Welcome back again, my readers!
This week's topic, as obvious in the title, is the role of the U.S. in the broad Middle East region, from past actions to what needs to be done now and in the future. This week's quote was inspired by me, who upon falling while walking on the sidewalk on Friday, tried to make myself look better to my peers by saying that. It did garner a laugh, so I view my efforts as a success.
Now, to the topic at hand. The USA has played a big part in developments in the Middle East for a long time, mostly since the state of Israel was created in 1948. Ever since then, our two countries have maintained strong economic and diplomatic ties, for a bilateral benefit. The relationship benefits Israel by giving it strong, ensured trade, easy technological access and advancement opportunities, and military backing from a large, powerful country. For the US, it gives a foothold in an important geographic region, as well as making the US look good for protecting the homeland of one of the world's smallest religions, Judaism. For those that are blind and deaf, this does cause problems for both parties as well. Countries that oppose Israel take harsh stances against the US, sometimes causing war. Decreasing favor for American policy rides strong in the Arab-dominated region. And aid to Israel is a burden on the US every year. But no matter what, it is obvious by now that this relationship won't be changing too soon. The US will consistently support Israel and an eventual two-state policy in the foreseeable future. And while Israel depends on the US, because the relationship is fairly static there is not too much I can say on it, other than I support it. I also support the two-state policy, although I'm not entirely sure that now is the time for it to be enacted. But more on that belief next week.
As for the rest of the region, there is much to cover. I'll start with our wars in the Middle East. Currently, we still retain troops in Afghanistan because our war there is not yet over. Our troops in Iraq will all be pulled out by the end of the year, officially ending our operations there. Drone strikes continue in Pakistan and Yemen, along with spying missions done on Iran. I'm pretty sure that all this shows that we like having military presence in the Middle East. Whether we deny it or not, we always maintain some shadow in the region. In times of peace, that specter is present in the military support to Israel. At other times, it shows in our attacks on suspected terrorists or dissidents in different countries. Unfortunately, this doesn't garner us any good tidings. The constant watchdog effect our military pressures on Middle Eastern countries only serves to hurt our image in the eyes of the populace. Who among us would feel safer with troops on the streets and army aircraft overhead? I do believe that our pulling out of Iraq is a good idea, but we need to do more. We need to leave Afghanistan. It's also become obvious recently that Pakistan probably doesn't want us in their airspace (http://www.digtriad.com/news/national/article/203331/175/US-Troops-Vacate-Pakistan-Airbase). And while Yemen struggles to consolidate civilian power now that Saleh has stepped down, I'm sure that soon enough they'll want us to end drone strikes in their country too. However, we still have conservatives who always maintain a stance saying that we must stay in Afghanistan, and that drone strikes are the only way to get rid of Al-Qaeda operatives effectively. But does that truly matter? You cannot kill off an idea like terrorism. It's impossible, and it has been proven. Despite our best efforts, we could not kill off communism, even after decades of trying. We also cannot kill off terrorism. As such, no matter how many drones we fly we will never destroy Al-Qaeda outright. Even if we did, terrorism would still exist. It simply wouldn't have a brand name. And why do we need a presence in Afghanistan? It's pretty clear that our army does not ensure peace in the country, whether we wish it would or not. Sure, if we leave they may adopt a government that we don't completely love. But honestly, it is not our place to control them. If it has the support of the people, then who are we to tear down their system?
Should we stay to maintain a foothold in the region? Hell no. I seriously doubt us taking action in China, India, or Turkmenistan. We have no real reason to do so. As for Iran, if we really wanted a stable place to attack from we could just ship missiles to Saudi Arabia. We are, after all, allies. If we are going to take action on Iran, it is best made from a place that already hates them to some extent and has a relatively stable, powerful system. Also on Iran, we have had some serious tensions for a long time. The main reasoning for this hatred was the US support of the Shah of Iran (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0501i.asp) during most of the 1950's through the 1970's. An instigated coup against Mohammad Mossadegh, a democratically elected Iranian leader, was the start of this. Afterwards, the Shah took power, beginning a harsh reign that was in US favor at the time, mostly due to the Shah's opposition to communism. This was the Cold War, after all. Unfortunately, this was the biggest mistake the US has ever made in the Middle East. Growing resentment towards the Shah and the US peaked in 1979 when a massively popular Islamic revolution gripped the enormous country. The Shah fled, allowing Ruhollah Khomeini to sweep religious conservatives into power. Soon, the Iranian hostage crisis followed, deepening the hatred and mistrust further. Nothing got better during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, when Reagan provided support for both sides in a "double containment" effort (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melody-moezzi/the-debris-of-dual-contai_b_203920.html) that showed both countries just how much we were a threat to them. It's no wonder Hussein didn't like us. This made things with Iran just worse and worse. Things got no better when Khomeini died and the even more conservative Khamenei took the reins, conducting Iran to where it is today. My stance on what has happened between us is that we are to blame for Iran's hatred of us. We have done terrible things there for a long time, and there is no way to repay Iranians for our sins against them. And for any Iranians reading this, I know my apology doesn't mean much, but I can ensure its sincerity. Someday, perhaps, we'll learn to treat Iran a little better, and maybe things will start improving there and towards the US.
Lastly, I'd like to address US support of dictators and the Arab Spring in the Middle East. We've got a bad record on the former account. Believe it or not, we supported Gaddafi for a time (http://links.org.au/node/2179), while also bombing the crap out of Libya simultaneously. But when people started rioting just this year, we declared support for rebel groups. A similar case applies to Egypt (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/01/201113020265198814.html). We have propped up what we considered beneficial to us in the Middle East, claiming often that it was in the name of democracy. For those of us familiar with history, you should know that the Middle East got little democracy for most of the 20th century. Not much changed with the new century, either, until the Arab Spring. This is something I view as a high note. While I hate what we've been doing in the Middle East for decades, the fact that we supported the Arab Spring is a good thing. When the people finally did start calling for true democracy we stood with them, an accomplishment on our part. We rarely stand for anything that threatens our power in the region. Yet when faced with a choice, I'm glad we made the right one this time.
Well, that is all for this week, and I hope you enjoyed reading. If you want to leave a comment, question, or anything else you can do so in the comments section. You can also contact me using Facebook, twitter, or my email at zerospintop@live.com. This is SuperJew McLovin, signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment