Western foreign policy, when push comes to shove: Democracy sacrificed for Stability?

[Leet Eriksson]

And many Islamic countries refer to most of the west as "Christian" when a more correct term would be "Secular". In terms of misrepresentation that is more extreme.

an unsupported and completely irrelevant statement. This is about the US governments perception and foreign policy with regards to the middle east, not some cavemen in afghanistan.

[Hax]

And many Islamic countries refer to most of the west as "Christian" when a more correct term would be "Secular".

Do remember that some people also refer to their own countries as (Judeao)Christian, here in the west. Notable examples? Geert Wilders, for example, or what about Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. They are like the radical imams of the American right wing, if you forgive the simile. Hell, George W. Bush himself said he had been inspired by God and he called the Republican Party "God's party". You know how that would translate to Arabic?

Hizbollah.

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm not really in the position to debate on whether or how "the Islamic countries/regimes/(religious)authorities" view the western states, I just wanted to point out that it is not necessarily something just they do.

EDIT 2:

Why does the US and others balk at the idea of even a mildly Islamist government? Would the US be as safe (less or more?) if it relaxed a bit about political Islam, recognising as Mr Grenier does, a difference between AL Qaida type violent jihadis and other Islamist political organisations?

While it's not really fair to draw a comparison with the Salafiyya-Wahhabi Sunni organisations and the Twelver Shi'a government of Iran, but this reminds me of what went wrong there in '79. The Shah and his SAVAK were probably less horrible than the Supreme Leader and his basiji, but what irked the Iranian people is the fact that the US and the UK (especially those two) went to such great lengths to support that regime. Of course, we know why, but that's not really important right now.

I think the reason why the US fears an Islamist government in any middle-eastern country is because they'd be afraid that they'd use it as a base to export their Islamism. Of course, Iran was never interested in exporting the revolution, as they don't really think in terms like "dar al-Islam" or "dar al-harb", but al-Qaeda does. Of course, when you look at al-Qaeda, you'll notice that they're basically idiots with western-style education that have been brainwashed by pseudo-imams that cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

[Leet Eriksson]

While it's not really fair to draw a comparison with the Salafiyya-Wahhabi Sunni organisations and the Twelver Shi'a government of Iran, but this reminds me of what went wrong there in '79. The Shah and his SAVAK were probably less horrible than the Supreme Leader and his basiji, but what irked the Iranian people is the fact that the US and the UK (especially those two) went to such great lengths to support that regime. Of course, we know why, but that's not really important right now.

I think the reason why the US fears an Islamist government in any middle-eastern country is because they'd be afraid that they'd use it as a base to export their Islamism. Of course, Iran was never interested in exporting the revolution, as they don't really think in terms like "dar al-Islam" or "dar al-harb", but al-Qaeda does. Of course, when you look at al-Qaeda, you'll notice that they're basically idiots with western-style education that have been brainwashed by pseudo-imams that cherrypicked verses from the Qur'an or the Hadiths.

The iranian revolution was mostly communist and Islamic (the communists were consumed, or their cause hijacked later on), and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.

The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.

[Strike For The South]

I have nothing relevant to add to the thread

Other than Congratulations Fizzil, the regular channels have provided with some news that is most exciting

Good show old bean

[Hax]

and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah

You're thinking of the Iran-contra affair, aren't you? My point was that initially, the west supported the Shah. Only when the situation became unbearable they decided to retract support.

and you're wrong, the west supported the islamic revolutionaries over the shah, who was actually worse, and they do export terror, the shia aligned revolts in the arabian peninsula, and hizbollah in lebanon is apparent, they aim to create an unfavourable environment for a whole lot of folks, and there is little reason to believe the IRI's interest in the welfare of shia minories, let alone the region is well intentioned.

But the Shi'i government isn't interested at all in creating a world-wide Shi'a Islamic empire or anything to that extent.

[Leet Eriksson]

You're thinking of the Iran-contra affair, aren't you? My point was that initially, the west supported the Shah. Only when the situation became unbearable they decided to retract support.



But the Shi'i government isn't interested at all in creating a world-wide Shi'a Islamic empire or anything to that extent.

Its not really hegemony, its simply a buffer to throw the US off whatever it is iranian interests are. My point is to highlight why its such an unhealthy endeavor iran is pursuing already, since these are US aligned countries, they're basically putting minorities in the peninsula in harms way to protect or serve their interests.

