|
I really wanted to get to your commentary, Yoepus, because I think it cuts right to the heart of the matter as to the rationale of those who still support Bush’s Iraq and Middle Eastern foreign policies. I want to tackle this in two parts: First I’ll address the Lebanese revolt, and then I’ll address the rest of the Middle East. I feel this is necessary because it is more useful and meaningful to examine each country critically.
For Lebanon, you state:
| quote: | For example, I believe that the odds that Syria would have invaded/oppressed the Lebanese after this assasination attmept would have been, much, much greater had the USA not been next door to Syria with rumors abound that it is looking to invade another Arab country.
I believe that many of the Lebanese felt comfortable uprising against Syria because they realized, what is Syria going to do? What can they do? Invade Lebanon? Oppress Lebanon?
Not with the USA next door they're not. |
That is an interesting question and belief, one that I’m not sure I am in a position to fully agree or disagree with. However as stated previously, based upon what we have it is difficult at best to weigh direct or even indirect evidence as to how much influence the U.S. invasion in the Middle East really has been upon this country.
Here’s a pretty good article that weighs just how much influence the U.S. invasion has had on the Middle East. For Lebanon, in particular:
| quote: | Syria has long been promising an end to its 30-year occupation. Last fall, when the six-year term of Lebanon's Quisling president, Gen. Émile Lahoud, was about to expire, the Syrians forced an amendment to the constitution, allowing a three-year extension. That's what set in motion the broad-based opposition movement and led Rafik Hariri, the popular prime minister, to resign in protest. Hariri's assassination last month stirred that opposition into outright revolt. Did the election in Iraq, or Ukraine, embolden the protesters? Many of them say it did. But the combustion's ingredients were already well-packed.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2114260/ |
And what’s more, the author here in Slate really hits it when he further dives into the likely complications of future Lebanon:
| quote: | | In any case, what happens next? If the Syrians do withdraw (and they've reduced their forces from 40,000 to 14,000 the past few years), some abstract concept called "freedom" won't take over; flesh-and-blood Lebanese people will—and that's where the troubles began. The terrorist organization Hezbollah represents a substantial portion of Lebanon's population and will almost certainly play a strong role in any new government. (If it's somehow kept out, expect civil war.) Will its leaders be interested in integrating Lebanon into some new Middle Eastern order that involves peace with Israel? Is there a package of sticks and carrots that might cajole and lure them into an accord? Will Bush (and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) be interested in negotiating such a deal? Then there are the ethnic conflicts—Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Maronite Christians, and the Druze. They're unified now in the cause of pushing out Syria, just as they were unified back in 1943 in the cause of pushing out France. In the intervening 60 years, divisions reigned, at times sparking chaos, which motivates the various occupations. (See Juan Cole's blog on Tuesday for a succinct summary of this history.) |
Incidently, Juan Cole’s blog can be seen here:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/leb...yria-it-is.html
A pretty good summary of Lebanon’s history, as well as our involvement back in the ‘40’s which inevitably led to their civil war soon afterward. Cole comes to a similar conclusion that Kaplan at Slate did:
| quote: | I don't think Bush had anything much to do with the current Lebanese national movement except at the margins. Walid Jumblatt, the embittered son of Kamal whom the Syrians defeated in 1976 at the American behest, said he was inspired by the fall of Saddam. But this sort of statement from a Druze warlord strikes me as just as manipulative as the news conferences of Ahmad Chalabi, who is also inspired by Saddam's fall. Jumblatt has a long history of anti-Israeli and anti-American sentiment that makes his sudden conversion to neoconism likely a mirage. He has wanted the Syrians back out since 1976, so it is not plausible that anything changed for him in 2003.
The Lebanese are still not entirely united on a Syrian military withdrawal. Supporters of outgoing PM Omar Karami rioted in Tripoli on Monday. Hizbullah leader Hasan Nasrallah still supports the Syrians and has expressed anxieties about the Hariri assassination and its aftermath leading to renewed civil war (an argument for continued Syrian military presence). |
And Hezbollah leaders declared their support of Syria, which does complicate things a little bit:
| quote: | The Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah declared its full support for Syria today, presenting a direct challenge to opposition groups after Syria promised to gradually withdraw troops from Lebanon. Hezbollah's leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, spoke to reporters today in his stronghold in southern Beirut, breaking weeks of relative silence over the crisis concerning Syria's presence in Lebanon. He called for Lebanese to "express their gratitude" to Syria by joining a demonstration on Tuesday against United Nations Resolution 1559, which calls for Syria's withdrawal and Hezbollah's disarmament.
