Two Middle East perspectives

Two utterly contrasting views of the Middle East were expressed today. First, I heard Lincoln Chafee on Fox News today, saying that Hillary will continue to be plagued by her vote for the Iraq war, which has resulted in all the problems we currently have in the Middle East today. He went on to say that she continued to employ the "muscular approach" to foreign policy as Secretary of State. I also read an article by Bruce Thornton of the Hoover Institute where he liberally quotes John Barrett Kelly, a prolific writer on the Middle East from the 60s through the 90s. He quotes Kelly as saying, “The Arabs understand perfectly well the essence of imperial rule and recall their own era of imperial domination with pride. What has baffled them is the spectacle of an ex-imperial but still great power failing to behave in accordance with its stature but reacting to almost every challenge with a pre-emptive cringe.” Thornton’s conclusion was, “Today it is the U.S. that damages its own prestige and effectiveness by failing to behave as the ‘strongest tribe,’ and hence inviting contempt for its weakness. This is in perfect accord with Principle of Conservatism Number 10 (by Bill and Dave): that in the matter of international relations and America’s global responsibilities, American weakness—whether it be militarily, politically, or economically—is provocative to the enemies of freedom. I suppose the view that predominates in the next administration will determine whether ISIS whithers or thrives.