[Strike For The South]

Its not really hegemony, its simply a buffer to throw the US off whatever it is iranian interests are. My point is to highlight why its such an unhealthy endeavor iran is pursuing already, since these are US aligned countries, they're basically putting minorities in the peninsula in harms way to protect or serve their interests.

America would never do that!

THE KURDS ARE A GOOD PEOPLE, well they weren't when we gave Saddam the weapons to gas them in the 80s but they were in the 90s when we didn't like Saddam

If people ever stopped and looked at Americas track recored throughout the past 40 years every congressmen would be dead tommorow

I realize that holding America up to an abtairy perfection standard is stupid and idealisitc but If I could set the over at 3 for "ruthless dictators we give weapons to" per decade would that be to much to ask?

[al Roumi]

The US does not really fear an Islamic government, they simply do not want the status quo to change for a whole lot of reasons, but long story short, stability, business, the whole deal and i guess a little bit of nepotism and buddy buddy relationships with countries like saudi, morroco and egypt since the early 1900s.

Yes, but this emphasis on preserving stability at the cost of other people's aspirations is what does for perceptions of the USA's as a force for good. It is a form of exploitation which contrasts horrendously with the US' self perception as a beacon of liberty -which is of course pumped out accross the world in films and TV.

Yet given the stand point of a state dept policy maker, or even US politician, whose primary focus will (arguably quite rightly) always be the interests of the US and its citizens over any others, it's hard to see any possible change.

[Idaho]

The US supported groups of insurgents operating under warlords in Afghanistan, against the Soviets.

Once these warlords became a movement - the Taliban - the US distrusted them. And instead supported other groups of insurgents operating under (opium funded) warlords to oust them. It continues to prop up Karzai - a corrupt, incompetant and paranoid fool who no-one outside his paid up clique would touch with a bargepole.

I brought up Korea on a thread a while back. A similar thing happened then. The US was deeply suspicious of the socialist North Koreans. A group who became odder and more secretive once they had been marginalised by the US, and violently repressed by the South Korean President - Rhee - himself a classic US selection of "our man".

South and Central America was riven with "our men". Almost all corrupt and desperately unpopular and usually undemocratic despots and tyrants. Some of whom were actually sponsored by the US to overthrow democratic governments.

The US talks a lot about democracy - but in truth they are absolutely terrified of it. Because, strangely enough, poor and abused populaces in other parts of the world, with other cultures, have the odd habit of electing people who they believe represent their interests, rather than that of the US military or economy.

The biggest mistake of this century will be seen by historians as the first Bush election. Leaders around the world saw the voting irregularities and rigging as a carte blanche for the legitimization of electoral rigging. If it's ok in the US, then it's ok here.

The question that this thread has hanging in the breeze is "what is stability?" and does it really differ from acendant western interest?

[al Roumi]

The question that this thread has hanging in the breeze is "what is stability?" and does it really differ from acendant western interest?

Nicely put.

For the US (and others) to move away from the cronyist policies they would almost certainly have to be a little less risk averse. I think Frag's is right about Islamism and the desire (to whatever extent, it does exist) to create a pan-islamic block. Clearly, such a block would endanger the current "stability" enjoyed by the US (Oil, trade, security etc).

But, to what extent does political Islam engender -or enable, such a block of nation(s) forming? My impression, as with the author of the article (by inference), is that one does not nessessarily lead to the other. However, it appears that the US is not prepared to take that risk -however marginal it may be.

---------------~~~ooooOOOOoooo~~~---------------

I still find the issue of "US hypocrisy" interesting. When the US remonstrates with authoritarian leaders for their heavy handed "statecraft", does it do so becasue of a genuine will to unilaterly improve the lot of mankind -or a domestic pressure for protest to be lodged, conditioned by a greater domestic preogative for existing domestic conditions to be maintained?

To my mind, US rhetoric is aspirational enough to lead one to believe the former, but action denotes the later -which is also "pragmatic" and machiavelian enough to reflect the reality of diplomacy.

[Idaho]

For the US (and others) to move away from the cronyist policies they would almost certainly have to be a little less risk averse. I think Frag's is right about Islamism and the desire (to whatever extent, it does exist) to create a pan-islamic block. Clearly, such a block would endanger the current "stability" enjoyed by the US (Oil, trade, security etc).

But, to what extent does political Islam engender -or enable, such a block of nation(s) forming? My impression, as with the author of the article (by inference), is that one does not nessessarily lead to the other. However, it appears that the US is not prepared to take that risk -however marginal it may be.

