|
If you take even a casual look back at the U.S. government's history in the Middle East, it's not a pretty picture, generally. The bottom line is that we have consistently supported "stability" at whatever cost. As long as the countries kept the oil flowing and didn't attack Israel to seriously, we have generally been content with whatever government the various nations there had. Dictatorships, monarchies, whatever. Stability has been our goal, not some higher goal.
When we've tried to step in to alter things, our success rate has been pretty dismal. We don't do well in trying to manipulate government in Islamic countries. Generally, we hurt, rather than help ourselves when we try such manipulation.
So, today, the popular unrest has shifted to Egypt, where we've long supported a stable, if unpleasant regime in that country. There's an uprising there right now, with advocates of a more democratic government and advocates of an Islamic state both rising up against the current, U.S.-backed government.
Will we meddle in this, too? There's a good chance we will officially, and we'll probably attempt to shore up Mubarak and try to maintain the stability of Egypt. Remember the Shah of Iran? It didn't work in Iran, and now we have a distinctly hostile government there. Whenever we mess around with Middle Eastern governments, it seems to backfire and end up with a result we don't much like.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, we're not just messing around. We have troops there, and both countries have ineffective and corrupt pseudo-democratic governments in place that we're attempting to shore up. We're leaving Iraq now, slowly, and it won't be all that long before we start withdrawing from Afghanistan. Not soon enough, but not that long, in historical terms. What will happen? Well, our meddling probably won't result in anything we'll enjoy, and traditional power struggles will resume. Many of these nations aren't unified by much more than some artificial borders, anyhow, so turmoil is always in place with one tribal faction or another religious sect fighting with the others for control.
In Egypt, something's happening. Perhaps we should not interfere as we have done so unsuccessfully so many times in the past. Perhaps we should let the people of Egypt work it out for themselves and let their government reach its own level. We don't seem able to figure out what's going to work the best in the Middle East. It's not surprising, either. Here we are in the U. S., with a government formed by a motley bunch of Calvinists and Deists, secularized for the most part, and relatively stable. What do we know about Islam? Very little, but that's the dominant religious and cultural reality in most of the Middle East. We're not likely to be able to even identify what will produce the best government there, so we're very likely to screw things up even more in the attempt.
Let the people of Egypt find their own level. Let them find whatever combination of factors that produces the most stable government of which they're capable. Right now, it's unclear what the outcome might be. I'm sure it's unclear to the Egyptians, as well. They're trying to come to some semblance of a government they can live with. Our help is not required, nor is it even desired by the people of Egypt. They want to work it out for themselves.
Will the process be ugly? Most likely. Will it be violent? Probably. Most political upheaval and revolution is. Can we stop it? Probably not. Is it our business in the first place? I don't think so, especially given our history with such things. We don't live there. We don't understand the social, religious, and cultural issues there. I believe we need to back off, try to encourage some peaceful solution if we can, and leave it to the Egyptians to figure out how to govern their society.
If you disagree with this, I encourage you to see my signature line.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
