Home
About
Apple
Career
Experiences
General
Graphics
Hardware
History
Humor
Interface
Networking
OS
Opinion
Politics
Programming
Quotes
Reviews
Security
Software
Sound
Thought
Web
Cheap International
Airfare Online
Wachovia online banking
Get Free Coupons Online
Finding the perfect
discount hot tub
Payday Loans
Stock Trading Online
Stuffed Animals
Smart Investing Online
|
|
Foreign Policy
The U.S. versus the world?
By: David K. Every
|
Kind:
Created:
Size: |
Article
2003-02-25
15 KB |
|
|
 |
 re you ready for this, someone actually asked me my opinion on the U.S. actions as regards to Iraq, middle east foreign policy, or the world. That's like throwing lit matches at a distillery. Well, it isn't like I don't have any opinions; so I figure what the heck - let's run with it.
         
First, the Middle East has been a quagmire for thousands of years; in fact, since the beginning of recorded history for man. Of course most places have some of that as well, it is just that most places have gone past it, and the mid-east is still in the middle of it.
Do I think we should stick our noses in it? We should get involved as little as possible. We are no more welcome meddling in their affairs, than they would be in ours. The difference is we have the power to do so, and sometimes use it like bullies, and they don't like it much - imagine that.
But to really understand the mid-east, you need to understand Israel and Muslims.
     
Rough history. The area has been fought over and ruled for many hundreds of years. There were a couple factions including the Jews, the Palestinians (Muslims), and the Christians.
While the conflicts are older than this, the British took control of the region away from the Turks after WWI. Jews were immigrating to the region, and had money so were buying up land, settling and controlling the region. This caused resentment by the Muslims Palestinians (Arabs) who felt pushed around and held down by the man (or something like that). Riots, anger, killing on both sides, yada yada, we've heard it before. But a rich foreign intruders taking over their land wasn't welcomed. The Brits put some caps on Jewish immigration to cool things down a little and quiet the uppity Arabs.
After WWII, England took pity on the Jews because of the Holocaust, and was angry at some Arabs (Palestinians) because some were speaking out against the British or supporting the Germans because of what was being done in the region (Jewish immigration, meddling, etc.). The Arabs didn't like their rulers; there's a shock - and the British weren't fond of people that didn't understand their imperial wisdom or arrogance. Well in either a drunken stupor, or fit of revenge, the Brits drew up a new map of the region with the help of the U.N. Since the U.S. was seen as a power in the world and in U.N., it is seen that this was also done the help of the U.S.
The Brits got out and left a power vacuum, and left the land divided between the Jews and the Arabs. The new land was an impossible division with Arabs and Jews living side by side, or on top of each other, with huge resentments on both sides. The Palestinians and Arabs felt screwed; imagine you found a vagrant living in your back yard, and when you complained the government decided to divide up your land equally and you get the picture.
Big surprise, Arabs attacked as the British pulled out. Battles got ugly, and both sides doing bad things, killing civilians and so on. Oh goody, just what the region needed, more reasons to hate each other. Each side exaggerated the wrongs done to them at the hands of the other; and more seeds of harmony planted.
Stories about the Jews bombing and killing innocents got many Arabs to flee the region. The Jews took advantage of this and encouraged more fleeing (some at gunpoint), and took over what they could; razing or bulldozing and rebuilding as they went. The Arabs were infighting due to many border disputes after WWII, and the British had taken most of the military leadership with them. The Jews of the region had fought in WWII, and had much better training and command structure, and used that skill to take over more land/power.
The Arab countries felt the Jews had been brutal and unfair to Arabs, so expelled Jews from most Arab countries. The Israeli's returned the favor by not only taking in many of those expelled, but by not allowing the Arabs who'd fled Israel earlier, to return to their homes. More seeds of harmony planted.
One of the things that most Americans (and the world) don't understand about that region is their dedication to the exact spot on where they live. Yes, there are nomadic people; but there are also people that have had a family home or lived in the same area for thousands of years (nearly 100 generations). Their entire identities and histories are tied up in that little plot of land, and their family histories, and feuds about what has been done to them. They don't understand the concept of "just move", and they aren't going to forgive and forget. They have been born and died on that block, and have no ability to change that. And they will pass down their resentments from generation to generation. So they will keep coming back until you kill them and all their kin.
