Go back in time and fix U.S. Middle East Policy

Great Debates
1

Okay, so there have been a lot of people lately saying that, while no one is blaming the U.S., they should at least learn some lessons about the mistakes they have made in the Middle East.

Okay, if you are one of the people that believes that U.S. Middle-East policy has been wrong, here’s your chance: Tell us what the U.S. should have done differently in the past. And then we’ll debate the likely consequences and see if that would have been a better way to go.

I’ll start off by saying that I can’t really find much the U.S. could have done differently. Not support Israel? I can’t see how. Not attack Saddam? That seems like it was a good thing. Continue into Baghdad and take Hussein? How? They were staging forces out of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis wouldn’t have allowed it.

So, tell us how the U.S. could have done things differently to wind up with a peaceful Middle East.

2

Well, as long as you’re issuing us all magic wands to wave and make a wish, I wish the U.S. had either kept out of the whole 1930s-1940s Israel/Zion/Palestine thing altogether, and let them figure it out for themselves, or else, if we felt we just absolutely had to get involved, then we should have given equal amounts of weapons and other assistance to both sides, and, again, let them figure it out for themselves.

3

Well, a major source of Iranian resentment against the United States was our involvement in the overthrow of populist prime minister Muhammad Mussadegh. I suppose our rationale was that he was a big Bolshie or something, but apparently he opposed the Soviets having control of Iranian oil as much as he did the British; besides, his nationalization of the oil industry was never reversed, but the Shah was returned to power as a full-blown despot. If we hadn’t supported the modernizing but tyrannical Shah the way we did, maybe we could have wound up with a moderate Iranian republic or constitutional monarchy. Certainly if the Islamic Revolution had never happened, it would have had a major impact on subsequent Middle Eastern affairs.

4

With 20/20 hindsight, it’s easy to pick out where the US has made mistakes. Heck, it was Jimmy Carter who made it a mission of his to make human rights an active part of his foreign policy. With that, he urged the Shah of Iran to improve his record by taking some steps. One of those steps was to stop (or at least reduce) the amount of censorship which was going on in Iran. That allowed for the propoganda that Khomeini was making to be widely distributed in Iran. And right there you have the seeds for the revolution that ensued.

There are too many foreign policy mistakes made in the past to go rehashing them again. What I think would serve the US in a more productive way would be the following:

  1. Remembering that “foreign policy” is an on-going and ever-changing concept. Don’t just implement a plan and then leave it which seems to be the MO. For example, we’ve had an embargo against Cuba for over 40 years. Why? We clearly have no problem dealing with communist countries (China, Vietnam, etc). Yet, Cuba seems to be singled out for an ever-lasting embargo. It certainly hasn’t weakened Fidel’s power any. The same could be said regarding the sanctions against certain Middle Eastern countries. What purpose do the sanctions against Iran and Iraq serve? I know the textbook answer is that it is due to their support of terrorism. However, I think it’s a bit short sighted to think that economic sanctions will do much to prevent the atrocities they are seeking to prevent. Since recent events have proven that sanctions don’t deter terrorist activity (Taliban controlled areas of Afghanistan have been on the US doo doo list since 1996), maybe the concept of sanctions should be scrapped. The US isn’t even enforcing the Iran-Lybia Sanctions Act (Italy just invested $1 billion in the development of Iran’s oil fields and production facilities). So why does the ILSA still exist?

  2. Secondly, I think perception goes a long way. Foreign policy is suppose to be a vehicle for how we interact with other nations. But I think that it can also help to sway public opinion in other countries which can help the US carry out its objectives. A specific example would be the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. I’m sure most Americans and Israelis feel that the foreign policy towards this area seems fair and even. However, the perception in the area is obviously quite different.
    I’m not a political expert, but maybe a little less siding with Israel would again help the US’s foreign policy in the region be more effective.

  3. And finally, no more black ops missions. These are unilateral screw-fests intended as nothing more than a one-sided win. A perfect example would be what MEB pointed out. Events like those are almost always bound to be discovered by the public and that makes anything the US says in the future lose credibility. If a country isn’t playing into the hands of US business interests, then move on. Forcing a nation to join you via devious and underhanded means will only cause a much bigger problem later.

5

Before we can ask “what the U.S. should have done differently in the past”, we should first understand what the US has done. Unless we know exactly what the US has done, there is no way to discuss what she could have done differently.

To start off with, there is a Q&A joke which goes like this:

Q: What is the difference between ET and a Yankee?
A: ET went home.

