Yes, that strategy backfires and people like Taliban better than East Coast. All these small countries don´t coun´t, though. The US doesn´t depend on them.
In Syria they fought the "Shiite Crescent", Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. Its the countries they want influence, respective weaken. With islamist gangs they can cause great mischief at incredibly low cost. That means they cannot lose. The stake is too low. Its like I am throwing a cent away.
From 2007:
"In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
www.newyorker.com
