In the Lebanese media: New US strategy in the Middle East is to maintain control without the use of large military contingents

In the past, any attempts by the United States to reduce its military presence in the Middle East have failed, and Washington has found itself embroiled in yet another regional conflict. But now, more than ever, there is a need for the Americans to transform the format of their presence in the Middle East region.

The author of the publication on the Lebanese portal Raseef22 argues about this.

The article, published in the Arab media, discusses the specifics of the US military presence in the Middle East, as well as its prospects.

It notes that some contradictions can be seen in the statements of Washington dignitaries. The current US President Joe Biden has repeatedly stated his intention to end the participation of American soldiers in the Middle East conflicts. On the other hand, many top US officials, including Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin, have pledged Washington's support and patronage to US allies in the region.

But in fact, the Lebanese author believes, both strategies mean moving in the same direction, which will allow American politicians to solve problems in the region without, if possible, endangering the lives and health of their military personnel. In particular, it is assumed that US military units will leave dangerous areas, leaving only military advisers who will prepare and coordinate the actions of local armed formations loyal to the Americans.

According to the new strategy, in order to maintain control over the Middle East, the United States will not need large military contingents with heavy equipment to fight the enemy, because for these purposes there are local controlled forces, which the Lebanese media have described as vassal-dependent on Washington. In part, this strategy was used by the United States before, but it was also backed up by an impressive American military contingent. Now the US is trying to act differently, with smaller forces. But will it work?

Perhaps this plan could be successful for Washington. But its implementation will certainly be hampered by the steadily growing influence in the Middle East of Russia, Iran and Turkey.

Comments

[mojohed2012]

Retaining territory or even formal control over it is an eternal task.
If everything is peaceful and calm in this territory, then why not. But if it is Iraq, Syria and other Middle East hot spots, then it is impossible to keep control with small forces.
In the early 2000s, the Pentagon already sounded: the US will conduct wars without contact and with small forces and?
As a result, they climbed wherever they were not needed and ran away from there losing their pants ...
No. Forces and means must be in place commensurate with the size of the controlled area and the likely threats.
And those who had not tried to act with small force of blood on foreign territory did not help.

[prior]

Well, what the Yankees ?!
They didn’t expect you here either, but you pinned down.
Then do not blame me.
Yes. And don't forget to take a seat in the transport Boeing.

[rocket757]

According to the new strategy, in order to maintain control over the Middle East, the United States will not need large military contingents with heavy equipment to fight the enemy, because for these purposes there are local controlled forces, which the Lebanese media have described as vassal-dependent on Washington.

... So they did not come up with anything new ... but at the expense of efficiency and low cost, all this is a big question. Here they need to learn from their cousins, they, when they could.

[yuriy55]

Everything will depend on the number of those wishing to see the American military at home ... The desire to influence the world may turn into a desire to get away with it as soon as possible.

[Nyrobsky]

Yeah, the Afghan army has been trained, armed and instructed for 20 years, but it fled faster than the last mattress infantryman washed away, as soon as she realized that now she would be hit hard and painfully for her friendship with mattresses. They didn't last a month.
Here they want to keep the territory and at the same time get off with instructors and advisers who will train some local tribes? Oh well.

[Ian_Kummer]

The problem is that the problem is that such efforts are "asymmetric." The United States is carrying an overwhelming race.