During the past 40 years, Saudi Arabia has been pumping 6 million barrels of oil per day at average price of $20 per barrel. Even if every Saudi was given $1 million each (which they weren’t), there is still over $1,000 trillion missing from the equation. Question is: Where is the money? Who got it? Hint. Hint. Look at the balance sheet of the US defense and other companies pouring useless stuff in there, rather than promoting education and political/economic savvy of the masses over the past 40 years.

Sam Stone asks “Could the US have continued into Baghdad and take Hussein? How? They were staging forces out of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis wouldn’t have allowed it”.

eheh. eheh, excuse me Sam, which Saudis wouldn’t have allowed it? You mean the ruling Royal puppets that the US has been maintaining in power against the will of the Saudi people? Do you really think those US puppets can tell the US government what to do or what not to do?

Sorry Sam, as long as you think along those lines, there is no point to discuss what the US could have done differently. Has it even occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the US shouldn’t have established a permanent presence in the area at the first place?

To make it easy for you to see the folly of the argument, just imagine if the Bangladesh government establishes a permanent presence in Nebraska to assure itself a steady and cheap supply of wheat and corn. Then comes a Bangladi in Dacca asking what could Bangladesh do differently so that Sam Stone does not have a fit.

6

$1,000 trillion. Wow. That’s a lot of money. In fact, that’s the equivalent of something on the order of the entire Gross World Product for that 40-year period.

40 x 365 x 6,000,000 x $20 = $1,752,000,000,000 ($1.752 trillion)

Which is a lot of money, but nothing like the entire economic output of the Planet Earth for the last several decades.

22,757,092 (pop. of Saudi Arabia) x $1,000,000 = $22,757,092,000,000 ($22.757 trillion, or about 13 times the actual value of Saudi oil production during the period. Actual amount each person now living in Saudi Arabia would get if the last 40 years worth of oil production was divvied up on a per capita basis: $76,986.99)

This is assuming the 6,000,000 barrels a day figure is correct (it seems to be at least in the right ballpark) and the $20 a barrel price is accurate (it sounds about right, I guess, but you’ll pardon me if I don’t entirely trust your math or statistics).

7

Agreed completely. This should be a priority for us, since you will only have resentlment from anyone who is not participating willingly in any activity, economic or otherwise. Don’t bother trying to convince anyone they will benefittt from the relationship when they can’t see the benefit.

The difficulty is that in many instances the Government of a country may in fact agree, without the full concent or understanding of the people. I believe the situation in Suadi is that the Royal family are all too happy to have the cash flowing in, but since many people don’t believe they have the true banfits, or do not like American influence in their country, they are resentful. But is this the U.S.'s burden?

What we are up agaisnt in many countries is the governments’ total repression of their own citizens, who turn around and blame their misfortune on the Great Satan. Iran, Iraq, Syria, to some extent Lybia, and Jordan have factions who profess a hatred of the U.S. but have all taken money, business, and aid from us at some point. No doubt that was also our bad.

By the way, One Cell, can you please show us exactly how the Saudi Govmt are our puppets? Willing to take our business, yes. But that’s a huge leap to make.

8

  1. We don’t overthrow Mossadegh.

  2. In the wake of the 1973 embargo, we get serious about energy conservation, and stay that way.

(After all, it’s only two things - Israel and our dependence on Middle Eastern oil - that keeps us so heavily involved in Middle Eastern affairs. So please don’t tell me this isn’t a foreign-policy question; it is - but so far, Jimmy Carter’s the only President who was willing to treat it as such.)

  1. From the beginning, we combine our firm support of Israel’s right to exist within its 1948-67 boundaries with an equally firm stand against Israeli settlements in the West Bank territory, and have the will to back it up with withdrawal of aid if necessary. We condemn violence against and torture of Arab civilians by the Israeli army and law enforcement on an equal basis with our condemnation of violence against Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorists.

  2. We don’t ‘tilt’ in anyone’s direction in the Iran-Iraq war.

  3. We provide verbal support for greater freedom of speech and increased democracy in the region, as well as elsewhere.

  4. We support the Afghan resistance to the Soviets (as we did), but stay around and help them rebuild their country after the Soviets leave.

That’ll do for now.

9

Can’t really think of anything to add, especially after Duck Duck Goose and RTFirefly’s messages. My own meager suggestions would be:

(a) Don’t get involved in Afghanistan at all – sorta an alternative to the “Help Afghanistan rebuild” idea, but hey,

and

(b) Worked more on improving American-Middle Eastern relationships in general. General support for moderate leaders, encouraged fair trade agreements, make efforts for cultural exchanges and understanding, etc. Very vague and pie-in-the-sky, I know, but it never hurts to make friends.

