A History of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East - By Juan Cole

[La_Serpiente]

A History of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

The ambitious aim of the American war in Iraq—articulated by Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and other neoconservative defense intellectuals—was to effect a fundamental transformation in Middle East politics. The war was not—or not principally—about finding weapons of mass destruction, or preventing alliances with al Qaeda, or protecting the Iraqi population from Saddam’s terror. For U.S. policy makers the importance of such a transformation was brought home by the events of September 11, which challenged U.S. strategy in the region by compromising the longstanding U.S. alliance with Saudi Wahhabis. In response to this challenge, the Bush administration saw the possibility of creating a new pillar for U.S. policy in the region: a post-Baathist Iraq, dominated by Iraqi Shiites, which would spark a wave of democratization across the Middle East.

But the Bush administration badly neglected the history of the group they wanted to claim as their new ally. Who are the Iraqi Shiites? And how likely are they to support democracy or U.S. goals in the region? To address these questions, we will first need some background.

more...

A History of US Foreign Policy in the Middle East

[ronatchig]

1. The incompetence of the Bushites

grows more obvious with each piece of factual information one gets.
It is as if the neocons feel they can lie their way out of fifty years of mistakes in the middle east. It boggles the mind to the point of asking what is the heart of the neocon vision.
Are these people seeking a return to middle ages feudalism? or simply the destruction of the world?

[Harrison82]

2. About the war...

No there were no WMDs as we were led to believe. I support the concept of the war if not the execution, because it IS the duty of the US to free people from murderous dictators. I am well aware that we have propped them up in the past but that is not an argument for not toppling Saddam. Yes North Korea is worse but lets be realistic, a war there would be far more difficult. The only problem with our occupation is that many of our military leaders have chosen to treat all Iraqis as suspects. While this may have reduced casulties in the short term, it is costing us what Iraqi support we had to begin with.
There have been notable exceptions of some intelligent and innovative Army commanders. In addition the USMC has released a plan for their takeover of the Sunni triangle that includes a great deal of implied criticism for the Army's techniques, many of which were taken from Israel of all places( I mean COME ON, the Israelis? Yeah theres a great success to copy). The Marines intend to go in with smaller more accurate arms as opposed to opening up with heavy or medium machine guns and taking out the shooter as well as civilians in the way. They will also not be destroying houses as some Army units have done (another wonderful failed tactic from the Israelis). This reduced use of firepower may well result in increased Marine casualities but then they are known for accepting larger casualties than the Army in order to accompolish the mission. Lets just hope it is not to late, and God bless the US Marines. I still hold out hope that this just might work.

[Darranar]

3. I disagree...

We do not know if the war was necessary to overthrow Saddam, because instead of trying to overthrow him with minimal violence, Bush invented this junk about weapons of mass destruction in order to seize control of Iraq's oil reserves.

There are some things, however, that ARE known:

1. In 1991, under the encouragement of the US, the people of Iraq rebelled against Saddam. Bush I refused to give them aid, and allowed Saddam to slaughter them fully although he could have stopped it. Why?

2. The sanctions enacted against Iraq, though they certainly weakened saddam's military, had a devestating effect on the Iraqi people. It also reinforced the sentiment that the outside world was vile and Saddam was their only protector from this, therefore stregthening Saddam's power.

It is unknown what would have happened if the sanctions had been removed, to be replaced with humanitarian organizations with more interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people than desires to make saddam embrace US hegemony in the middle east. It is unknown what would have happened if resistance organizations in Iraq had been stregthened, supported, and encouraged. Would it not have been better if Saddam was overthrown by his own people, with less bloodshed and less cost to the US?

None of the major representatives of the Iraqi people seem willing to cooperate with the US. Resistance strikes are continuing and US soldiers are dying. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been butchered. The Iraqi people are not happy with the occupation, though they were happy over Saddam's overthrow and capture.

They have reason not to be happy with the occupation. The US is "rebuilding" Iraq by strategically giving contracts to US firms so that they can enter Iraq and begin to dominate its industries. It is hoped that once the warped sovereignty they wish to turn over to the Iraqi people to benefit the masses is turned over, the result will be a neocolonial state with corporate dominance of the government. This will be even more likely if US and/or British troops remain in Iraq past the time of transfer, as seems likely for reasons of "security."

[number6]

4. Big job

"it IS the duty of the US to free people from murderous dictators"

well will be paying extremely high taxes for that empire..
and need a very large Army ..