So We Overthrow Yet Another Dictatorship In The Middle East

If Bill Clinton was a president in search of a legacy, then the war on terror may very well be a legacy in search of a president. George W. Bush, seizing the opportunity, would like nothing better than to be known as the president who led the charge against terrorism, but that is no reason to invade Iraq.

I know that once the bombs start falling the official justification from Washington will be that it is in the best interests of the United States to bring about a regime change in Iraq by taking out Saddam Hussein, and to cripple his ability to manufacture weapons of mass destruction, thereby eliminating a major threat to not only our country but the world. So far, every justification the Bush administration has floated has fallen upon deaf ears in every nation but ours.

Of course, when all is said and done, it won't matter what the reason is, just as long as Hussein winds up dead, imprisoned, or exiled on some remote arctic ice flow. Once the "Conquer Iraq" box is checked on Bush's Presidential To-Do List, he will begin working on the next phase of the operation—nation-building.

Given the number of "terrorist-friendly" regimes throughout the world, the president, who heavily criticized the Clinton administration for turning military missions into nation-building exercises, has the potential of going down in history as one of the greatest nation-builders of all time. Afghanistan was merely the first of such exercises.

President Bush virtually said as much when he addressed U.S. troops at Fort Campbell, KY., last Thanksgiving:

Considering that most Islamic governments have questionable policies regarding issues like tolerance and diversity, the president's remarks clearly leave the door open for more regime changes in the future.

There are those in the current administration who believe that in order to make the U.S. safe from terrorism, we must first make the world safe from terrorism. And what better way to do that than to overthrow one "terrorist-friendly" regime after another, and install governments we can more easily control? The problem with that kind of reasoning is that we have tried it before—without much success, I might add.

The current political turmoil in the Middle East stands as a monument to previous U.S. nation-building exercises in that region. In 1948, for example, the United States helped depose the government of Syria, which quickly became one of the most rabid anti-U.S. nations in the Middle East.

In 1953, we helped overthrow Iranian Premier Mossadeq in favor of the Shah. This fueled anti-American resentment in that country, and, when the Shah eventually fled, gave way to the Islamic fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini.

1975 saw the rise of Saddam Hussein, backed by his strongest ally at the time, the United States. Needless to say, it didn't take us long to realize that we had created a monster. When Bush the Elder invaded Iraq in 1991, it was probably—at least in part—an attempt to make up for the mistakes of the CIA a decade-and-a-half earlier.

Some would argue that it was actually a lack of nation-building that helped create the volatile powder keg that is the Middle East. I submit that it was our interference in the first place that doomed us to a chronic state of meddling in that part of the world. With nothing but failure after miserable failure over there since 1948, why should we expect anything different this time around? What assurance do we have that we won't be forced to clean up after ourselves in another 10 to 15 years? How many American lives are we willing to sacrifice in the future for the mistakes we make today?

But there is a war to be waged, and until we can determine exactly whom we are supposed to be fighting, such questions should be avoided. The government can't seem to find the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks, so it will do the next best thing and go after the one country whose leader strikes a familiar chord with the American public. Our elected officials are at least smart enough to know that it is very difficult to maintain popular support for a war in which there are no recognizable enemies.

My idea for post-war Iraq:

Divide the country amoungst our friends. If turkey supports us, give them some land. If Jordan supports us, give them some land, etc. etc. etc. If they don't support us - no land.

Dispite Monroe doctrine, take a small chunk of oil rich, gulf access land for ourselves. Put in an Air base, naval base and army base - just to make the message clear - we are here to stay. Heck, even vote the state into the union.

If you really want to be nice, set up a chunk of land as Palistine. Invite all Palistinians who are willing to leave Israel to come to Palistine proper. I'd even be willing to give them some money (take it out of Egypt's and Israel's aid) to pay for the relocation - if they will drop all claims to land, property, or greivance in Israel.

The message that you would be sending to the International community is that if you oppose the US, you risk loosing your military, your freedom (if not, your life), and your people will lose their country. The victor (US) will divide up the spoils and you, your country, your culture, and all that you have worked for; will vanish into the dust bin of history.

Let that scenario play out and then say to the International community - "You know, Iran has been supporting terrorists......". Hmmmm, I bet things would be a LITTLE different.

Just a thought

I submit that we never did any real nation building in the middle east--whatever we did to change regimes was half-assed cold war maneuvering.

Now, if you want to talk nation building, let's talk post-WWII Japan and Germany. That's the pattern for success in Iraq: Utterly crush them. Occupy them. Install pro-US government with useful structures to prevent drift back into dictatorship. Hang around several years and help rebuild the nation. After a decade or so, we have a long term, stable ally...maybe not perfect (Germany and Japan aren't exactly as cosy with us as Britain) but way better than replacing dictator x with dictator y.

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.