10

Afghanistan—Either we stand by our commitment to Afghani rebels or we forget about it altogether and let the Soviets choke on it. American nation-building in Afghanistan in 1989 would have been a humanitarian measure that would have prevented much ugliness both in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Iran—We should never have blindly supported Shah Pehlavi. Seven presidents—from Franklin Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter—were kind to the Shah. The Carter administration was the first to notice this, but by then it was far too late to pressure the Pehlavi government for any reforms. We could have done better there much sooner, probably after World War II, or before 1960, at the latest.

Further, if you step in and address the hindsight question after the fall of Pehlavi’s government, it’s safe to say we should never have sold Iran anything in the way of arms. (However, that was more of a domestic criminal issue than a foreign policy one.)

Palestine and Israel—“The bride is beautiful, but she is already married,” said a prominent Jewish pundit in 1947, foreseeing problems in the near future for the planned Jewish state in the Transjordan. Perhaps it would have been better not to have created a new state in a place where an ethnic group was already living (a.k.a. colonization), but the United States should have pushed for a recognized Palestinian state there, as well. (Granted, I also hold Great Britain accountable for the shortsighted mess in Palestine.) Two nations with Jerusalem as an open city and fixed borders for both would have solved many, many problems. Again: hindsight.

Turkey and Iraq—The United States should have stuck it out in the League of Nations and pushed for a separate Kurdish state to be carved out of the old Ottoman Empire. A separate Armenian state would have been just, too, though this would have been difficult, with the newly-formed Soviet Russia running the bulk of Armenia. Otherwise, Turkish borders are just fine.

Iraq—The United States should never have supported Saddam Hussein. Just because he was “our thug” didn’t justify supporting him. Had we not built him up, the (justified) Gulf War would never have happened.

Nejd, Hejaz, Asir, Aden, Oman, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Transjordan—In exchange for military support in World War I, Great Britain promised Sharif Hussein that they would support a Greater Arabia of sorts. Hussein took Britain up on it, made trouble for the Ottomans, but got shafted in the end. Saudi Arabia became a major force in the divided Arab world, which was just beginning to govern itself for the first time in centuries. The colonial powers—Britain, France, Italy and Spain, mostly—kept the Arab world fractured. I guess this wasn’t exactly something you could pin on the Americans, though a more forceful stance for Sharif Hussein back then would certainly helped our standing now, whether Hussein succeeded or not. Ideally, Europe and the United States should have allowed this Greater Arabia (or whatever it would have been called) to form, then pressured it to move toward a democratic government. That plan still may not have worked, but I think it would have put our hearts in the right place.

Pakistan—Simply put: stand by your friends. Sure, the Cold War’s over, but we should have stuck by Pakistan’s side. We owed them that much.

11

There we go again, checking my math rather than getting the message. Picky, picky, picky. Like many SDMB participants, your main concerns are commas, spellings and “gi’me cites”, rather than feedback and debate on the essence of the message in a post.

So, today I do not feel as generous as 3 days ago when I gave away $1 million to every man, woman, child, Indian or Paki residing in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, based on your own math, what happened to the Saudi’s $1,752 trillion? Where did the money go? Didn’t most of it get bounced back to the US while the Saudi masses were kept busy in the desert praying 5 times a day to Allah?

Did you know that hoards of Saudi secret police are regularly trained in Oklahoma so that they go back and crush any opposition against the unpopular Royal puppets kept in power with the help of the US?

To what degree the US presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arab puppet regimes insures that the price of Arab oil remains at $20 per barrel rather than, say, $100 per barrel?

Oops MEB, I better be careful. As blur said in your 10/22 BBQ Pit post on Kathleen Parker “Remind me to never piss you off”!!

12

This is a link to an anti-House of Saud organisation out of London, ‘The Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia’ (it’s obviously not based in Saudi cos you ain’t allowed no dissent) – it represents the umm… respectable face of dissent (i.e. tame compared with others. Actually, it formed when the larger group became too radical for some). Although the information is not handily laid out, the site is worth browsing IMHO. Sample quotes:

http://www.islah.org/englishnew.htm

The Org’s Mission:

MIRA seeks major reforms in Arabia;in particular, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and the abolition of the Secret Police units subverting political movements and activity. These reform are a pre condition for the political, judicial, economic and social reforms which need to take place. Methods: To achieve these aims MIRA uses all peaceful legitimate means including information, communication and political pressure. MIRA is happy to receive any question, inquiry, criticism, comment on our work or about the situation in Arabia.
A couple of more general quotes:

  • The policies of the regime and its rejection of all reform initiatives have led to an extreme radicalisation that has proven to be immune to the most stringent of security precautions including, as is evident, the execution of suspected militants.*

  • It is our conviction that the wave of violence against U.S. installations in the Kingdom exceeds being the design of a well-organised group of militants. What we are witnessing is a phenomenon generated by rampant corruption and the absence of basic freedoms coupled with a general sense of humiliation due to the continued presence of foreign troops in Arabia.*

IMHO and as has been stated, perception is everything. We can argue 'til the cows come home about whether the Saud Family are US puppets, the reality is: Their continuing to allow a US military presence on Saudi soil (and so close to the religious centre’s of Islam) dramatically feeds the perception that they are puppets. Why, people ask, are they here: To protect the oil, to protect the Saud’s or both ? The answers they hear tend to come from the Clerics who, not surprisingly, don’t want the US in Saudi – another example of the ‘We don’t give a f*ck school of US diplomacy’ feeding the anger of the indignant people.

