hey everybody. it's been a while since i've written. i've gotten your angry comments and messages, and judging by the ferocity i knew i should write something soon or suffer the ire of my legions of followers. and by legions of followers i mean mom and dad. so here's what's on my mind.
egypt. yup. get ready for a real snooze fest. i've got an opinionated and fire-breathing political rant all ready to go. if you just rolled your eyes because you were expecting another commentary on disney movies or pop culture, then tough luck. you'll have to wait at least a few days until i succumb to the will of the masses and post about the plot inconsistencies in Indiana Jones...but i digress...
lots of people in egypt are pissed off. they're rioting and protesting in favor of ousting their "president"...and by president i mean the guy who has held dictatorial powers for the last 30 years. sounds like democracy to me, right? but my point isn't about whether regime change is a good thing or a bad thing. the single thing that nobody seems to be talking about is the fact that these events are bringing to light an issue that hasn't really been on the table for discussion in years - America's interventionist foreign policy.
i'll break it down for you. current egyptian government is a strong ally of the US.....you could even call it a puppet government. they do what we say in exchange for billions in aid every year. the people however, are protesting and rallying for freedom and democracy and basic rights. when egypt does it, the world celebrates. when people in the US do it, they denounce the tea party. but that's a whole diferent issue. anyway, this is a good thing...except it's pretty obvious that the new government that will probably take over will be the Muslim Brotherhood, a jihadist and extremist fundamental muslim theocracy. wow that's a lot of big words. for good 'ol US of A we're between a rock and a hard place.
pictured below: The United States of America
political irony was never so cute. anyway, if we support democracy and regime change, we're losing a strong ally in a volatile region. not only that, but the likely candidate for a new regime will probably make egypt yet another thorn in our oil-loving side. but if we support the egyptian government then we're going against everything that is American.
this exposes the hypocrisy of the whole situation. WHY DO WE HAVE ANY SAY IN HOW ANOTHER SOVEREIGN NATION CHOOSES THEIR LEADERS?? a.k.a. why is it any of our business???
i know i know...because freedom isn't free and these colors don't run and the terrorists hate american apple pie and all that. give me a chance to explain. time for a history lesson.
in 8th grade history many of you might have studied president James Monroe. he was known for implementing what was known as the Monroe doctrine. this was a complete policy change for the US in how they dealt with foreign nations. i'll simplify it for you. it basically says we won't mess with other countries if they don't mess with us. at the time it was more of a statement against imperialism and further colonization of the western hemisphere, but over time it's main meaning was that we as a country minded our own business.
after WWII the public denounced the Monroe Doctrine. they called the US "isolationist" and conjured up images of people with their head stuck in the sand refusing to acknowledge Hitler's aggressive actions that led up to the war. a more fitting word would be non-interventionist. the passage of time is revealing that the bigger cause of WWII was our treatment of post WWI Germany and the ramifications of the Treaty of Versailles that created the conditions that made Germany susceptible to Hitler's rise.
i write all that to say that since then, we've felt the need to "protect our interests" overseas whether that means secretly supporting rebels in a foreign civil war, installing puppet governments or military "police actions". and since that time we are presented with case after case of how our meddling in other countries' affairs, however well-intentioned they were, bring about unexpected consequences that nobody could have seen.
have any of you seen Charlie Wilson's War? it's a true story about how in the early 80's the US secretly funded and armed the Taliban while they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan because the cold war was all the rage back then. that was before 9/11 when terrorism became the new fear instead of invasion from the godless communists. anyway, some of those same weapons that we GAVE the taliban are being used against us. if we would have known that the USSR would crumble a few years later would we have funneled billions into a guerrilla force that would eventually turn against us?
"i did not realize that would happen...oh well, not my problem. i'm dead."
what's that?? you want another example?? welllll, ok, here's another. IRAN. everybody hates iran. we're collectively crapping our pants at the thought of them getting a nuclear weapon because hey, they might commit some sort of nuclear suicide bombing. get real. only the pawns do the suicide bombings. the ones at the top love their power and wealth. Achmadinejad, at the top of his throne is the least likely to martyr himself and his whole country.
anyway, what few people remember is that in 1953 the CIA carried out a plan and ousted the democratically elected leader in favor of the Shah of Iran. we liked him because he supported israel and also because we had oil interests in the country. well, that lasted for a while, but in 1979 the people revolted against the puppet government and now we have the Iran we know today.
the point is, even though we may have good intentions, we can never predict how that will negatively affect us in the future. it's happening again in egypt right now. for 30 years we've had our puppet leader doing what we say. all that breeds is anti-american sentiment and the eventual takeover of the most fundamentalist muslim gov't. the most invigorating motivation for muslim radicalization is the US meddling in their affairs. terrorism is a horrible thing and i am in no way saying that we asked for 9/11, but at the same time they do have a bit of a reason to not like us. the CIA even coined the term "Blowback" to mean the unintended consequences of US interventionism.
i'm not sure how this is gonna turn out, but i'm hoping we can resist the urge to find a way to install another puppet leader. EVERYONE is soooo scared of the middle east, but everybody seems to forget that as soon as they either A. run out of oil or B. we stop using oil, they become completely irrelevant again. overnight they will go from being a culture of oil sheiks with lots of oil money that doesn't value human life or human rights to a culture of goat herders that has no money and doesn't value human life or human rights. just like how we didn't realize the USSR would collapse a few years later, can't we find a way to mind our own business and spend our time and money figuring out a way around oil or if that doesn't work, just wait until theirs runs out. terrorist actions cost money. lots of money. more than you think. the 9/11 hijackers didn't just have to buy plane tickets and box cutters. passports, months and years of living expenses in the US. training camps, etc. where does that money ultimately come from?? OIL.
and think about this - the whole rallying cry behind citizens wanting to cut spending in government is this: We have to live on a budget, why shouldn't they?? well, i should ask the same question concerning foreign policy. we're expected to mind our own business unless someone threatens us. why shouldn't the government do the same?
