Posted on 05/10/2003 6:08:57 AM PDT by Lyford
It's all very complicated. But those arguments miss the larger point. The talk of squandering is fundamentally misconceived. Bush did not squander the world's goodwill. He spent it, which is not at all the same thing.
...
In short, the United States has been on the wrong side of Arab history for almost five decades, and it is not doing much better than the Soviets. The old policy had no future, only a past. It was a dead policy walking. September 11 was merely the death certificate.
Bush is no sophisticate, but he has the great virtue -- not shared by most sophisticates -- of knowing a dead policy when he sees one. So he gathered up the world's goodwill and his own political capital, spent the whole bundle on dynamite, and blew the old policy to bits. However things come out in Iraq, the war's larger importance is to leave little choice, going forward, but to put America on the side of Arab reform.
Interesting analogy. I've never thought of it that way, but the author's right. The Arab world was stunned when the mighty and invincible Saddam fell so easily. The statue in the central Baghdad square has become their twin towers.
But the point missed here is in this sentance.
In both Iran and Iraq, Washington supported or tolerated corrupt and brutal regimes, with disastrous results in both places. Saudi Arabia has been a different kind of disaster, propagating anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and Islamic extremism all over the world. Syria and Libya are disasters. Lebanon is between disasters. Egypt is a disaster waiting to happen. Maybe Jordan is, too.
Can someone tell me who supplied those bolded countries with arms? Hint: It wasn't the US.
In general I agree with your point about arms. However, the U.S. did support the monarchy of Iran, in part because it gave us access to its border with the USSR. Iran received (among other goodies) F-5 and F-14 fighters, and has managed to keep some flying despite 24 years of not having "manufacturer approved" spare parts available.
But I think the author's point was that, in the past, our support for regimes in the middle east was not based on the principles of democracy and freedom, but containing the USSR. Twenty years from now, will libs be playing the same obstruction game on the U.S. by saying things like, "we were the ones who armed the (Saudis Pakistanis Turks Jordainians Egyptians Germans), so we don't have the moral authority to decry their actions now"? If we blindly keep on supporting (or tolerating) these despots, the answer will be YES.
My point is that with many of these regimes we not only did not support them, we wanted them gone even at the highth of the Cold War. So to say that we supported them is a lie.
You can not ignore the fact that the USSR was arming them and supplying them with training.
The Iraqi Army for example was based on the Soviet model. (Which is why Russia is taking the defeat so personally.)
Our position on most of these countries has not changed at all.
Point.
Counterpoint, who armed the Ayatollah's who came afterwards?
And which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?
And that is exactly why the America-hating left, yes, that includes Democrats, hate it and hate Bush. They want America down, not up, so they can replace it with any kind of reorganization that puts them and their failed policies at the top. They will support anything or anyone, no matter how despicable, that is against America.
I agree with you on this in regards to many of the ME nations. Egypt, Iraq, Syria, post-rev Iran, were all client states to the Soviets during the Cold War. However, my point still remains that we support, to varying degrees, nondemocratic regimes: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, pre-rev Iran, and Pakistan come to mind. With the end of the Cold War and aftermath of 911, we need to re-evaluate our alliances with these nations. I'm old enough to remember the Iranians storming the embassy gates after the Shah left Iran.
Counterpoint, ... which was a better government for Iran, the monarchy or the Ayatollahs?
My hope is that Iran can find for itself a better government than either of these choices.
I disagree with this, however.
In fairness, the war's critics feared a quagmire not so much during the fight as after, and they had a point.
Have we already forgotten? Millions of Iraqis killed by US Bombs. Thousands of dead American troops. Bagdad surrounded and thousands starved to death. A defiant Saddam, lobbing WMD at us. And all for some oil. Haliburton and oil. Bush the evil corporate oil man. This is the rant I remember the leftists making. It was anti-freedom, anti-American, anti-capitalism. And they were SO wrong. So now, with them proved wrong, should we believe them when they shout about all the numerous perils about the aftermath of the war and occupation and reform? NO! It is a long row to hoe, but with guts and determination, we'll get it done. Don't count on the left to roll up their sleeves to help. They'll continue to whine and snipe. I can only hope people see through this.
OK, I'll entertain you. I work with a guy who is of Persian ancestry. He is old enough to remember living in Tehran, and he says life there was great. If he were still there, he would be living like a prince. However, he left Iran on the last Pan Am flight from Tehran. I suspect he is romanticizing things to some extent. My coworker definitely thinks Iran was better off with the Shah.
He did tell me one story I take at face value. His uncle went to mosque for the five daily proayers, and sent my coworker to Koran school as a youngster. At the same time, this uncle told him to never believe that mumbo-jumbo. Uncle's observance of Muslim rituals were just for show, to keep him out of trouble with Muslim society.
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.