Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The worst possible scenario for "US interests" is for democracy to become an actual goal of Middle Eastern nations. Not just democracy but democratic governments that refuse to play by Washington rules.
Looks like the CIA has a big assignment coming up.
The worst possible scenario for "US interests" is for democracy to become an actual goal of Middle Eastern nations. Not just democracy but democratic governments that refuse to play by Washington rules.
This has always bothered me, that just because we bring a democratic form of government does not mean it will be a friendly one to America. But then again, we are talking about the Mid East, so some form of dictatorship or a theocracy will be along soon enough to subvert the will of the people and rule over them.
Looks like the CIA has a big assignment coming up.
Despite serious budget concerns and everyone in Washington in a panic over what exactly they are going to end up cutting, I suspect that the CIA has been given the green light for all the overtime it needs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha
This has always bothered me, that just because we bring a democratic form of government does not mean it will be a friendly one to America. But then again, we are talking about the Mid East, so some form of dictatorship or a theocracy will be along soon enough to subvert the will of the people and rule over them.
Well this is a fact of life we just have to deal with and the fact that it is suggested that it is bothersome should be an indication of just how entrenched we are in foreign policy of interventionism and to use the phrase tongue and cheek, policing the world.
You are most likely right in that even if we all woke up tomorrow and the Middle East was transformed into a bloom of democracies, that it is only a matter of time before some upstart or dictatorial type bent on personal ambitions over throws some government. We see this almost weekly in Africa and we barely raise an eyebrow.
Ethics aside, for many years the US policy was one by proxy, in which the CIA would work its magic and help foment governments, even tyrants, but ones that were friendly to us. Good or bad, like it or not, it was seen as "our best interest". Cases like the Iran-Iraq war in which we openly funded, aided and armed one side, while covertly funded, aided, and armed the other side and then let them blow each other to bits. Again, this may not be ethical but for many it was seen as progressing our national interest. Many people were willing to turn a blind eye because after all, there wasn't US boots on the ground getting ground in to hamburger like Vietnam.
Of course our intervention came with a warning from Ronald Reagan of all people who wrote in his memoirs that America should stay the hell out of the Middle East and let them grind each other in the dirt. Every administration since has ignored this and as many analyst and former CIA-military types have since pointed out that the blow back consequences may be greater than what we could gain otherwise.
At the very least we should take a serious hard look at how we progress our foreign policy and weigh the cost of interventionism to that of a more hands off approach. (which doesn't mean isolationism)
This has always bothered me, that just because we bring a democratic form of government does not mean it will be a friendly one to America. But then again, we are talking about the Mid East, so some form of dictatorship or a theocracy will be along soon enough to subvert the will of the people and rule over them.
This problem has been outside of mid-east as well. Pakistan isn't exactly in the mid-east. And Cuba definitely isn't. Mid-east is in vogue right now because of two reasons: Israel and Oil. You can trace virtually every US engagement in that region to those factors.
I just don't see "democracy" (as we know it) taking a foothold in the Middle East. It really isn't in their cultural fabric. Islam means "submission" it doesn't mean "let's take a vote" and decide.
People over there are tired of being poor and oppressed. Well, it isn't just the despots keeping them down. They need to contemplate separation of state and mosque to really move forward. They need to grow up and mature also. It's a tall order.
They can look to Iran and Saudi Arabia and figure out that theocracies are bad news, but I don't know if they will. They need to abandon their childish fixation with Israel, their support of terrorism, etc.
I mean, Israel can disappear from the map right now and they would still be miserable and poor. For decades now, their governments have been pointing the finger at Israel, and the West for their issues. They've also used their religion to keep the masses distracted while plundering their countries.
Are they going to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? I wish they would, but I doubt it.
This problem has been outside of mid-east as well. Pakistan isn't exactly in the mid-east. And Cuba definitely isn't. Mid-east is in vogue right now because of two reasons: Israel and Oil. You can trace virtually every US engagement in that region to those factors.
We could start an entirely new threat on US intervention in Central and South America.
General Omar Torrijos, Jaime Roldos Aguilera, Rene Barrientos, ring a bell, and lets not forget the attempted coup of Hugo Chavez, of which the coup plotters met with the Bush administration prior.
Despite serious budget concerns and everyone in Washington in a panic over what exactly they are going to end up cutting, I suspect that the CIA has been given the green light for all the overtime it needs.
Hill, I think that you may be stuck in a neo-con time warp. If anything, at least from I'm reading from a number of sources, this administration has taken a rather hands off approach to the what is being described as the "The Jasmine Revolution". Unlike the fall of the Shah, the U.S. nor our allies have offered safe haven for deposed president Ben Ali, there has been no public vitriol as we have all witnessed in the past regarding the fall of the Lebanese government and just today Secretary Clinton backed off a giving unqualified support to Mubarak and the government. Quite frankly, observers like middle east expert Juan Cole seem to suggest that they U.S. may be tacitly supporting the democratic movements for the first time in decades.
Goodbye Shah, hello Khomeini... I'm kinda hoping we can skip an American Embassy hostage situation, though. If such a thing transpires, it would be interesting to see how Obama deals with it. Just as Carter's term coincided with an increase in governments friendly to the Soviet Union and/or hostile to the US - thanks to Carter's antipathy to America's allies, Obama's term of office may well see the establishment of al Qaeda-friendly governments throughout the Muslim world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