"I invite all Lebanese to this meeting to refuse foreign interference," he said. Although he acknowledged that a Syrian pullout was a reality, he stressed that Syria must be able to leave with honor - a reaction to repeated statements by the Bush administration and Lebanese opposition groups calling for a quick and complete pullout of Syrian forces. . . For weeks, Hezbollah, which maintains a well-armed, 25,000-man militia in Lebanon and commands the support of hundreds of thousands of Shiite Muslims in the country, has been a political wild-card.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/06/i...gedcomplication |
Nevertheless, thankfully an agreement between Lebanon and Syria has been made:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...yria/index.html
We’ll see how Syria holds to it in a few weeks. Support for Hezbollah appears to be pretty strong in Lebanon, and the support for the Shias are seemingly pretty strong as well. As I’ve said, the situation looks promising, but needless to say Middle East politics can be pretty damn complicated (as we’re finding out in Iraq, no doubt).
Now in regards to the rest of the Middle East, I think it’s a bit erroneous to tie all the countries together and state “democracy is on the move!”, as Bush seemingly loves to do. The shortsightedness of such a generalization cannot be overstated. Or to take Bush’s sentiments even further, stating that democracy is on the move as a direct result of our actions is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
Let’s start with Libya. Did our actions in Iraq and/or Afghanistan directly influence Khadafi to step up and come clean? Well we may conclude that to a certain extent, but we cannot forget who exactly got the ball rolling before Junior Bush:
http://www.mideasti.org/articles/doc192.html
And the last I heard there’s still some serious conflicting statements about Libya’s nuclear program, being involved with Pakistan’s Khan who only received a slap on the wrist:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Aug30.html
So could we fully conclude that whacky Khadafi is coming clean and wants to be our ally? Well I haven’t seen our sanctions lifted off him yet, and rightfully so. He is a business man, however, and he does see the global market as a major possibility for good profit. I’d contend this was his motive much more than cowering from our invasion. The point being that words are not as powerful as actions. This is really the theme of my entire post, especially when it comes to elections in the Middle East. And his human rights record is still, shall we say, fucking piss poor?:
http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000627.php
And let’s also keep in mind that within our agreement with Khadafi, any type of democratic reform requests or demands were noticeably absent:
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_...199393231717277
And if anything, one can successfully argue that economic sanctions were the key to Libya’s turnaround and supposed “cooperation”, and NOT our Iraqi invasion:
http://www.juancole.com/2003_12_01_...199393231717277
Or how about Palestine? Are we to somehow take credit for the death of Arafat? Unless your tin foil hat has a higher range of frequencies than mine, I’d say that’s an easy “No”. Did we have any influence on the matter whatsoever? Oh sure, but that is a far cry than saying our involvement (or should I say, our major lack of involvement) has anything to do with the Palestinian vote.
Now one supposed "bright spot" to the Bush position might be Egypt:
| quote: | Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday ordered a revision of the country's election laws and said multiple candidates could run in the nation's presidential elections, a scenario Mubarak hasn't faced since taking power in 1981. The surprise announcement, a response to critics' calls for political reform, comes shortly after historic elections in Iraq and the Palestinian territories, balloting that brought a taste of democracy to the region. It also comes amid a sharp dispute with the United States over Egypt's arrest of one of the strongest proponents of multi-candidate elections. "The election of a president will be through direct, secret balloting, giving the chance for political parties to run for the presidential elections and providing guarantees that allow more than one candidate for the people to choose among them with their own will," Mubarak said in an address broadcast live on Egyptian television. Mubarak -- who has never faced an opponent since becoming president after the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat -- said his initiative came "out of my full conviction of the need to consolidate efforts for more freedom and democracy."
