Huh? Wasn’t Carter the first US president to invade a sovereign Islamic country in the middle east?
No, I believe it was Eisenhower (he started all that stuff with the Shah and the Suez Canal in Egypt).
I think. I could be wrong on this.
Huh? Eisenhower invaded a middle eastern country? And wasn’t the Suez a British-French coalition thing?
Eisenhower actually refused to support the Anglo-French-Israeli Suez campaign in 1956. However in the following year Dulles convinced him of the growing threat of “pro-Communist” forces in the region, which led to the formulation of the 1957 Eisenhower Doctrine, which called for the use of force to repel “Communist-controlled” threats in the region and for sending aid friendly governments in the ME.
The first actual intervention of U.S. troops in large numbers ( ultimately about 14,000 ground troops + a very large armada, including three carriers ) was in Lebanon in 1958, under the Eisenhower administration. However they were called in by the dult elected President of Lebanon, Camille Chamoun in the face of a mounting domestic crisis. So it is questionable whether that can be called an invasion.
That said the earlier overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953 had been a joint British-Eisenhower administration operation and that is harder to cast as legitimate.
So it is certainly true that it was under Eisenhower that large-scale U.S. involvement in ME/NA politics really began ( previously it had been more an Anglo-French sphere of influence ). Whether he was the first to “invade” is arguable.
- Tamerlane
Yes, i realize that our involvement with the Middle East goes back a long way. But if we had started a strong renewable energy policy 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today. I only mentioned GHWB’s war because it was the first to bring terrorism to the homeland, which has been America’s number one issue for the past three years.
Perhaps I should share withe you the following from William blum’s book “Killing Hope”
“Some stirred up moslems”?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say grienspace. We’ve been involved with the Middle East for a long time, but in the last 15 years, all our dealings with them is over our energy crisis (the fact that the U.S. must import energy).
I’m admitting to some ignorance here, but I see very few reasons to screw around with the Arabs.
- THE OIL. Well, duh. During the Cold War, we had to protect the precious petroleum supply. Well, now, we’re in the position of having to keep various potentates happy in order to keep them from cutting us OFF. I must agree with the idea that the development of alternate supplies of petroleum – as well as alternative energy sources – should be a priority.
Then we can get the hell out of Saudi Arabia and let them murder each other in peace. Osama’s a threat to us, sure, but he’s much more of a threat to his own former government… and from what I understand of the issue, they deserve each other. Besides, once the Americans are out of the picture, I suspect they’ll do what warring Arab factions have done for centuries – either murder each other, or work it out peacefully over a cup of tea.
-
THE TERRORISTS. Well, it seems to me that by getting the hell out of the Middle East, we will be exposing fewer Americans to the terrorists, no?
-
ISRAEL. There is no correct answer, here. Politically, we’re stuck with them, be they bad or good. And even if we quit supporting Israel, I suspect it’s too late. We’re too hooked-together in the mind of the average Islamic maniac, and I suspect that even if the US suddenly turned to orange slime, the militants would certainly believe it was some sort of infidel trick, and that we were supporting Israel as vigorously as ever, only now in secret.
As long as hatred is a viable political tool, I don’t see this ending anytime soon.
Look, you focused your blame on Bush I. Its not that simple. First, I don’t buy the effect of energy concerns as being the major drive behind US involvement in the middle east. Afghanistan was a pawn in the cold war that got the US into the gunsights of the Mujahadein when the US abandoned them. The US also provided the idea that super powers were vulnerable by helping them to succeed in defeating the soviet empire. I could remind you that Afghanistan is not known for appreciable oil reserves. I could also remind you that ObL was a significant player in the Mujahadfein. Now as I suspect that this discussion is just another political blame fest, can you…
Yes, but “blame” is too harsh a word. It’s more that it was a major catalyst behind events.
The cold war is over. Why else would the U.S. be currently involved in the Middle East?
Super powers are vulnerable when attacking foreign countries. The U.S. also demonstrated this in Vietnam.
Although oil pipelines were in the works to be routed to Pakistan, through Afghanistan, from oil producing countries. The U.S. was in negotiations with the Taliban as late as August, 2001 to get Afghanistan stabilized so that the pipeline could be built. Now, i’m not accusing anyone of anything, but i’m just showing that Afghanistan is a part of the global energy situation.
Yes, even Saddaam was allied with the U.S. at one point. I’m not trying to lay blame in this case, but to find reasons and possibly find solutions.
So Israel is why Muslim terrorists blew up a nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, Israel is why Muslim terrorists are hacking black African Christians to death in the Sudan, Israel is why Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims slaughtered each other in Iran and Iraq, Israel is why Muslim terrorists are blowing up their fellow Muslims in Iraq and Saudi Arabia right now, and Israel, of course, is why the Arab world is so backwards and primitive. It’s all because of the Zionists. If we just stopped supporting Israel, everything would be A O.K.
News flash: I don’t think it’s Israel. Place the blame elsewhere.
Paul, noone here is claiming that Israel is the only reason for the hatred of Osama and his ilk for the US. However, I don’t think you can deny that it’s a major reason.
