It's no secret—or should not be any secret—the Republicans and conservatives like war. Well, maybe that's not a way of phrasing it that they'd agree with. How about, they are more prone to favor the use of military force?
That is why we've been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a loss of over 4000 American lives—arguably in both cases for at best a very unclear purpose. Supposedly America is always trying to export "freedom"—meaning, presumably, its brand of democracy—to other countries, whether they want it or not. Iraq is not and is not going to be a democracy after the American model, and heaven only knows what can be accomplished in Afghanistan, where we cannot even free the country from the influence of war lords.
Anyway, those are wars that commenced, and that fact cannot be changed. I must acknowledge that the US has supposedly largely exited from Iraq, thanks to a Democratic president—whether or not we have left the country any better off. (For one thing, I'd like an update on whether the Iraqi people yet have reliable, 24-hour electrical service, or whether they feel secure outside of their homes.)
So really, there is only a point in talking about the future. Currently Republicans and other "hawks" (we don't hear that word much, anymore) want the US to attack Syria and Iran. President Obama evidently is not very keen on doing either one; but if a Republican gets elected president in November, we may indeed find ourselves in the midst of yet another war.
The US has an all-volunteer military services. I don't understand why young American men want to join the military and go and fight. Evidently they feel they are being patriotic and "serving their country"; but when America has not been clearly attacked by these countries; and when the connection between these wars and America's welfare is similarly not clear; I have to think they may be misguided. (Remember, George W. Bush sold us on the Iraq war by falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein was developing "weapons of mass destruction." Many other wars, such as the Vietnam War, were also based on lies.) Those in Iraq who were attacking American troops did not view Americans as their saviors but as foreign invaders.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
US to Blame for Sour US-Iran Relations
The United States largely has itself to blame for the history of tensions and animosity between itself and Iran.
It goes back to the 1950s when a democratically-elected government was ousted—this might have been one of countless instances where the US helped engineer the overthrow of a democratic government—and, in the aftermath, the US helped engineer the assumption of power by the Shah ('king'). The Shah turned out to be a hated ruler because he was tyrannical and despotic, and his secret police imprisoned and tortured dissenters.
Later, in the Iran-Iraq War, the US supported Iraq and in fact armed Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Iranians don't want to forgive America for that because it was a bitter, bloody, and costly war.
Actually, suspicion of the US and of the West by Iranians goes back even further because of Western—perhaps more British than US—actions and intervention in the Middle East during and after World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. To a degree, in this case, Iran's animosity should perhaps be directed more toward Britain than toward the US because the former was the bigger player, doing much to advance its interests and secure its influence in the area at that time. (For one thing, Britain was looking to protect the Suez Canal, which was jointly operated by Britain and France, but also, as one of the superpowers of the time, may have been moving into a power vacuum).
Update, February 1, 2012
I should add that the overthrow of the Iranian government of Premier Mossadegh in 1953 was due to OIL (surprise, surprise). He had nationalized Iran's oil production, which did not sit well with the US.
Also, two other reasons why the Shah was disliked had to do with his lavish lifestyle and his having offended conservative Iranians by embracing the West and western things.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
It goes back to the 1950s when a democratically-elected government was ousted—this might have been one of countless instances where the US helped engineer the overthrow of a democratic government—and, in the aftermath, the US helped engineer the assumption of power by the Shah ('king'). The Shah turned out to be a hated ruler because he was tyrannical and despotic, and his secret police imprisoned and tortured dissenters.
Later, in the Iran-Iraq War, the US supported Iraq and in fact armed Sadaam Hussein's Iraq, on the theory that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The Iranians don't want to forgive America for that because it was a bitter, bloody, and costly war.
Actually, suspicion of the US and of the West by Iranians goes back even further because of Western—perhaps more British than US—actions and intervention in the Middle East during and after World War I and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. To a degree, in this case, Iran's animosity should perhaps be directed more toward Britain than toward the US because the former was the bigger player, doing much to advance its interests and secure its influence in the area at that time. (For one thing, Britain was looking to protect the Suez Canal, which was jointly operated by Britain and France, but also, as one of the superpowers of the time, may have been moving into a power vacuum).
Update, February 1, 2012
I should add that the overthrow of the Iranian government of Premier Mossadegh in 1953 was due to OIL (surprise, surprise). He had nationalized Iran's oil production, which did not sit well with the US.
Also, two other reasons why the Shah was disliked had to do with his lavish lifestyle and his having offended conservative Iranians by embracing the West and western things.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Thursday, February 3, 2011
For Once, U.S. Is on the Right Side
The United States finds itself in a difficult position regarding the current popular unrest in Egypt. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has been a friend and ally of the United States. If he goes, the way may be open to a radical Islamic, anti-American regime that might even support terrorists. Also, Egypt under a new regime could abrogate its current peace treaties with Israel. Plus, Egypt, while not an oil producer, is an important transit point for oil supplies, partly because it controls the Suez Canal.
Nevertheless—surprisingly, and to his credit--President Obama has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Egyptian demonstrators who are calling for an end to Mubarak's regime and the establishment of greater democracy in Egypt.
This is surprising both because Obama is placing human rights above what might be America's interests in the Middle East and also because, so many times in the past, America has backed, supported, and even installed right-wing dictators.
Just one example would be Iran. The U.S. can pretty much blame itself for the current anti-American regime in Iran because the U.S. staunchly supported the Shah, who was hated because of his repressive regime: by means of his secret police he used torture and so forth to suppress opposition.
In fact, going back a bit further still, the U.S., in the 1950s, helped overthrow a democratic government in Iran and engineer the Shah's assumption of power.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Nevertheless—surprisingly, and to his credit--President Obama has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Egyptian demonstrators who are calling for an end to Mubarak's regime and the establishment of greater democracy in Egypt.
This is surprising both because Obama is placing human rights above what might be America's interests in the Middle East and also because, so many times in the past, America has backed, supported, and even installed right-wing dictators.
Just one example would be Iran. The U.S. can pretty much blame itself for the current anti-American regime in Iran because the U.S. staunchly supported the Shah, who was hated because of his repressive regime: by means of his secret police he used torture and so forth to suppress opposition.
In fact, going back a bit further still, the U.S., in the 1950s, helped overthrow a democratic government in Iran and engineer the Shah's assumption of power.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
