Posted on 03/08/2012 5:09:27 AM PST by Kaslin
Americans -- left, right, Democrats and Republicans -- are all sick of thankless nation-building in the Middle East. Yet democratization was not our first choice, but rather a last resort after prior failures.
The United States had long ago supplied Afghan insurgents, who expelled the Soviets after a decade of fighting. Then we left. The country descended into even worse medievalism under the Taliban. So after removing the Taliban, who had hosted the perpetrators of 9/11, we promised in 2001 to stay on.
We won the first Gulf War in 1991. Then most of our forces left the region. The result was the mass murder of the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites, 12 years of no-fly zones, and a failed oil-for-food embargo of Saddam's Iraq. So after removing Saddam in 2003, we tried to leave behind something better.
In the last 10 years the United States has spent more than $1 trillion and has lost thousands of American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both places seem far better off than when ruled by the Taliban and Saddam Hussein -- at least for a while longer.
Yet the Iraqis now bear Americans little good will. They seem friendlier to Iran and Syria than to their liberators. In Afghanistan, riots continue over mistaken burning of some defaced Korans, despite serial American apologies.
How about the choice of bombing the bad guys and then just staying clear? We just did that to the terrorist-friendly Gadhafi dictatorship in Libya. But now that Gadhafi is gone, there is chaos. Islamic gangs torture and execute black Africans who supported the deposed regime, according to press reports. British World War II cemeteries that were honored during 70 years of Libyan kings and dictators could not survive six months of a "free" Libya. In Benghazi, gangs just ransacked and defaced the monuments of the British war dead.
Not having boots on the ground may ensure that endless chaos will consume the hope of a calm post-Gadhafi Libya. That was also true of Somalia and Lebanon after American troops were attacked and abruptly left.
How about another option of aid and words of encouragement only? We have urged Egyptian reform, under both George W. Bush and now Barack Obama. When protestors forced the removal of dictator Hosni Mubarak, the United States approved. It even appears likely that we will keep sending Egypt significant annual subsidies of more than $1.5 billion -- as we have for more than 30 years. Yet anti-American Islamists are now the dominant force in Egyptian politics. American aid workers were recently arrested and threatened with trial by new Egyptian reformers.
Still another American choice would be not to nation-build, bomb, or even get near a Middle Eastern country -- as is the case with Iran and Syria. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since the Shah left in 1979. Until the Obama administration desperately tried to re-establish contacts with the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria by appointing a new ambassador, there had been nearly six years of estrangement.
Yet Iran is nearing its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon both to threaten Israel and to bully other oil-exporting regimes of the Persian Gulf. The Syrian government is now butchering thousands of its own citizens with impunity.
A final option would be to return to the old policy of re-establishing friendly relationships with Middle East dictatorships regardless of their internal politics -- and then keeping mum about their excesses. We did that with Pakistan, which has both received billions in U.S. aid and produced a nuclear bomb. Yet it is hard to imagine a more anti-American country than nuclear Pakistan, without which the Taliban could not kill Americans so easily in Afghanistan.
The United States once saved the Kuwaiti regime after it was swallowed up by Saddam Hussein. We have enjoyed strong ties with the Saudi monarchy as well. Neither country seems especially friendly to the U.S. It is still a crime to publicly practice Christianity in Saudi Arabia. Fifteen of the 19 mass-murdering hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. Oil in the Middle East costs less than $5 a barrel to produce; it now sells for over $100, largely due to the policies of our allies and OPEC members.
Let us review the various American policy options for the Middle East over the last few decades. Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed. The verdict on far more costly nation-building is still out. Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better. Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive. Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide -- or 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.
What have we learned? Tribalism, oil and Islamic fundamentalism are a bad mix that leave Americans sick and tired of the Middle East -- both when they get in it and when they try to stay out of it.
Simply stop throwing Israel under the bus.
There is a method to this seeming madness.
With the US systematically curtailing material and diplomatic support to peace-oriented elements in the ME, of course, other powers follow suit...and gladly, now that assistance to troubled areas creates unwelcome demands on their struggling economies.
The overarching plan is (has always been) to ensure a power vacuum which can and will be filled ONLY by the UN. With global economies struggling to maintain, this process is accelerated because powers which traditionally worked for peace in the ME, may now bow out on the pretext (among others) that the expense if prohibitive. (Make no mistake... we'll pay ANYWAY!)
Handing-off authority and responsibility to the corrupt, biased and incompetent UN is the END for all concerned.
You will see.
How about this option: stay the hell away and leave them alone. They don't want our damn changes and no amount of bombs, bullets or money will change their minds.
Why is it so hard to understand that they are not going to give up their culture and religion for McDonalds, American Idol, Victoria's Secret and Starbucks!!!
In hindsight, I wonder if it would’ve been better if we helped the Russians instead of the mooslems when they,the Russians, invaded Afghanistan.
Is it callous of me to say, "So what?" This part of the world has been the very soul of conflict since the beginning of humanity. Rush said it yesterday: "Since Adam and Eve." So why are we continually rushing in there to save the collective asses of a handful of autocrats?
Oil? Drill here, drill now! It's estimated that America has more oil under and around her than the expanse of sands from Morocco to Pakistan.
To save Christians and Jews? The Jews have been subjugated and have risen up myriad times over the course of human history. They have a pretty solid bulwark in Israel, and if there's any place in the mideast that the US should remain, it's there. Establish military bases and assist the Israelis in development of weaponry and nuclear power (electrical and military). They've proven they can take care of themselves.
