So the US has no influence on the Mideast? Our prsence doesn’t save thousands of Israeli lives? Doesnt protect nations like Saudi Arabia and kuwait from power hungry neighbors like Sadam? Or or you stating that our presence there do nothing one way or the other accept risk terrorist attacks?
Isreal would use everything they have to secure themselves in the area. Palestine would be a memory. Jordan and parts of Egypt and lebanon would fly the Isreali flag…for a time. The UN may step in after perhaps millions of Isreali and Arab deaths. The UN has never even proposed to defend Isreal (maybe bvecause the US does, but I have my doubts). I see no future for Isreal Unless it is paid for by total war in the Mideast.
And you prefer this than risk becoming a target for murderous zealots who may kill you anyway if you happen to be near an Isreali hotel?
If China had the means to transport troops and was allied with Europe, Russia, England, Canada, Mexico, and any non thrid world country of significance, and they decided to attack the US. Do you have any doubt we would nuke them to hell and back at the first discernable threat that our nation would be invaded and conquored?
But ObL and Co. did not attack us because of our support of Israel. That was after the fact, when US bombs began to fall on his base country and he needed to try to recruit more extremists. bin Laden attacked us because our troops set foot on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. We set foot on the land of Mecca because we were engaged in driving one Islamic asshole out of another Islamic country. For heaven’s sake, Bush Sr. had to plead to keep the Israelis out of the Gulf War. It had nothing to do with Israel.
Wow, your standards are awful high. If you are ruling out alliances with any country not willing to die rather than go nuclear, the US is going to be a mighty lonely country - and the only democracy in the Middle East has a murky future ahead of it.
A dictatorship is as good as a democracy, as far as I’m concerned, so long as they aren’t hostile towards us. A MiddleEast full of dictatorships that don’t care a whit about the U.S. either way is much better than a MiddleEast with a few democracies and some other countries that actively strive to kill Americans.
Back when the U.S. was “a mighty lonely country”, we were all better off. Neutrality should never have been abandoned in the first place.
The reason ObL and his followers are trying to kill us is not our support of Israel. It is the support of repressive autocracies which keep their people down in order to cling to power. It is the fabulously wealthy House of Saud, with the underclass in the gutter. It is gleaming Abu Dhabi and Kuwait and Qatar with some of the worst slums in the world and a fraction of the populace eligible to vote, if the vote actually means anything.
As Robert Wright said in Slate a few months ago, American foreign policy is increasingly dependent on what disaffected Mohammed Q. Public thinks. Mohammed Q. Public flies planes into buildings and sets off dirty bombs, not governments, and not Saddam. Saddam knows that he would be a smouldering crater if his fingerprints were ever found on large-scale terrorism.
Our best hope for security is not to prop up the hugely unpopular repressive autocracies thatmake people like Mohammed Atta think al Qaeda is a valid escape. Our best hope is to support free market reform, governmental reforms, and free press and speech. Israel is a great tool in that – as an example of the promotion of free trade, free press, and free speech. Witness the slow progression of Jordan and Egypt. Especially the influx of shekels and dollars into resorts in Aqaba, Petra, Sharm-el-Sheik, Dahab, and Taba. Witness the territories before the intifada.
Also, if everyone in Israel is there of their own volition (ignoring the native born, the refugees from World War II, the refugees kicked out of Arab countries, and those who were pressured to leave the USSR and Ethiopia), if you withdraw support from Israel would you also support dropping immigration quotas and requirements from people wishing to leave Israel to come to the US? Otherwise, we could have an eerily similar situation on our hands – the Jews being overrun and the rest of the world turns a blind eye.
I said I don’t mind those dictatorships. I did not say I want the U.S. propping them up. What I want is the U.S. playing NO ROLE WHATSOEVER in the MiddleEast, and that can be postponed until after we take out Saddam if we feel he is still a threat for now. The end result I desire is total neutrality in the region. I simply don’t care what form of government they have in those nations, I care only that they don’t want to attack us, and so long as that’s the case we can remain absolutely neutral.
But ending our support of those repressive dictatorships will NOT be sufficient if we continue to support Israel. Israel is the big enemy in that region, as seen in the minds of many rank and file fanatics. We should neither support nor oppose any nation in the region, but the first step is to abandon Israel to its fate, sink or swim. When we’ve done that, and become completely neutral in the region, and withdrawn support/opposition for any nation in the region, and vow never to meddle again, then we will be no longer perceived as a threat to the would-be terrorists.