11 comments:
Hi Nick thx for your point of view.
Your view is a very good view of Egypt situation and how America should not get involved.
P.S. Your live concert in Wooster was awesome. I got in the front row of the standing thx for coming.
Also can you put your hair into a Mohawk?
wow nick, you are very knowledgable in the subject of history!!the united states has gotten involved in so many things that we shouldn't have and we are paying for it now.
Now, i'm no expert in the field, but it seems to me that you've got the US/Egypt relationship rather upside-down. You definitely have a point with regard to Iran. However, from my perspective, it looks like the (originally democratically elected) leader of Egypt instituted emergency rule, nominally to keep the Islamists at bay, then told the US "it's us or them, and you don't want them, so keep the money flowing, friends."
i also don't think it's fair to say that the US should not be involved. There are real dangers at both extremes of isolationism vs. interventionism. The best thing the US can do, i think, is to support the Egyptian people, no matter who ultimately represents them.
thanks wayne. that was a fun show. and yes, i can put my hair in a mowhawk but it's a big pain.
thanks hailey.
scott, even though mubarak was democratically elected, isn't it possible our billions in aid artificially kept him in power longer than he should have been?
Interesting take.
I wish it were as simple as the A/B solution you propose but A) the Middle East is never going to run out of oil and B) we are never going to stop using it.
That, coupled with the fact that whenever things begin to wind down (and I don't pretend to know when that will be), the focus of attention will be right back on the very arena in which history first began: namely, the Middle East!
Suffice it to say, I do not anticipate the region EVER again becoming irrelevant (if, in fact, it ever was). ;-)
All that said, while we do not always agree on things (and I am still trying to sort out where I am on this whole Egyptian mess--mainly just thankful that I'm not responsible for shaping any policies or responses either way at this point!), I am impressed by and grateful for the fact that you remain so engaged and thoughtful in terms of politics and current affairs!
(I'll have to confess just the tiniest bit of personal pleasure and pride at how closely your characterization of the Monroe Doctrine resembled my own "Don't mess with us; we won't mess with you" formula, as I taught it for so many years! ;-)
Keep up the good work, my friend!
Christopher Burcham
Chris,
yes, i remember learning about the monroe doctrine in your class.
i tried to look for concrete info on estimates for when the middle eastern oil will run dry. no one agrees. some estimates say 20 to 40 years, while others say as much as 150 years. even if oil were forever abundant, we could still render the region a lot less volatile be developing some sort of alternative fuel whether it be solar, electric or pixie dust.
on a related note, i've heard a theory from someone close to me who thinks that US leaders have a conscious plan to prevent US drilling not because of environmental concerns, but so that when the rest of the world runs out, we will be the last one standing with oil and therefore in a very strong strategic position. i have no idea if this is true, but it sure it interesting.
Very good points Nick. So true about the US having a lot of influence on other "sovereign" states. We also helped put Saddam in power...
I agree about the oil situation, as far as using it all up. What would these countries do? There are some conspiracy theory types who say that we are closer than anyone thinks to depleting it. At any rate, we need to keep in mind that terrorists are also funded by heroin and other drug trade. Sadly, I think we will run out of oil before we reduce the demand for illegal drugs...
Nick, if you haven't read - http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1315 - as it touches less on our ties to oil and more on the fact that we're spending hundreds of billions in foreign aid to places like Egypt and then publicly rebuke the one leader we've supported for three decades. And what do we get in exchange? They by goods made in the US increasing jobs, right? What US goods are they buying in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Oh, just weapons.
Very much agree with you on most of the points you're making. I am however, a lot more optimistic about the role the Muslim Brotherhood will play after having a few conversations with friends who are from the area.
The muslim brotherhood actually appears to be a moderate Islamist group, often chided by extreme Islamist groups for pushing people into public debate rather than jihad. They have an English site, which explains in detail their views and aspirations. While I think that theocratic rule is very dangerous in any culture, I think that it's not the same as having an organization like Hamas or Al Quaeda heavily involved in governing a nation. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Hi Nick - certainly, yes, i agree! But, my point is that rather than Egypt being a puppet regime controlled by the US, Mubarak long ago turned the tables by masterfully playing promises of cooperation - and when expedient, actual cooperation - as a way keep the money flowing.
One important piece of info you left off about the 1979 Iran Revolt. President Jimmy Carter pulled back his support for the Shah allowing Khomeini to come to power and leading to the current state of Iran. Would things be different with Iran now if he had acted differently? Only God knows for sure. The similarities between Egypt now and Iran then are striking. The similarities between how Jimmy Carter reacted and how Obama is reacting now are also strikingly similar. If Egypt goes the way of Iran, how does that impact the security of Israel?
Post a Comment