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/int...artner=homepage |
However, things were not as rosy as planned:
| quote: | Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Friday abruptly called off a planned trip to several Middle Eastern countries that had been scheduled for next week, a decision that came apparently because of the arrest of a leading Egyptian opposition politician last month. The decision highlighted a rift with an important ally over President Bush's push for democratic change. It came a day after Mr. Bush's tense meeting with Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, who was clearly uncomfortable with Mr. Bush's criticism of Russia's democracy. The linchpin for Ms. Rice's trip had been a planned meeting in Cairo of foreign ministers for the Group of 8 industrial nations and the Arab League to discuss economic aid and democratic change in the Middle East. But that meeting was postponed by Egypt on Sunday in an early sign of the tensions that have been building even as the Bush administration has praised Egypt for its help in the Israeli-Palestinian mediation after Yasir Arafat's death.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/26/p...ner=rssuserland
|
Yes, our response to this arrest by a PRO-DEMOCRACY Bush Admin. nation only took a mere 4 weeks to happen. Incidently, here’s the story in case you’re interested:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exe...9E3E4036146.htm
But their “free” democratic elections really kinda more like window dressing:
| quote: | But Mubarak's order to parliament declared the amendment must state that any potential candidate be a member of an official political party and win the endorsement of parliament. Most opposition parties and reform activists, therefore, said the initiative, though welcome, did not go far enough and that they feared it was only cosmetic. All acknowledged that Mubarak was likely to stay in power after the September vote, particularly since any potential candidate must still be approved by parliament, which his ruling party dominates...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=534156 |
And
| quote: | | The need for parliamentary approval would mean the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamic group and probably the most powerful rival to Mubarak if an open vote were held, could not present a candidate. In a statement Saturday, the group whose supporters make up the largest opposition bloc in parliament demanded further reforms, including greater freedom to form political parties, and the end to Egypt's nearly 25-year-old emergency laws. The rules would also exclude three well-known political activists who have started a campaign to allow their run for presidency: feminist writer Nawal el-Saadawi, sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, and former opposition member of parliament Mohammed Farid Hassanein. Mohammed Kamal, a leading member of the ruling party's policy-making committee, said parliament would propose an amendment within two weeks, and a national referendum to approve it would be held within nine weeks. George Ishaq, spokesman for the Kifaya, or "Enough," movement that has led a series of anti-Mubarak protests since December, said the move was not complete. "Freedom and democracy is a normal request for people," he said. "We need more than this." |
What’s that saying about lipstick on a pig? And BTW, Egypt receives $1.3 billion in grants from the U.S., I guess to help promote their version of “democracy”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jul15.html
Moving on to Saudi Arabia – I think it can certainly be argued that they have begun to take steps of their own to combat al Qaeda and other terrorist activities. But was this a result of any influence of ours, or was it more of a result of breeding one too many terrorists in their own right, and now they have their own self-created conflict to deal with? I think the argument for the latter is much stronger than the former. If anything, our only influence might have been trying to tell them about the forthcoming dangers, and now we’re simply sitting back saying, “I told you so!”.
But in terms of spreading democracy to their country, is that really the case? Hardly. And what’s more:
| quote: | The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were positive improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. Citizens did not have the right to change their government. There were credible reports that security forces continued to torture and abuse detainees and prisoners, arbitrarily arrest and detain persons, and hold them in incommunicado detention. There were cases in which Mutawwa'in continued to intimidate, abuse, and detain citizens and foreigners. There was no evidence that violators were held accountable for abuses. Most trials were closed, and defendants usually appeared before judges without legal counsel. There were reports that the Government infringed on individuals' privacy rights. The Government continued to restrict freedom of speech and press, although there has been an increase in press freedom over a series of years. The Government restricted freedom of assembly, association, religion, and movement. Violence and discrimination against women, violence against children, discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and strict limitations on worker rights continued [...]
The Mutawwa'in reportedly detained young men for offenses that included eating in restaurants with young women, making lewd remarks to women in the shopping malls, or walking in groups through family-only sections of shopping centers. Women of many nationalities were detained for actions such as riding in a taxi with a man who was not their relative, appearing with their heads uncovered in shopping malls, and eating in restaurants with males who were not their relatives. Many such prisoners were held for days, sometimes weeks, without officials notifying their families or, in the case of foreigners, their embassies.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm |
Political repression in SA is pretty well known:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/saudi102903.htm
As well as religious intolerance:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ligious_hatred/
This is tyranny, and we seemingly have no problems with it. Now if the answer isn’t obvious as to why that is (hint: oil, oil, oil), I think it will simply be overlooked.