And Christians have been marching to slaughter in that region for millenia as well. They live there as a field mouse near a tiger. The tiger may lazily bat at it and watch it play, but on occasion, that tiger gets a thorn in its paw and pretty much devours the mouse. Solution: find another cage to live in.
Nuclear acquisition? Listen, the NorKs made their own nukes with the help of the Russians. The Chinese made their own. Pakistanis and Iranis probably bought theirs, but they have them. Nuclear proliferation is an unstoppable train at this point. To say that we can put our men and women in harms way for the purpose of stopping some regime from acquiring nukes is pure folly. There's so much back alley dealing going on between regimes and Russia/China that America is simply deluding herself if we think that unilateral military engagement is going to make them give up their stockpiles.
Our best bet, IMO, is to arm up and prepare. Strength through overwhelming power. We have the intellectual capacity, the materials, and the military might to research, design, build, and deploy weaponry around the world. Some tin pot dictator in Iraq tries to take over a neighboring country, okay, we step in, beat the shit out of the neighboring dictator, he backs off. But we don't stay there! We don't keep funneling money to the neighbor.
Every kid who was bullied in school knows that unless you stand up to your bully at some point, you'll always be seen as weak. I did it when I was a young boy, and I was all the better for it. Mice can roar!
Think how Europe felt around the Seventh Crusade.
It’s unfortunate that the ME, that area is “The Cradle of Civilization” as civilized does not apply there other than Israel.
Our priority should be ourselves, and our ME support should be for Israel. Let the other ME Islamic Nations consume themselves with their hatred, their sixth Century vulgarities.
Drill here, drill now. Between Canada, and our own resources we can have all the energy we need without the b-stards in the ME.
Cutoff the U.N., vote out the Leftists including the RINO’s, and get all evidence of the Left since Woodrow Wilson the “H” out of our governing system, and restore the Constitution.
Vote Conservative. There’s a lot of work to be done.
muzzies killing muzzies ? (shrugs)
Absolutely correct IMO!
Somebody has to make the definitive argument on how all the human and material treasure spent in the region has benefited the United States. Next time some dope wants to go nation building in a region committed to the values of the 8th century send 30,000 laptops with a good internet connection instead of 30,000 troops.
Egypt: “Stay out of our business or we will KILL YOU”
“oh -and keep sending us Money .. OR WE WILL KILL YOU”
Here’s a thought:
You have a handful of elites and those who fancy themselves such (MSM/Hollywood/Libs) wanting a nice little planet to call their own...but all these nasty proles keep reproducing and making Utopia impossible. They hold the global reigns of power. So what to do?
Create a multi-pronged plan to instill fear on the population and turn it against itself. Spread chaos with claims of environmental apocalypse, destabilize world institutions and force the co-existance of people of disparate cultures/beliefs. Collapse an economy or two. Cut off cheap energy. Reduce quality of life and the hope for a better future. Desensitize the population to violence, killing and overall death.
Then when the people scream for an end to the madness, you push them over the edge into attacking each other, war, famine and disease kill off the majority of the world population, the elites shove the remnants of civilization onto some island/corner of the world to live as best they can or just enact a final solution ...
And they live happily ever after. The end. Now some people think that’s a deranged horror-fantasy. The same sort of people thought the same of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol-Pot.
Anyone looking honestly at the progression of world events would be hard pressed to deny it as the ultimate outcome IMO.
I want us out of THEIR backyard, and I want them out of MINE.
Once we don’t need their oil, I see no reason why we need a single one more of them to immigrate here either. They can just stay home.
FUME.
The only good thing about McCain winning, would have been there was good shot he wouldn’t make it through his first term.
Actually a lot of AP ‘reports’ and such. And while they might be classed appropriately as fiction much of the time, when I look at the world around me, I have to ask why? What’s the endgame to all these crazy and asinine decisions that we see daily?
I don’t see any good coming from it and human history makes me think we are following the path of many who have gone before. As in Germany. As in Russia. As in SE Asia. As in Rome.
But hey, if there’s another possibility, I won’t discount it. Got one?
<><> Military assistance or punitive intervention without follow-up mostly failed.
<><>The verdict on far more costly trillion dollar nation-building is still out.
<><>Trying to help popular insurgents topple unpopular dictators does not guarantee anything better.
<><> Propping up dictators with military aid is both odious and counterproductive.
<><> Keeping clear of maniacal regimes leads to either nuclear acquisition or genocide -- 16 acres of rubble in Manhattan.....(and elsewhere?)
==================================================
Keep in mind, all of this has been manipulated by the pariah neocons. These oppoetunistic ding-dongs actually had an office in the GWB WH---they alone had the secret LIST of coutries the US would invade without provocation.
The n/c's favorite sport after looting the US Treasury was kicking Repub social conservatives to the curb. McCain's Syrian proposal means they still got Repubs by the b***s.
====================================================
The neo pariahs use America's greatness for their own purposes. At the same time, Americans are not allowed to be proud of our country.
Every two-bit Mideast hellhole is allowed to put THIR country's interest first--particularly over the interests of our precious country.
America is NEVER allowed to protect its own interests AND the interests of American citizens.
CASE IN POINT Americans are paying plenty at the pump solely b/c of these two-bit Mideast dunderheads. Americans are being extorted, forced to pour trillions into these mudholes.......our "reward" is to pay at the pump.
Look at 'em---Mideast jerks with a total lack of self-esteem, in the WH, demanding trillions of US tax dollars to "feel good about themselves."
The stupids know where they can put their lack of self-esteem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.