Every few years, Arabs attacked Israel or harassed them (and refused to recognize them) in order to get their land back. The Israeli's felt pressured from all sides, so became very militaristic. And each time Israel was attacked, they seemed to oppress the Arabs in their land a little more, as well as taking over a little more land. Which angered the Arabs even more, and a nice downward spiral kept perpetuating.
Muslims have a spiritual based belief in defending the downtrodden; it is a responsibility to God. They are selectively seeing only the Arabs of the region as downtrodden and ignoring the other side; but they do have some points. Look, the Arab world is often ignorant, biased and wrong, but they hate Israel not only for what it is, where it is, and how it was created, but also for the actions of the Israeli's. They don't dislike Jews just out of religious intolerance (though there is some of that), mostly it is about Jews sticking together and using money and military power to abuse the Arabs; in their minds anyway. A lot of it is just prejudice. A lot of it is because they kept attacking Israel and made them into the military hard-asses that they are. But it is very complex and ugly; and it isn't like Israel has done much to soothe the situation, and the Arabs have valid complaints. And each year, things keep getting better for the Israeli's and worse for the Arabs of the region, while the world sits by and does nothing.
So the Arabs believe in defending those that are abused by the power mongers. They feel the Israeli's are the bullies of the region. Then add the ego humiliation of .1% of the landmass being able to bully the other 99.9%, and you can get an inkling of the resentment. So whose fault is that? Well, the U.S. has been sponsoring the Israeli's and is an even bigger power; why not resent us too?
Since the U.S. has subsidized Israel, the Arabs feel that Israel is so dependent on the U.S., that if the U.S. asked them to stop, they would. But we don't make the Israeli's stop; so obviously we don't mind the abuse of Arabs. This colors the whole middle-east views of the U.S. In their minds, we're just meddling tyrants that don't give a shit about abuses done to Arabs/Muslims; and they see proof of that every single day in their news. They believe if you have power, you have to use it responsibly; and since we aren't stopping Israel, then we aren't using it responsibly.
A lot of it isn't about what happened in the 1970s, or 1950s; much of it goes back forever. We're already neck deep in it, just because we've thrown money at both side, and now the U.S. wants to get involved in that more? We're sowing the seeds of hatred against us for not just the next 50 years, but for the next 500. And hatred on both sides; it isn't like the Israeli's love us for our meddling either.
So now, throw in Iraq (and Iran and Pakistan and Afghanistan and our history in the region), and look at things from an Arab perspective. We aren't seen as liberators of Kuwait - we are seen as imperialist meddlers who let oppression continue for the sake of oil. Arabs and Muslims think we are amoral or immoral, because our foreign policies reflect that. Kill each other, do whatever you want; but if you risk our oil supply, then we'll get involved. Then we'll deny that's the true motivation; while ignoring other far bigger oppressions.
Hundreds of thousands or millions of Arabs/Muslims can be killed or oppressed in various wars (like Iran/Iraq, Lebanon, any war with Israel, or Iraq against it's own people), and no big deal. But when a couple of American buildings get knocked down, and a few thousand Americans get killed, or when an American ally (Kuwait) gets taken over, well then that's excuse enough to invade other countries and kill more Arabs. And then Americans wonder why Arabs hate them and don't trust them?
Unprovoked aggression
Now, let's look at what's going on. We tell the world you can't attack another sovereign country first. Then what are we doing? We're making up excuses and rationalizations for why we can attack a sovereign country first. They understand hypocrisy. While the U.S. has used unprovoked aggression in the past (see Spanish American war, etc.), at least we've had a pretense. This is the weakest we've ever had.
I don't like Saddam or Iraq's policies; but it is their country. Just because my neighbor has a gun that he might use, is not an excuse for me to break into his house and take his guns away from him. We understand this in domestic policy, but choose to argue differently about foreign policy. And ironically, Europeans who seems to generally think of that as acceptable domestic policy, choose to see it as unacceptable foreign policy. Go figure. This moral ambiguity is leading us down a rather slippery slope. "We are scared of them" is not justification for war, even for the U.S. Get a real excuse!
Provoked aggression
I do fully understand the threats; and do agree that nerve agents, bio, and nukes, in the hands of a corrupt and dangerous regime can be justification (or at least a rationalization), to take them out before they try to take us out. However, to do so, there needs to be more than the threat that they might have something. We need to convince the world that we are living by our own credo's, and not going to attack any country/leaders we don't like because of what they might have.
