Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

karynnj

(60,836 posts)
7. It probably was a factor in the total destabilization of the Middle East
Mon Jan 21, 2013, 09:49 AM
Jan 2013

This was the goal of the neocons. A goal that to me seemed equivalent to throwing all the puzzle pieces of a difficult puzzle that you were struggling to put together up into the air and hoping that the puzzle would be easier once you did that. The neo cons were not altogether wrong in initially trying to grab credit for the Arab Spring. (Note how quickly they abandoned that claim as the governments did not magically become idealist, Utopian democracies.)

It also made Iran more powerful and removed the biggest region "check" to it.

You can go back further and ask what was the real impact of the first gulf war, which even people like Senator Lugar refer to as a war for oil, was. Many of the jihadhis were radicalized because we maintained troops in Saudi Arabia.

You can go back further than that, and ask what the effect of the proxy wars associated with the cold war did. It did seem cheaper and lost no American lives to arm the Mujahadims to fight the Soviets.

You can go back further to the colonial times and consider the impact of the British policy of putting a minority population in all the positions of power that they allowed the "natives" to have and then leaving. In places which had democracies, the subjected majority often then became the power. (One example is Sri Lanka.)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did the invasion of Iraq ...»Reply #7