d6]hasn't been idle[/url]:[quote]DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin traveled to Damascus on Tuesday for a meeting with President Bashar Assad, a rare visit that comes amid soaring tensions between Iran and United States following the U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general.[/quote]. Also, [url=https://apnews.com/3cb5bbabec703e0b22f0f92cddf037a4]US allies see Mideast strategy vacuum that Putin can fill[/url][quote]PARIS (AP) — He was the leader on the world stage, visiting troops stationed in a far-flung war zone for the holidays, shoring up alliances and economic deals in the Mideast, requesting a meeting with the German chancellor in his capital, portraying himself and his country as reliable partners in an increasingly uncertain world.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has had a busy week, stepping into the aftermath of the American drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. Putin’s visit Tuesday to Syria was emblematic of a reality that has been playing out in recent months: The U.S. strategic position in the Middle East is a mystery to many of its allies, and Russia is more than ready to fill any vacuum.[/quote]So yes, I'd say Putin is licking his chops.

And, in the [i]first[/i] place, the Russians are certainly also strangers playing in that strange land. Their military assistance appears to have been instrumental in saving the Assad regime in Syria, but it would hardly be stretching words to say they've had to destroy the country in order to save it.

I also note that [i]Il Duce[/i] seems to be stepping back from the abyss -- in response to the missile attacks in Iraq, he is not going to do so much as issue Iran a citation for littering. I did note a sentence in his statement: [quote]By removing Soleimani we have sent a powerful message to terrorists: if you value your own life, you will not threaten the lives of our people.[/quote]Of course, the "terrorists" who actually [i]carry out[/i] attacks against Americans often do [i]not[/i] value their own lives. They are perfectly willing to die in order to kill their victims. However, the same may [i]not[/i] be true of the people who enable them. So the message may be directed at them. This would be in line with the ideas put forth in [u]The Lessons of Terror[/u] by Caleb Carr. I doubt that [i]Il Duce[/i] is familiar with it, but some of his would-be handlers might be.

I also note that, while Iran's [i]direct[/i] response to our killing of Soleimani may be finished, they may well do more through their proxies.

Just a note or two:
[QUOTE]And, in the [I]first[/I] place, the Russians are certainly also strangers playing in that strange land. Their military assistance appears to have been instrumental in saving the Assad regime in Syria, but it would hardly be stretching words to say they've had to destroy the country in order to save it.[/QUOTE]There is a difference between committing an invasion, and assisting an ally. As far as blaming Russia for destruction of Syria, you really are standing things on their heads. Syria was under assault by US armed and supported "freedom fighters" who have a great deal of personnel overlap with ISIL and al Qaeda. A better word for them is "mercenaries", or perhaps "proxies". The latter word is constantly used as in condemnation of Iran. I guess it's just peachy for the Good 'Ol Us of A to arm and bankroll terrorists as long as they attack the "right" countries. Of course, those stinking Russkies are totally evil for thwarting the US's noble attempts [STRIKE]to wipe out one of Israel's primary targets for them[/STRIKE] free the Middle East of oppressive regimes (except the Saudis and Israelis.)

There are no pristine or admirable players in this ugly game. It must, however, be endlessly repeated that the conflict and chaos in the region has be greatly enhanced by colonialist meddling, and most recently by the US destruction of Iraq and all that has followed. The fighters which opposed the invaders were in large part the Sunni Baathist forces which were purged by the invaders (remember who those are?) These are some of the foundations of ISIL and company, who have been railed against by US propagandists even as the US was privately supporting them to destabilize still more of the region.

I don't excuse bad behavior by any of the participants.You constantly whitewash the biggest single player, with many more oceans of blood on its account than any other in recent history. Believe what you like. However, the history of death and displacement of just Iraqi civilians by the US invasion is unmatched. Add to that the Iraqi war on Iran, when Saddam was our boy before he became inconvenient, and the body count multiplies greatly.

You really should try to get over your confusion between invasion, and the assisting of allies under assault by an invader.

Looking at the Wikipedia page on the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War#Casualties]Syrian Civil War[/url], it places US intervention some way down the time line. Looking a bit closer, the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War]American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War[/url] says [quote]During the Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, the U.S. initially supplied the rebels of the Free Syrian Army with non-lethal aid—including food rations and pickup trucks—but quickly began providing training, money, and intelligence to selected Syrian rebel commanders. At least two U.S. programs attempted to assist the Syrian rebels. One was a 2014 Pentagon program that planned to train and equip 15,000 rebels to fight ISIL, which was canceled in 2015 after spending $500 million and producing only a few dozen fighters. A simultaneous $1 billion covert program called Timber Sycamore ran by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was more successful, but was decimated by Russian bombing and canceled in mid-2017 by the Trump administration.[/quote]

Wow! Half a billion to recruit a few platoons of "mercenaries!" Yessirree Bob, that's what I call being a major player. But wait -- this was begun in 2014, -- three years after the war began. Talk about standing things on their head!

However, I also notice that in the page on the Syrian Civil War, we see the true extent of US perfidy:

[quote][b]Socioeconomic background[/b]

Socioeconomic inequality increased significantly after free market policies were initiated by Hafez al-Assad in his later years, and it accelerated after Bashar al-Assad came to power. With an emphasis on the service sector, these policies benefited a minority of the nation's population, mostly people who had connections with the government, and members of the Sunni merchant class of Damascus and Aleppo. In 2010, Syria's nominal GDP per capita was only $2,834, comparable to Sub-Saharan African countries such as Nigeria and far lower than its neighbors such as Lebanon, with an annual growth rate of 3.39%, below most other developing countries.

The country also faced particularly high youth unemployment rates. At the start of the war, discontent against the government was strongest in Syria's poor areas, predominantly among conservative Sunnis. These included cities with high poverty rates, such as Daraa and Homs, and the poorer districts of large cities.

[b]Drought[/b]

This coincided with the most intense drought ever recorded in Syria, which lasted from 2006 to 2011 and resulted in widespread crop failure, an increase in food prices and a mass migration of farming families to urban centers. This migration strained infrastructure already burdened by the influx of some 1.5 million refugees from the Iraq War. The drought has been linked to anthropogenic global warming. Adequate water supply continues to be an issue in the ongoing civil war and it is frequently the target of military action.[/quote]And there you have it. All socioeconomic inequality, everywhere, is the fault of the USA. As are the effects of climate change, since the US is responsible for that, too.

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;534686] As are the effects of climate change, since the US is responsible for that, too.[/QUOTE]Is somewhat, arguably largely, responsible for that, too. Fixed that for you.

The entire over-developed world is mostly responsible for anthropogenic global warming. IMAO anyway. China, India, [I]et al.[/I] are just playing catch-up some 250 years after the UK started the game.