People on all sides of the aisle seem confused over America's position in Syria. Most people unthinkingly believe that Islamists are the natural enemy of the United States. The reality is far more complicated. The history of American support for the most fundamental Islamic governments is long. Only in Iran, have we ever really opposed an Islamic government. In the Gulf countries, all of which are Islamist to a certain extent, we love their Islamists. We have long supported Islamic groups opposition to Nationalist and leftist groups. There is a reason for that. Islamists, at least of the kind we promote, can satiate their constituency by promoting regressive social policies. That leaves the governments of those countries free to handle economic and foreign policy just as they see fit. Ultimately, that is all America cares about. As long as Gulf oil flows freely and unimpeded, we don't care what countries do internally. We only dislike groups that are anti-Imperial. Leftist and Nationalist groups are more likely to be opposed to American interests in the region. So really we like Islamists, as long as they are Islamists who won't cause trouble for American strategic interests. In Syria, you have a regime which rules the only Middle Eastern country (other than Iran) that is outside the American sphere of influence. So we support the rebels, because they oppose the Assad regime. That strengthens our position, and undermines the position of Iran, Russia, and China. PS. I am totally opposed to American foreign policy. This is not meant to justify it. I think our support for repressive regimes, which ruin the lives of millions of people, simply to protect oil profits is deeply immoral. But the fact is, that is exactly what we do. The support for Islamists is nothing new, as long as they are more in line with our interests than the opposition.
There are some very good academic works which outline this reality very well. Timothy Mitchell wrote a book called Carbon Democracy, in a chapter called McJihad, he outlines exactly how this relationship came into being, and gives numerous examples of it working. Similarly, Lisa Wedeen wrote a book called Peripheral Visions, which is largely about internal Yemeni realities, but the last chapter outlines a similar reality. Wedeen's book is more consistently interesting and strong, but Mitchell's McJihad chapter is brilliant on its own. It can probably be downloaded individually online.
Another great post as always Frodly. We here in Egypt understand all of this and I, as an american can- do a certain degree- endorse it. However, the US govt and the DOS in particular, needs to shut up and leave the " d" word and and the phrase of " bringing american/western values and ideals and freedom" out of their rhetoric and say nothing. We are sick of the hypocrisy and even more fed up that with the illusion that the US govt really thinks it knows better what the middle east countries needs in terms of governance than those in power of said governments. Arrogance, paternalistic imperial posturing and selfishness - not american values/ideals envisioned by our founding fathers- is what now defines America in foreign eyes. Shame on us. And oh by the way, I know Islamist up close and personal, all of us here in Egypt do and they very much have their self interests and trust me, they will yield nothing but heartache and blood shed for the american people. They have demonstrated this time and time again.
Its not just the oil flowing freeing, they must use US dollars. Protecting the world currency/ petro dollar is up there. If it were simply oil/ gas flowing Syria might have less enemies as they with Iran propose to add more gas into Europe.
True, the use of dollars in all global petroleum based transactions is a high priority for American interests. American interests are slightly more complex than I stated in the OP, and I simplified for the sake of succinctness. Petro-dollars are very important, and we in fact don't get most of our oil from the Gulf anyways. However, it is very important to the global capitalist system that America act as the controller and police officer of the region, which is the point I was making. We can more easily control Islamists than we can leftists and certain strands of nationalists.
Yes indeed. Sadaam Hussein was just about to demand to be paid in euros before his country got invaded by us.
Gaddafi was looking at a gold currency. As far as im aware Iran doesnt have itself a zionist central bank yet, those pipline dollars could be problematic.
Maybe you can name me a country who's policies don't run in their best interest. I know of none. Please tell me which Islamic country in the Middle East that doesn't have a repressive regime? Or is it only the ones that are friendly to us that are the worst ones? It would seem even when the people get rid of one oppressive regime, they put in another one that isn't much better.
All countries look after there own interests, not all countries are willing to trample all over the interests of such large swaths of humanity in order to further their own interests. As far as which Middle Eastern countries don't have oppressive governments? Lebanon has many problems, but a repressive government is not one of them. And there is a reason they all have repressive governments. We give their repressive governments billions of dollars and the full backing of the American political establishment to ensure those repressive governments are maintained. In Iran in 1953, they tried to have a freer government. So America plotted to overthrow that government and reimpose their dictator. We have spent lots of money since that time ensuring our pet dictators stay in power. It is difficult enough for people to overcome their own corrupt governments, whose power and means of repression are imbued throughout the entire system down to its very core, but to then need to overcome political opposition from the globes preeminent power on top of that..... What else do you expect? PS. I am not sure what your post had to do with the main point of my post, but I kindly responded anyways. - - - Updated - - - Do you mean the first or second war? - - - Updated - - - Can we keep the zionist conspiracy theories out of this thread please. There are many other threads for that sort of thing, and you can start your own thread if you want, but don't drag this one down please.
You don't think Syria is a repressive government and that the Russians aren't backing them? Same with Iran. Who was backing Libya? While Muslims complained of us arming Israel and other friendly Muslim governments, Russia was arming their's. Lebanon has a government in name only. The country is controlled by Hezbollah and they are armed by Syria and are more powerful than the Lebanese army. Most of the Christian population has been chased out and the Christian head of state has no power at all.
You are only partially right about Lebanon. Hezbollah controls large parts of southern Lebanon. The central government only truly controls the capital and its surrounding areas. While different Sunni interests have greater control over the north. However, the government in Lebanon, in the region it controls, is not particularly repressive. Also, your point about Syria doesn't go against anything I said. It simply means we are not the only great power propping up dictators in the region, ruining the lives of millions, for our own strategic and economic gain. For the entirety of the Cold War, the Soviets had their clients in the Middle East, and we had ours. Most of theirs switched sides between the 70s and the end of the Cold War. Only Syria and Iran have held out against becoming American clients. Even Qaddafi switched sides after a time, before his eventual ouster. Not all their dictators are our clients, just all of them except Iran and Syria. Iran has oil money to support their disgusting regime, and get their money from China and Russia, and Syria has the support of Iran's regime. These dictators are powerful, but without even more powerful and wealthier foreign allies, they would not be able to maintain control indefinitely, as so many seem to be able to. - - - Updated - - - Obvious question, because the Euro didn't exist in the early 90s, it is just that I hadn't heard that before. I just googled it, that is interesting.
Only trouble is, when it comes to supporting dictators, only the US is ever mentioned. No one talks about how Russia supported Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq. In our first war with Iraq, they had the 4th largest army in the world, armed by Russia and her satellite nations.
I thought it explained a lot. Esp.when China was.more.than willing to.pay in.euros. Yes obvious I was.in France.the last winter when one paid in francs. Had forgotten all about that. Lots of reason we waged war on Saddam the second time around. Bringing democracy wasn't one if them.
Odd isn't it that there is so much instability in so many countries in the middle east have/had large armies.
Anyone that support islamist must be brain damaged. They belong to a woman hating death cult. Their answer to everything is to kill someone.