Israel is a powerful non-Muslim state in what many Muslims consider to be their holy land, which appears to be victimising Arabs and Muslims, and therefore it’s a source of anger for many Muslims. Since it’s supported by the US, much of the anger towards Israel is also directed towards the US. If you don’t buy this explanation, how do you explain the invective of Osama and other Islamist terrorists against Israel? By their own words, it’s one of the major reasons for what they consider a defensive jihad (the other claimed reasons being a US military presence in the region, particularly in Saudi Arabia, and US support for corrupt and despotic regimes).
can it be contained, in a style which tried to contain Communism?
From Xtisme:
Root cause sounds fairly self-explanatory to me.
I for one do not deny that it is a major reason. But it’s a stupid reason. Far more of the problems of the Arab Muslim world have been caused their own Arab Muslim leaders than by puny Israel’s few million Jews situated in a sea of Arab Muslim nations.
It can’t be contained because it’s a religious/ideological-based conflict, not one between nations. There is no detente to be played with any tangible national boundaries. There are Muslims in the United States right now likely planning terror from their mosque (the first World Trade Center attack was planned from the Al-Salaam Mosque in New Jersey, ironically named the ‘Mosque of Peace’ in Arabic. With pecae like that who needs war.) There are likely blonde-haired, blue-eyed Bonsian and Albanian Muslims active in terror cells who could slip through security checkpoints easily, to say nothing of American blacks and whites who have converted to Islam and joined the cause of Jihad.
xtisme identifies two “root causes” in that paragraph, the Israel - Palestine problem and the “vast gap” between wealthy and poor. He (she?) is not claiming it’s the sole cause.
Ok a couple of things first:
-
Israel and Palestine are not going away any time soon so get that out of your minds
-
The world still runs on oil and that also is not going to change any time soon.
-
Arab countries are not all populated by ignorant savages. They may be technologically backward compared to the West. They may still have a very autocratic style of government. That does not mean they are still riding around on camels wielding big curved scemitars.
-
The war on terror is very diferent from the war on drugs for one simple reason - blowing up buildings doesn’t pay very well.
So given that, how do we defeat terrorism? -
Our intelligence services should focus on identifying and infiltrating organized terrorist networks. They are not ghosts. They are not ex-CIA Special Forces Green Berets. They are not freakin ninjas. They are ameteurs who are able to leverage their cultural and geographic isolation to learn some rudimentary combat skills and apply them to the art of leaving a backpack full of explosives on a bus. They have leadership that in spite of what people on this board continue to say, cannot be replaced. You think they have a dozen 7 ft tall charismatic billionares with experience fighting the Russians to replace Osama if he is killed?
-
Monitor these terrorists and use law enforcement/special forces/counter intelligence operations to take them out as appropriate.
-
Continue to strengthen relationships with our allies. Contrary to popular belief, France and Germany ARE fairly irrelevant as allies in the war on terror. Pakistan and Turkey are far more important as potential allies due to geographic location.
How about promotion of democratic fronts, or a ‘council of democratic states’ designed to discuss issues of strengthening democratic causes this usually is a good way to combat terror. By giving people a voice, they have sometimes, and I say sometimes, less of an incentive to fight.
I think this is the same situation we had at the end of the Second world war. An U.S general said ‘given the choice of Allied rations of 1500 calories a day and 2000 calories a day From the Soviets, who would you choose if you were German?’
He. 
And yes, I identified two root causes, though of course there are others. The wealth gap is definitely one of the key factors…and is directly attributable to the leadership in the ME. Israel is ALSO a key factor…and it can also be linked to Arab leadership keeping the fires burning…though I conceed that hatred of Israel is and would remain deep with the common man even if their leadership wasn’t constantly stirring the pot. Both factors definitely contribute to an atmosphere where terrorism can thrive, and we would need to address both…as well as several others I can think of off the top of my head.
I’m sorry that PaulFitzroy disagrees but I think its pretty evident that Israel is a key factor for unrest in the ME…which directly contributes to an environment where terrorism can thrive.
-XT
The problem with this approach is that it would have to be very subtle. In the ME/NA, depending how you define it, there are at best two functional democracies - Israel ( slightly compromised by occasional disparate treatment, but still the strongest example ) and Turkey ( a little more compromised by the looming, but presently quiescent military ). Ironically the next best example on the local level ( at least until recently, with the mass disbarrment of candidates ) is Iran.
To key U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states ( royal dictatorships, benign and otherwise ), Egypt ( a de facto oligarchic dictatorship ) or Jordan ( a delicately balanced constitutional monarchy with a population less moderate overall than the government ) increased democracy can also = decreased stability. Which in the short term may not favor the U.S. in terms of realpolitik.
Further there is a argument to make that countries like Iraq in which organized communal groups ( tribes et al ) can potentially out-mobilize their less narrow-viewed opponents, you have the strong potential for only a hollow shell of a democracy, in which the phrase ‘tyranny of the majority’, really could become more than just a hypothetical. At least one of the reasons many prominent Iraqi Shi’ites are so in favor of unfettered democracy in Iraq is precisely because they can reasonably expect to be holding the whip hand. That is the cynical view of course, but it has some basis in reality.
Now more democratic regimes certainly would make a BIG difference. One of the greatest sources of frustration in the Arab world in particular is to be found ( as previously noted ) among the non-priviledged educated classes - politically aware, but locked out of any real influence. But how to get from point a to point z without complete chaos is a tricky question.
- Tamerlane