So if the U.S. releases information that details the exact threats and offers evidence, or if the U.N. can detail the lies of Saddam, then we have a rationalization for our actions. If not, then we should keep spying and trying to get the U.N. to spy for us -- but we should NOT go to war without being able to convince a lot of people that there is some justification for it (other than a down economy). These people not only include many foreign countries, but also our internal peaceniks.
Peaceniks and consensus
There are foreign and domestic ignorant "peace at any price" and head-in-the-sand types, as well as "the U.S. is never right" types that we'll never be able to convince -- but there are many others that are fence sitters that will cool down a little with just a little evidence. The heads of many states will at least understand the action if we offer some proof. Without it, they will resist this action, and make the action cost far more than what it is worth. We don't need another Vietnam, let alone a world wide one with religion, oil, and other things involved. We need to build consensus and we need more proof to do that.
Until we have evidence that Saddam has either directly funded terrorism abroad (or specifically the groups that attacked us), or that he has been lying to the U.N., then we don't have justification to go to war. We supposedly know both things; fine -- prove it, and we can get on our self-righteous way. But saying we "know" isn't good enough; convince at least a few of them first.
Look, we probably do know and have some evidence; but don't want to give it out because it will compromise our intelligence sources. Tough. I realize those lives are worth something, but so are the lives of those we're going to kill in a war. Make the public case first; state why we're going in, what we're going to do, and when/why/how we're going to get out. Never just use the "we'll attack first, then show you proof later". We haven't met the burden of proof for many hawks, let alone the doves. GET THE PROOF FIRST! If we don't, we're going to be more hated throughout the world; "There goes that imperialist U.S. again, killing millions for oil prices or to get their way".
The costs of war
Even with a real excuse, we're going to be hated for invading Iraq. Even if the results are good, we're going to be seen as perfectly willing to kill innocent (and guilty) Arabs, for oil and power. We're seen as meddling oppressors, and how in the hell is this going to help that image? Sure, we win a short-term battle (or "war") but what about the longer term one with our perception in the region or world? Is this act going to help or hinder with that image? What are the costs of this action? If we won by taking out Saddam, but turned Saudi or other countries in the region against us, would that be a long-term win?
Historically, our foreign policy has been pretty myopic, with the results of making many short-term friends and long-term enemies. Not a huge win, if you ask me. I'm not worried about 21M in Iraq -- but I am more concerned about the other half a billion to 2 billion in that area of the world. Not to mention the 3B people in the entire world, and how they will see us and interact with us in the future. Is it worth winning this battle if we lose the real war (long term influence throughout the world?) So far, I think we're pissing off more than we're convincing - the military war will be relatively easy, lets fight the PR war as well.
Look, the costs of wars have always been much more than we thought at the time. The cost of the Civil war was federalization, bank robberies, a change in the character of the nation, a rift in our nation, political assassinations, and so on. We're still feeling the effects of that war around us; just most of us are ignorant as to the causes or catalysts. WWII gave us much more federalization and loss of freedoms, loss of lives, and so on, and most of all, gave us the ignorant self-righteous tampering policies that have made us one of the most universally hated nations in the world, not to mention policies that took us from one of the more free countries, to one of the more bureaucratic and over-regulatory. Even the Twin-Towers and Afghanistan and Iraq in this new war, are just the aftermath of the last Iraq war.
And I'm not only worried about the external costs of this war, but the internal ones. Already, just the excuse of this war or terrorism is giving politicians an excuse to erode our freedoms further (look at some of the internet and privacy laws). Just what Politicians need, another Orwellian "brotherhood rebellion" to attack and use as an excuse for doing what they do to us.
The older I get, the more jaded I get, and the more I want to leave other people alone, rather than climbing into their shorts and trying to micromanage their affairs. I understand why the politicians want to meddle in other affairs (because it distracts people from them failing to fix their own problems); but why does the public go along with it?
If you can't do it right, then don't do it all; or there's no problem that can't be made worse with poor planning and execution. The more we do these stupid things, without getting our ducks in a row first or figuring out our exit strategies, the more I think that the Monroe doctrine (isolationism) would have kept us out of this shit in the first place.
  
 Format for Printing  Mail
|
|
|
|
