Quote Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny View Post
The "loss of leverage" is something Ronan Farrow addresses in his book War on Peace. https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Dip.../dp/0393652106

The concentration of military to military relations at the expense of diplomatic relations removes any nuance.
Not surprisingly, the loss of expertise and relationships outside that narrow range (this is harmful to USAID spending) makes America's relations in the Middle East resemble it's relations with Latin American countries. Any strongman is a good one if he/she is on our payroll; progress to democracy (or freedom or human rights or whatever) are meaningless. Egypt is a decent example of what counts.

Farrow does not say, but I will, this shift to security above all makes the mass migration from the Middle East a rational choice.
Remove the patina of progress and flight is really the only choice for anyone looking to better their lot.
We've had that problem for more than a century, as did most of the Euro states that held overseas terrain and spheres of influence. Stability so you can forget their local issues is too attractive, and most decision making too short term in orientation to take the more difficult path.

And as to poor, weak, and unstable....we tend to like stable but militarily weak as they make better trading partners and non-threats (course weak and stable don't cohere well so...). We also don't require them to be poor, we're in it for what we can get out of it. Doesn't necessarily have to be at their expense, though that has often been the case.