Israel is a terrible example, because nobody in that region will want to follow the lead of the most despised nation in that area. They hate Israel, why would they want to be like them? I think Turkey is the better example, for their successful program of complete secularization. But I would most certainly not go around telling MidEast nations how to run themselves, it’s not our business, and getting mixed up in it in any way carries the potential for more disastrous terrorist attacks.
I’m not the one who made that comment about the voluntariness of Israelis presence in that land, but I’ll address your point anyways. I favor open immigration. Period. Absolutely and completely. Now, the usual security checks on past criminal history, involvement with anti-US groups, etc., I would keep in place as a small filter. But I do not believe in these quotas and limits. So they can all move here if they really want to. Still, I don’t know why the U.S. should bear all the blame if we didn’t allow them all in. Why couldn’t Europe or South America take in some of them?
Unfortunately even total neutrality is impossible. These regimes export oil. As long as there is Arabian oil on the international market, because it is a true commodity, we buy Arabian oil. Even if we buy from Russia, the people who used to buy from Russia now buy from the Arabian states. As long as we continue buying any kind of foreign oil, we prop up the regimes – we give them money, and they use that money to preserve the status quo. On the other hand, Israel has a very innovative economy and we buy military (everyone’s favorite Uzis and Desert Eagles, as well as a litany of other stuff), agricultural, computer, and other technology from them. By supporting an international free market and innovative products, we give the Israelis money, by which they will try and preserve the status quo. And both of those status quos are insults to the average Joe Arab on the street. Perhaps a smaller excuse for terrorism, but there is no guarantee of that.
So, instead of aiming for impossible neutrality, we should do the just and fair thing. Instead of totally divesting from Israel, the Arabian states, and Egypt, we should engage them. Look how well sanctions worked to bring down the Cuban regime. Look how well isolationism worked for us before World War II. Instead of distancing ourselves from these countries and these people, we need to get out there to promote our way of life, our freedoms, our products, and all that other stuff. We need to bring equality and prosperity to the Arab on the street, not build a huge friggin fence to seal ourselves off.
My plan for US foreign policy in the Middle East and terrorism in general. This is obviously not comprehensive, but I think it covers many broad areas. I would be interested in getting RexDart’s opinion of these actions.
Continue inspections in Iraq with continued threats of military action. This could be unilateral if the UN Security Council refuses to get off of their asses. Don’t let Saddam put up roadblocks – insist on true, effective inspections with timely bombings imminent if he starts putting up usual bullshit. We can’t afford to mess around with something as important as this.
1b) If it is necessary to get Saddam, finish the job. Also, be there to be the nice guy (be the carrot and the stick) – provide humanitarian aid to the Iraqis and don’t shirk on at least 10 years of nation building which will follow Saddam’s departure.
Continue current levels of foreign aid, but redistribute it so that a greater percentage goes to NGOs promoting personal liberties in said countries. Make more foreign aid contingent on personal liberties. Pressure Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to governmental reforms with eventual goals of free and fair elections. Support liberal imams who disagree with suicide bombings and jihad against the West.
2b) Open US markets to Egyptian cotton, Pakistani textiles, and other manufacturing products from the Arab world. Innovation and free market reforms are best sponsored by free trade. The free market puts money into the Arab middle class, not into the rulers distributing the foreign aid. I got this idea from Robert Wright, in a Slate article I mentioned above.
Formulate an Israeli/Palestinian peace planning starting on maps formulated at Taba. The borders will follow the 1967 borders closely. There will be no full right of return for 4.6 million refugees into Israel proper, but there will be a smaller return (let’s say a few tens of thousands) with compensation. The compensation will be paid by Israel, US, the EU, and the Arab League (Jews were displaced in 1948 and 1967 as well). Part of the deal will be a partial defense pact between NATO and Israel. If Israel is attacked from lands given up for peace, she can request assistance from NATO. There will be international peacekeepers in the territories for a few years in order to secure Palestinian lands. All isolated Israeli settlements will be dismantled. Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif, Manger Square, and a few other religious shrines in Israel and Palestine will be internationalized. The peace plan will support free and fair elections in the territories. Get the Arab League to stand behind the peace plan. With the Arab League and NATO behind it, neither Israel nor Palestine can object very much.
Continue with the current War Against Terrorism by promoting democracy in Afghanistan as well as the rest of the Arab World. Those harboring terrorists are subject to US covert ops. This would be better if pursued through the UN, but that is not always possible. Terrorism represents a threat to the entire civilized world. This IMHO takes precedence over national sovereignty – if a country can’t or won’t reign in terrorist elements, then the US needs to do it for them.