---------------~~~ooooOOOOoooo~~~---------------

I still find the issue of "US hypocrisy" interesting. When the US remonstrates with authoritarian leaders for their heavy handed "statecraft", does it do so becasue of a genuine will to unilaterly improve the lot of mankind -or a domestic pressure for protest to be lodged, conditioned by a greater domestic preogative for existing domestic conditions to be maintained?

To my mind, US rhetoric is aspirational enough to lead one to believe the former, but action denotes the later -which is also "pragmatic" and machiavelian enough to reflect the reality of diplomacy.

Your second section gives the insight that you are missing from the first. The idea of pan-islamic statehood and the world caliphate is a fantasy. Islam is a massively sectarian religion, for one. Islamic nations have shown the same willingness for hypocracy, civil war, national interest and scullduggery that Christian nations have over the centuries.

Fearing a pan islamic world is like the 17th century protestant fears of an all-powerful pope taking over the world.

[Fragony]

My best bet would be that it's easier to make deals with nations, political islam has no national borders it's more of a movement. Just a guess, if it would be just Egypt with an islamist government it wouldn't really be a problem, but what if it's neighbours also do

[rory_20_uk]

Let's not forget the Gaza strip, where the wrong lot were democratically elected.

[Hax]

snip

Brilliant post.

[Idaho]

My best bet would be that it's easier to make deals with nations, political islam has no national borders it's more of a movement. Just a guess, if it would be just Egypt with an islamist government it wouldn't really be a problem, but what if it's neighbours also do

That's a very niaive view based on a very sketchy understanding of history.

Political Islam is the product of the "our men" policy. Go back 80 years and take a look at the creation of the countries of the middle east. Most of which were created in the aftermath of the first or second world wars. All of them were created as client states of the west with propped up leaders in the form of the House of Saud, the Hashemite monarchy, etc. Fast forward 20-40 or so years and you will find the dominant political movement in the middle east was secular and leftist. Often in the form of Ba'athist pan arabism. This was of course suppressed by "our men". The Suez crisis is an excellent case in point. A popular middle east leader who wasn't under direct control and who played off east and west for the most despicable of motives - getting a good deal for his own people.

The aggressive suppression of all political movements in the Arab and Persian world created a vaccuum of political aspirations. You couldn't stand on a soap box and make political statements. If you did you'd end up in the CIA sponsored torture chambers of the Shah of Iran or the their equivalents in the Gulf. How could political thought and aspiration get round this? How could ordinary people in these places express the natural human desire for change, justice and political expression? The answer is religion. Hence political Islam was born. The house of Saud can cart off a political firebrand never to be seen again - but could the protectors of Islam do the same to a respected cleric?

Look at the socio-economic make-up of the 9/11 bombers. Poor urchins? No - politically deprived middle classes. The same class that caused such a fuss in the US in the 1770s.

[rory_20_uk]

an unsupported and completely irrelevant statement. This is about the US governments perception and foreign policy with regards to the middle east, not some cavemen in afghanistan.

Perhaps in future you'll bother to write a cogent post as opposed to the ambiguous one you posted beforehand.

[Leet Eriksson]

Perhaps in future you'll bother to write a cogent post as opposed to the ambiguous one you posted beforehand.

The irony is overwhelming coming from a poster who has yet to contribute something that isn't devoid of content and useful.

[rory_20_uk]

The irony is overwhelming coming from a poster who has yet to contribute something that isn't devoid of content and useful.

Apologies oh great overlord for being misled by your badly worded post...

Are you aware your last statement barely makes sense either? Perhaps replacing the "and" with "or" might help...

And what do we call a reposte to a post criticising accuracy which itself is inaccurate?

[Leet Eriksson]

Apologies oh great overlord for being misled by your badly worded post...

Are you aware your last statement barely makes sense either? Perhaps replacing the "and" with "or" might help...

And what do we call a reposte to a post criticising accuracy which itself is inaccurate?

This post says alot about whose cogent, how is my post inaccurate when i'm mirroring the CIA agent in that AJE article? on the other hand you post a baseless and unsupported statement of "islamic" countries that mis characterize the secular european nations as "christian" which is apparently even more "extreme", since when did you become arbiter in this matter?

[al Roumi]

Hand-bags at dawn... Chew some Qat and chill the out ladies.

[rory_20_uk]