[Dean's World] Dave Schuler: Paying for Past Sins

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Schuler:
Paying for Past Sins
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1178228535.shtml


   This post is actually a comment inspired by other comments in Dave
   Price's [1]"Quote of the Day" from earlier today and it brings up a
   point that [2]I've posted about myself at some length.

   Our support for the Shah wasn't arbitrary, capricious, or
   imperialistic. It occurred as a consequence of a process. Our initial
   predisposition--until roughly 50 years ago--was to leave the countries
   of the Middle East largely to their own devices. But, following WWII a
   number of things happened which suggested that, if we wanted to trade
   with the nations in the region, that wouldn't be sufficient. These
   included the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the nationalization of Iranian oil
   by the Mossadegh regime, the burgeoning strength of the Soviet Union
   in the region, stunningly delineated in the Mitrokhin archives, and
   culminated in the Suez crisis. In response to these events we
   developed a policy known as the "Twin Pillars of Defense" policy. We
   cultivated relationships with two of the natural powers in the region
   (drumroll, please): Iran and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

   When the Shah was overthrown and, subsequently, Iran and Iraq entered
   into a long, bloody war that included attempts to disrupt shipping in
   the Gulf, it became clear that the Twin Pillar policy was dead. Having
   failed to cultivate stability in the region either with laissez-faire
   or by supporting local regimes we entered into the next degree of
   engagement with the region: direct military engagement in the form of
   both interventions and the mammoth bases we've got all over the region
   now.

   We entered the third phase of our engagement with the Middle East when
   we threw back Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in the first Gulf
   War and the present Iraq War is an effective continuation of that
   phase.

   For the last six years we've been paying for our past sins, the
   support of autocratic regimes (not to mention the evergreen
   "occupation of Muslim lands") but those aren't our only mistakes.
   Carter was understandably reluctant to support the Shah, however, his
   failure to produce a viable substitute is not equally forgiveable and
   we're paying for that, too.

   And this is the point I wanted to emphasize: we have the level of
   engagement that we have now in the Middle East not because we're
   militaristic or imperialistic. Remember, this wasn't our first or even
   our second choice but because the countries and people there haven't
   produced the level of stability that's needed for reliable trading
   partners there on their own we have, inch by inch, taken that role
   into our hands.

   Whether we leave Iraq tomorrow or not, whether there is really a
   Global War on Terror or not, and whether al-Qaeda is really a threat
   or not, there needs to be greater stability in the Middle East than
   there is now and, if the countries there want to continue to sell
   their oil to us, someone needs to produce that stability. It ain't
   happening on its own.

References

   1. http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1178206093.shtml
   2. http://theglitteringeye.com/?p=2315