Was the idea of helping get rid of despotic rulers in the middle east actually counterproductive

[Beer Snob-50]

to our national interests? I feel that while these were bad men who terrorized and killed their own, they usually helped keep down the groups who were against the united states interest.

[unblock]

1. that's been the rationale for supporting rotten dictators in the first place. the problem is

it has an awful lot to do with why these groups hate us.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. If the result is an Islamic state, it is certainly a step backwards for the citizens of that nation

and the rest of us. We do not need any more theocracies.

[aranthus]

5. True, but sometimes you need to walk through the fire to get to the other side. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. Can you name one recent islamic state that has emerged from that drak?

[zipplewrath]

3. The devil you know

What you are alluding to is the policy we followed through much of the cold war, of supporting dictators who would be on our side, against the Soviet Union. That approach gave us the Taliban, and OBL. It also gave us the Iranian revolution and the whole situation we now find ourselves.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" turns out to be a short sighted foreign policy approach. Supporting peaceful self determination is the other option. I'd suggest we actually give that a try for a bit.

[leveymg]

4. If the US really wants to destroy al-Qaeda, just go after the foreign fighters now inside Syria

Jihadists -- al-Qaeda, Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood -- are rushing into Syria from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere within the region after fatwa was declared by 107 Sunni clerics. Here's an opportunity to identify and eliminate hundreds of them, but we won't because it would offend the Saudis who are funding this holy war.

Gee, didn't this happen before (scratches head)? Naw . . . What could possibly go wrong with coordinating covert operations with terrorists?