FWIW, I believe the perception that the Saud’s are little more than cheap oil puppets is continuing to feeding very considerable anger and hatred.

13

…followed by: ? (rhetorical).

not having a great day, here.

14

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by tradesilicon *
**

tradesilicon. I was going to respond by giving you a lecture on colonialism of early 1900s versus neo-colonialism of late 1900s. I was also going to let you know that if a person has the perfect evidence of what the powerful are doing behind the scenes, somehow that person gets eliminated before he has the chance to make the evidence public.

However, ** London_Calling** made my life easier by providing you with good answers in his post above. Apparently, you still believe the neo-colonist countries are truly sovereign states whose heads have no fear of being assassinated or removed if they do not play into the hands of the powers that keep them there. That is naive. You really need to read how neo-colonist countries operate as seemingly independent states, but in reality, they are merely puppets, killing their own people while serving their own personal interest and their masters who keep them there.

And pleeeease, don’t accuse me of believing in “conspiracy theory”, because I will turn around and accuse you believing in “coincidence theory”.

15

One Cell, it’s one thing to use a certain amount of back-of-the-envelope simplification and estimation. But being off by a factor of a thousand or so is more than just a little slop in the calculations. You are, after all, arguing about money, which is a subject of facts and figures. Over the last several decades (Saudi Arabia’s oil-based economy is probably more like 70 years old than 40), a lot of oil, worth a lot of money, has been exported from that country. Some of that money has gone to foreign oil companies. Some of that money has gone to the Saudi government. And the Saudi government in turn has spent some of the money it received on roads and schools and hospitals and various sorts of wealth transfers to the people of Saudi Arabia. No one disputes these basic facts, including that some of the profits from Saudi oil have gone to the foreign oil companies which have helped develop the Saudi oil fields.

Now, if you want to argue that foreign oil companies have received more than they should have, or that the Saudis have gotten a bad deal, that’s certainly something we could all discuss. We could also argue over whether or not the Saudi government or the princes of the House of Saud have shafted the ordinary Saudi people. We could also have an argument about whether or not even quite a bit of economic largesse to the common people is fair price to pay for not having any political rights.

But in order to make these arguments, you need some basic grasp of the facts. I don’t always know the current Gross World Product off the top of my head. But I know where to look it up, and I have at least an “order of magnitude” idea of what it is, i.e., I know it’s “several tens of trillions of dollars”. So, if I slip up and drop or add a few decimal places, and get some number like “Bill Gates’ personal fortune is worth $50 trillion”, I immediately have alarm bells go off in my head. “Whoa. That can’t be right.” And I re-check my calculations, and sure enough, I added a few zeroes–I mean $50 billion.

A number like “$1,000 trillion” should make something in your head go tilt. You should stop and think about it and re-check your facts, the same as if someone asserted that the population of the Greater Cleveland Metropolitan area is 300 million people.

Getting your facts straight is not sufficient for most topics in Great Debates, but it’s almost always necessary. And if you’re trying to make a point about economics, you really can’t just ignore all those numbers and statistics.

Well, now, where did the money go? Some of it went to the shareholders (American and otherwise) of multinational oil companies. Some of it was spent on tanks and fighter jets and so forth for the Saudi armed forces (and therefore some of it went to the shareholders of American defense contractors). Some of it was spent by Saudi princes on wine, women, and song. Some of it was spent on highways and colleges and elementary schools and hospitals and desalination plants in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Some of it was spent on a system of social entitlements which allowed native-born Saudis to develop the attitude that hands-on labor was something which foreigners were hired to do–a system of social entitlements which is now being seriously strained by a lot of factors, from the country’s high birthrate to the depressed price of oil.

How much of that oil money went to Big Oil, and how much went to Saudi playboys, and how much went to medical clinics, and how much went to build fancy new mosques? Did the right amounts go to the right people? If you want to argue about it, you need to find out how much money went where, and how much money came in in the first place, and how many people live in Saudi Arabia, and so on and so forth. You can’t possibly have an argument about the Saudi economic system without getting a grasp of those basic facts.