And what does the State Dept. say of Uzbekistan and their tyranical leader, Islam Karimov?:
| quote: | Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights [...]
The Government's human rights remained very poor, and it continued to commit numerous serious abuses. Citizens could not exercise the right to change their government peacefully. Security force mistreatment likely resulted in the deaths of at least four citizens in custody. Police and NSS forces tortured, beat, and harassed persons [...]
The Government employed official and unofficial means to restrict severely freedom of speech and the press, and an atmosphere of repression stifled public criticism of the Government.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27873.htm |
Oooh, this is one of my favorites:
| quote: | Just last month, a 62-year-old woman, Fatima Mukhadirova, was convicted on charges of religious extremism after she had spoken out about the torture and death of her son in custody. Her son, imprisoned for "religious extremism," died in prison in August 2002 after he was apparently submerged in boiling water. Mukhadirova was released following international outcry. But police raids and arrests continue unabated and at least 26 independent Muslims have been convicted since January.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/200.../uzbeki8309.htm |
Sure making progress on human rights, just like ol’ Dubya said, right?:
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/uzbek060303.htm
More on Uzbekistan can be seen here:
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/index-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Uzb-summary-eng
http://www.abc.net.au/am/s661687.htm
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18400.htm
Ahh, good ol’ Pakistan, our “democratic” ally, right?
| quote: | The Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained. In 2002, citizens participated in national government elections; however, many observers found serious flaws in the legal framework for the election. Security forces used excessive force, at some times resulting in death, and committed or failed to prevent extrajudicial killings of suspected militants and civilians. The Government enacted measures to improve the discipline and training of security forces and punished some security forces officials who were guilty of abuses; however, abuses by security forces remained a problem.
Killings between rival political factions and sectarian groups continued to be a problem. Police abused and raped citizens. Prison conditions remained extremely poor and life threatening, and police arbitrarily arrested and detained citizens. Several political leaders remained in detention or exile abroad at year's end. Case backlogs led to long delays in trials, and lengthy pretrial detention was common. The judiciary was subject to executive and other outside influences and corruption, inefficiency, and lack of resources remained severe problems. The Government has taken steps to control the judiciary and to remove itself from judicial oversight. Some aspects of the Government's implementation of its anti-corruption campaign violated due process. The Government infringed on citizens' privacy rights.
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27950.htm |
Let’s also not forget Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf reappointed himself both President and General of the Army:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/na...ack=1&cset=true
Despite heavy criticism by his military supporters:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/nov04/P1_rk.htm
And we actually call him a “best friend”?:
http://www.indianembassy.org/US_Med...ing%20again.htm
Hmmm, I didn’t realize that a “best friend” willfully hides the other friends’ worst enemy in their basement:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/24/binladen.reward/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3532841.stm
Now that’s not to say that Pakistan is attempting to make strides. Indeed, one may argue that the 2002 Pakistani elections were a bit more democratic than previous elections. Nevertheless, the ground they must make up is extremely considerable.
So to summon on those respective countries:
| quote: | Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism -- including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan -- are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2005Jan20.html |
Here’s a small country that goes unnoticed – Kyrgistan. Though a bit up north towards Russia, I’ll throw this little tidbit in as well. We were allowed to set up bases there as a result of our war on terror:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1862061.stm
Well this country’s elections went unnoticed thanks all in part to the Iraqi elections at relatively the same time. What were the results?:
| quote: | Polls have closed quietly in the ex-Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan where President Askar Akayev promised a free and open parliamentary election. But voting was delayed for two weeks in one district, Tong, after protests about candidates being disqualified. The vote comes before a presidential election set for October in the central Asian republic.
Mr Akayev has warned against any attempts to oust the government like recent changes in Ukraine and Georgia. He has promised to step down for the October poll, after more than a decade in power. However, his critics fear he will use the parliamentary election to prolong his term in office or pave the way for a younger relative to succeed him.
Elections in Kyrgyzstan are generally regarded as a cosmetic exercise to confirm the status quo, but this campaign has seen stirrings of discontent, the BBC's Ian MacWilliam reports from the capital Bishkek.
The 75-seat parliament is being contested by nearly 400 candidates. Several opposition and independent candidates were banned from standing, sparking the protests.
In Tong, roads were blocked by supporters of Arslanbek Maliyev, a popular member of the outgoing parliament barred from standing for office over alleged electoral irregularities. he electoral commission said the blockade of roads meant polling stations in Tong were not ready for the vote.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4301625.stm |
Again, lip service to “democracy”. Actions speak a great deal louder than words.
Or how about Turkmenistan?:
| quote: | Turkmenistan is one of the most repressive countries in the world. The government systematically violates virtually all civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Little has changed in Turkmenistan’s human rights record since the EBRD adopted its country strategy for Turkmenistan in 2002. If anything, conditions have worsened. Since the reported attempt to assassinate President Sapamurat Niazov on November 25, 2002, persecution of real and perceived opponents of the government has intensified. The rights of ethnic and religious minorities have particularly deteriorated during the past year.
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=turkme |
Now here’s a pickle – Iran. I won’t presume to know too much about it, but in terms of generalities we do have somewhat of a mixed bag of a growing democracy with still a bit of a religious tyranny. By that I mean that in ’97 the elections loosened up a bit, and Khatami who at that time was regarded as a “liberal” (by Iranian terms, mind you), was allowed to run for election. Prior to this run he was fired from the minister of culture for being too liberal, and he had also written about Habermas, civil society, and democratization in Iran. The 4 candidates who ran in ’97 were in no danger to run for election, at least none known to any international watchdog groups. Khatami surprised everyone by winning that election with a 69% electorate out of 76% of eligible voters, thanks much in part to the women and youth vote, countering the wishes of the hardline clerics.
Furthermore, reform candidates won the overwhelming majority of seats in Iran’s 2000 parliamentary elections, wrestling over control from the hard-liners who’ve dominated since 1979. Since then some major steps have been taken towards democratization in Iran, thanks much in part to its leadership:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107640.html
Now that’s not to say that Iran is truly a democracy now – far from it. They do run by a Shiite religious majority, they can and do dismiss running candidates based on ideological grounds, and so on. However I think one can contend that of all the Middle East Arab/Persian countries with perhaps the exception of Afghanistan, Iran has taken some of the biggest steps toward democracy.
The question becomes, really – did Bush’s invasion of Iraq have anything to do with Iran’s strides towards democracy? Given their strides were performed BEFORE Bush, i.e. when Clinton was in office (Oh GOD!), or even before we invaded Iraq when Dubya was in office, I think that’s a far stretch, indeed, if not flat out false. If anything, our invasion has led to an increased panic amongst Iranians, which often times leads to a sense of nationalism, which often times leads to the exact opposite of democracy, but I’m merely speculating at this point. Their sense of self-protection, however, has not gone unnoticed, which can be argued is a DIRECT result of our Iraqi invasion:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7035496/
Notice how Putin agreed to this deal AFTER Bush’s summit with him. Nice snub by Pootie-poot there, but we’re talking about the Middle East so I’ll leave him out of this.
And let’s not forget who created a tyranny in Iran in the first place:
http://cryptome.org/iran-cia/cia-iran-pdf.htm
So for them to continue to take strides toward democracy from a tyranny THAT WAS CREATED AS A DIRECT RESULT OF OUR OWN ACTIONS does have a bit of a ring of irony to it.
Which finally brings us to the two countries that we invaded, Afghanistan and Iraq. Now I freely concede that our actions in Afghanistan have created some major steps towards democracy, though there were some questionable blips on the radar during their elections. Unfortunately, women’s rights and intimidation by the Afghan warlords in general heavily influenced those elections, and continue to influence the country today:
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/afghanistan/
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=asia&c=afghan
And let’s also not forget the 3x rise in opium poppies:
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/a...n.narcotics.ap/
And I think we all know where the money goes for opium/heroin trade:
| quote: | Opium-trade proceeds help finance Taliban remnants and other terrorists, and with 40 to 60 percent of the economy now dependent on this trade, the country is verging on becoming a narco state, the report warned. As the source of about 90 percent of the world's heroin, Afghanistan is "an enormous threat to world stability."