Lastly, become a good world citizen. Sign international treaties against landmines, nuclear nonproliferation treaties, and dare I say environmental treaties. Promote an international tribunal for war crimes or a World Court. Nuclear buyback programs and financial aid/jobs for Russian nuclear scientists probably belong in this category. Let the world know that we support American values not only for Americans, but for everyone in the world.
Yes, I know, idealistic, short-term unpopular, perhaps unimplementable. But I think it is just crazy enough to work.
I’m OK with all of this except the nation-building. Trying to install a democracy in Iraq might make a few friends, but it could also make a few enemies, and continue to rouse the ire of the Islamic fundies, who favor theocracy. Installing a secular democracy in Iraq would continue to make us a target to potential terrorist violence, so is not tolerable, IMO.
Humanitarian aid is ok, so long as it can be given from a standpoint of neutrality. Playing favorites with determining which humanitarian groups to give aid to might cause problems. The Islamic groups in the area have their own humanitarian groups, they would have to be included to avoid giving them a reason to feel slighted.
I would oppose giving any foreign aid to anybody in that region. Generally, I support rewarding a move towards open markets and civil liberties in foreign countries, but to aid any government in that region is to risk drawing the ire of another.
I support open markets everywhere, with the exception of military technology. That said, I believe the problem in getting free market development in those countries is not a lack of capital, but rather a lack of infrastructure. Trading with them will give them the wealth to move towards a free market system, but will they be wise and use the wealth to develop the infrastructure that will allow trade to flourish within their own borders?
I would support mediating a peace agreement between those nations, if and only if they come willingly to the table. I would not support the use of any U.S. influence in the region to compel them to broker a peace deal. If we help mediate such an agreement, we must make sure that the U.S. is not seen to have formed the plan on its own, and we must take caution to ensure that we are not seen as forcing the plan upon any party.
Our role should not exceed that as mediator. The agreement should not reference the U.S. in any way, should not impose obligations on the U.S. or give the U.S. any rights. The U.S. must be completely unattached to the region and maintain full neutrality with respect to the parties.
Your plan sounds very reasonable. International peacekeeping would have to be negotiated exclusively with the UN, and the U.S. should take part only to the extent that our forces might comprise a reasonable proportion of the peacekeeping force, but not a proportion so sizable as to give the impression that the U.S. military is meddling in the affairs of the Middle East. Additionally, I doubt Palestine would agree to the situation without the unmitigated right to control their own airspace, which was a sticking point in the last attempt to negotiate an agreement.
I simply do not believe that terrorism can be stopped with proactive measures. The only way to stop terrorism, IMO, is to remove the reasons that people become terrorists. U.S. involvement in the Middle East has made us a target for terrorism, so the only way to end that terrorism is to change our ways and give the would-be terrorists no reason to attack. A person willing to die in a terrorist attack is ridiculously hard to stop, because he doesn’t care about an escape plan. We must admit that we will never defeat terrorism, we can only eliminate the causes, and we can only do that with respect to specific groups.
By all means, continue in Afghanistan since we’ve gone this far already. But take a behind-the-scenes role at all times, and make darn sure that it’s the Afghan people whose voices are determining the shape of their future, not U.S. values and U.S. interests enforced at the point of U.S. guns.
I oppose any and all mutual defense pacts, the traditional form of “alliance.” The U.S. should not take part in them. Landmine and nuclear treaties are OK, they’re really not an issue for me.
IMHO, environmental treaties retard development in third-world countries, and thus defeat most of your stated objectives, but I don’t want to get into a row over it here and now. Environmental treaties might make improve the U.S.'s image in Europe, but frankly I don’t know why we’d care what Europe thinks of us. Europe isn’t about to start a war with us, Europeans are not involved with terrorist acts against Americans (except a handful of rogue eco-terrorists perhaps.) I suspect that the only people in third world countries (where terrorists come from) who care at all about the U.S. role in environmentalism are those intellectuals who attended U.S. universities and were pumped full of jargon about exploitation of resources and environmental justice by postmodernist liberal arts professors. Terrorists won’t care how we conduct ourselves in that department, so the issue of environmental treaties can be dealt with at our leisure in accord with the interests of the U.S.
I have serious issues with the idea of any “World Court”. First is a jurisdictional issue. It should only have jurisdiction over people who are citizens of nations that sign a treaty forming the Court. Second concern is the danger of ex post facto law. This is what we saw at Nuremburg.
