With all the useless drivel about WMDs and waterboarding, its important to step back in time thirty years and remember that in the 80s the U.S. had no presence in the Mid East, no relationship with any leaders in the region (friend or foe), and no economic ties to the oldest and richest region in the world. At that time the U.S. and Russia were at odds, Afghanistan was in a tug-of -cold-war for power and conflicts were popping up in other regions with no ability for either superpower to intervene without the threat of escalation.
It would have been hard to imagine that a mere three decades later Russia would have collapsed, regional conflicts (like Kosovo and Bosnia) would be resolved by occupation alone with regional forces like NATO, and the U.S. would have divisions of troops, a permanently stationed navy and an entire wing of the airforce imbedded in three mid-eastern countries. Numerous former enemies (such as Ghadaffi) have given up terrorism and current threats, such as Iran, understand that if they misbehave they will suffer the instant wrath of U.S. retaliation (or preemptive strike).
Even with the terrorist attacks, the promise of regional economic growth by the American presence is worth the price for world stability. This may seem callous but, again, America is not positioned to invade. Its presence, as with Bosnia, is meant to stabilize. Part of the current instability has existed for thousands of years. Under the U.S. umbrella, new borders may be drawn, trade may begin with former enemies and the standard of living can elevate to western levels.
Over time freedom can grow- throughout history the most stubborn despotic societies have converted to modified democracies. Germany, Japan, Russia and others have built democratic societies after dictatorial or fuedal pasts. This will take time but most forget that even the U.S. had to go through a brutal civil war before it could evolve into a true free society. Again, so many are cynical of America's motives but there is ample precedent for our history of occupation and nation building that shows great results (the Marshall Plan , Germany and Japan). In retrospect I would have been more comfortable if our leaders had been honest with us from the beginning, " We are invading Iraq to kick some ass, create stability, help them build a free society and get the hell outta there!"
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Pessimism Be Damned, Glass in Iraq Is Still Half Full
Categories:
Afghanistan,
Cold War,
Ghadaffi,
Iran,
Iraq,
Marshall,
Preemptive,
WMD
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A refreshing post. I agree that America's position in the world needs to be viewed from a 'stabilizing' prespective. Regarding Iraq, a stable Iraq, without a ruthless dictator at the helm that subjugates the majority of his people, is crucial to US national security. Our role now should be to assist the Iraqis until they can get on their own feet and have a functioning democracy for all, which will translate to a stable rock in the heart of the Middle East.
I think that what you underline in your post, that freedom and democracy has flourished in once despotic states (Germany, Japan) is important to note. None of these transitions was easy, but they all served to stabilize regions and serve America's interests, because democracies do not historically go to war with one another.
I do have to note that your opening paragraph is a bit off, as the US has had a presence and relations with the Middle East since at least the 1940s. We supported the creation of Israel in 1948, we aided them in the Yom Kippur war against Egypt and Syria in the 1970s, and we helped the Afghan mujahideen fight the Russians in the Afghan-Soviet war in the 1980s (which unfortunately spawned many anti-American terrorists like bin Laden). So we have had a presence in the Middle East since we assumed status as the world's only superpower after WWII.
It's very difficult to hear someone compare The Marshall Plan to the Iraq Surge, when, in fact, there is no comparison. The US entered WWII because of a brutal and deadly attack on Americans on soil. It was not a war of choice, a preemptive attack on a country with no real ability or desire to attack us in our own country. And, Nazi Germany had invaded many of our allies by that time.
(and for those who may be tempted to argue that Iraq and al-Qaeda were somehow linked and that al-Qaeda attacked on 9/11, please read this:
Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda A Military/Pentagon report GWB is trying very hard to suppress.)
In addition, the Marshall Plan was not an "occupation" plan and did not involve an unending occupation. The Marshall Plan occurred after the war actually ended, and was purely and simply an economic plan, which provided economic assistance, not an occupying army acting as civil war police.
The Occupation of Iraq has been a human and an economic disaster, and our role in the world is not to invade other sovereign nations just to kick ass to create our form of stability or free society. That can only happen when the people of a country actually want freedom and democracy, and are willing to fight for it themselves, something we have not seen in Iraq, and doubt we will see for as long as our people are dying for an occupation.
I do have to comment on the new Terror and Iraq report you mention in your post. Did you read the report? This is despicable reporting by ABC News which doesn't mention the report's countless links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. And their headline reads "Report Shows NO Link Between Saddam and Al-Qaeda"! Well then what about these taken straight from the report:
"Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."
"Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."
Now, this in now way means that the report says or even implies Hussein was behind 9/11 or directly coordinated or assisted Al Qaeda's terrorists plans, but they do clearly show a link between the two, and shows that Saddam supported terrorist agencies.
While I did not have time in my day to read the full report, the above are just excerpts that fellow outraged bloggers posted to denounce ABC's journalistic ignorance. To make the headline NO LINK is absolutely absurd and irresponsible. I mean, did the editors read the fucking report before making it a story and posting it on their website?!?! Jesus.
Post a Comment