Narcotics have been a major factor in the Afghan economy since the Soviets invaded in 1979. But in the lawlessness that's flourished since the 2001 overthrow of the Taliban, when about 19,800 acres of land supported poppy growth, production has exploded - to nearly 511,500 acres last year.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0308/p08s02-comv.html |
I remember quite clearly those commercials a couple years back about if you buy illegal drugs you are essentially giving aid to terrorists. Would it not follow that our government is essentially aiding the terrorists by failing to correctly address and tackle this problem as well? More digression, sorry.
And then there’s Iraq. Jesus I’ve written a shitload! Sorry. I’ll keep Iraq simple. Much remains to be seen about the direction Iraqi will go. This country does have our direct influence on it, so whichever direction it takes will have our fingerprints all over it. The one question I think is worthy to pose is this – does our version of replacing tyranny entail a Muslim religious majority rule? By all accounts this is exactly what we are seeing. Furthermore, we are seeing the beginnings of a bit of a rebellion by this Shiite majority who not only want us the fuck out, but want very little of our military involvement, period:
| quote: | Permanent American bases in Iraq? The question seems so incongruous to His Most Austere "Eminence Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim," (as the leader of the Shiite party which won the January 30 elections identifies himself on his visiting card) that he almost bursts out laughing. "Ha! Ha! No. No one in Iraq desires the establishment of permanent foreign bases on our land. The United Nations Security Council resolutions are clear: it will be up to the elected Iraqi government, when the time comes, to give those forces a specific departure date. As soon as possible."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/030705I.shtml |
So I think it really needs to be asked of all those purple-fingered neocons whose REAL policy is clearly not democratization in the Middle East but rather geopolitical gain – are you happy at what you’re creating here at the behest of over 100,000 Iraqis dead, over 1500 of our own soldiers dead, and over 11,000 wounded? By all accounts their geopolitical rationale for the U.S. and/or Israel is more or less backfiring.
So when you state your following reasons:
| quote: | 1) The USA has demonstrated it is not afraid in meddling in the Middle East anymore and using force if needed.
2) The USA has demonstrated it will not take shit from the Arabs any longer. It is not about to abandon its quest anytime soon.
3) The USA has demonstrated there is an alternative to dictatorships in the Middle East. And that dictators are not Gods - they are mere mortals that can be successfully overthrown (the last time this happened was in 1970s and only by fundamentalist, never secularists).
4) Waiting for America or an external power to do your dirty work for you will result in a worse situation then if you take your own dirty work and fix it up yourself (i.e. If Iraqis would have revolted to overthrow Saddam it would have been better then if the Americans had done it for them).
5) The Americans have demonstrated a trust in the Arabs. Somebody for once believes in the average Arab. The US in Iraq has given the Arabs a deep trust by allowing them to govern themselves. It gives a respect, an honor back to the Arab people by saying "Here, you are a human being like all the rest of us, you are smart like all the rest of us, you should be capable to govern yourselves, decide your own destiny". This is a change from the dictatorship/fundamentalist which preach a "you are stupid, don't question us, we know what is best for you" attitude that has been prevelant for 1000s of years in Arabia.
6) The USA has exposed the fundamentalist for what they are: They care more about killing Americans then they do about their Arab brothers. The Arab world due to what the fundamentalist are doing in Iraq (which is primarly Arab on Arab action) are slowly losing face and patience with the fundies. |
I must respectfully disagree based on the evidence we see today in the Middle East as well as the U.S. actions, or lackthereof towards these given tyranical or former tyranical countries. To the majority of these countries, WE appear to be the aggressors, the occupiers, and the infidels. WE appear to be manipulative, appear to have hidden agendas, and appear to be the REAL killers. WE appear to like and actually appease a wealth of dictators, and appear to care so very fucking little towards “democratization” in the Middle East as a consequence.
Whether or not this is reality is pretty irrelevant – the appearance has been successfully painted on us here, breeding none other than more terrorism. Cole correctly depicts a historical perspective as to why occupation breeds radical terrorists:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/for...s-produced.html
Again one can argue that we are not true “occupiers” in comparison to true historical occupiers. Nevertheless it’s clear this is the perception we have been given. They want us out, and they’re not alone:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/ind...tem&itemID=6193 http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/PZ050225.htm
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