As for your last sentence…it would be nice if everyone wanted liberty and free markets. I’m not sure they do…at least, some of them have grown up in academic environments that make them think they don’t want that. It’s not our job to decide what’s best for other people. American values should not be imposed on other nations. When those nations’ people decide they want freedom, liberty, market capitalism, and democracy, they can get it the same way we did…revolution. Aiding those revolutions, even when they’re ready to blossom and truly represent the will of the people, is a recipe for disaster. It will make enemies, and put citizens of the U.S. in jeopardy.
Well, even if we pull out of the Middle east, and by miracle number 145 become undependant on foreign oil, they are still gonna hate us. Missionaries will still go over providing aid and talking about Christianity. American businesses are still gonna try to make money over there. American tourists are still going to be rude and annoying. American movies are still going to show women WITHOUT veils WORKING and DRIVING and TALKING TO MEN!!! The horror!! And the Middle Eastern women might see that and think they have a right to drive too! So America is still corrupting their country, and people will line up to fight the Great Satan. And why doesn’t the Great Satan help us feed our poor, with all their money? They hate us! They are currupt selfish infidels and must die!
Why so? If you commit a crime in another country (or on a citizen of another country and they manage to catch you), you subjected to the laws of this country. It’s exactly the same. If you murder someone in France, you’ll be tried by french courts according to french laws. If you’re caught in Germany, Germany will extradite you to France. Your citizenship is irrelevant. If you commit a war crime in France, since France has signed the treaty creating the International criminal court, you’re going to be tried by said court. Or germany will sent you to the ICC for these war crime commited in France. Your citizenship is still irrelevant.
There’s absolutely no difference. The treaties signed by a country are part of its legal system. Except if you think that the citizens of a given country should never be subjected to the laws of another country, it makes no sense to state that citizens of countries which didn’t sign the treaty shouldn’t be tried by an international court.
Oil is trade, not diplomacy. If official neutrality in the region isn’t good enough for the Saudis, and they preferred their old role as a U.S. ally, then take the oil and go home. Necessity is the mother of invention. I’m not concerned.
And if they don’t want Christian missionaries in their countries, don’t let them in. It’s pretty simple.
I can see some of them continuing to hate us for those reasons. What I can’t see is the average, everyday Joe Islam getting angered enough by that to decide it’s worth his own death to harm us.
I think Bush should convert to Islam. And announce that it will have no impact on the War on Terror ™. I think it could take some of the wind out of the sails of al Q. Plus it would be funny to see millions of people all over the world doing double-takes.
The al-Queda Terrorists hate the west for a lot of things, but our involvement with Israel is not near the top of the list. Mainly, the general cultural influence of the West. OBL also hates the religious government of Saudi Arabia. OBL will not be satisfied until all western influence is gone. This means trade, too. OBL wants to depose nearly all the governments of Arab countries and form a new pan Arabic state, or a close coalition.
Palestinian Terrorists are strongly focused on Israel, and see the US as a potential friend, both a supplier to Israel and a restrainer of Israel.
Dropping support to Israel will put Israel in the position where the only rational choice is to eliminate the Palestinian entity entirely. A general war will ensue immediately.
RexDart needs to learn more about the Middle East; Hopefully this dialog will help.
Terrorists are not rational people. They want what they want, when they want, RIGHT NOW. You are mistaken in thinking that Al Qaeda is made up of reasonable men, who will stop when the U.S.
Terrorists are not rational people. They want what they want, when they want, RIGHT NOW. You are mistaken in thinking that Al Qaeda is made up of reasonable men, who will stop when the U.S. accedes to their demands. They will simply make up new demands because their irrational hatred will never end. Before 9/11, the U.S. was seen as a paper tiger, who was too cowardly to fight back. Two hundred and forty one Marines were killed in Lebanon by a truck bomb, nineteen Air Force personnel were killed by a truck bomb in Saudi Arabia, and the U.S. did nothing except shake their fists and vow to bring the culprits to justice. These monsters don’t respect the rule of law and the courts. They understand about getting kicked in the head and having their top leaders captured, one by one.
I empathize with you, RexDart, but sticking our heads in the sand won’t work. For all the reasons listed in the posts above, Israel is a good ally to have in the Middle East and we can’t abandon her. Oh, by the way in case anyone was wondering, I don’t have any cites for my previous paragraph. Just thought you’d like to know.
During the Cold War, the Finnish Constitution was modified to prevent Soviet attack on Finland. The Soviets had certain rights in the Finnish government, certain inspection and decision making powers. The Finnish government was “Legally penetrated” by the foreign power.
Not true. I’ve seen this statement several times, but for what it’s worth, OBL has been mightily and vocally irate about a lot of things, including the (undeniably) corrupt House Of Saud, but also clearly including U.S. support of Israel, since well before Sept. 2001.