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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Question: Why would the U.S. overthrow secular governments in the Middle East [View all]JHB
(38,373 posts)25. See the Wesley Clark interviews in this thread...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017106588
He recounts a 1991 conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon (Wolfo was the #3 man there at the time), where PW laments not ousting Saddam and has his eye on "cleaning up" the old Soviet client states in the region. That view can be seen later in the policies PNAC advocated, and under Dubya they had the chance to try it.
I don't have the timing for the first video, but on the second it starts at the 3:10 mark.
Clarke also notes that this conversation took place just after the Shia uprising, also noting that we provoked it then stood aside. The thing to remember with that incident is that (Poppy) Bush had been fishing for a coup d'etat by the Iraqi military or elements within to oust Saddam. That would let him declare victory and go home with Iraq safely in the hands of a new friendly dictator or junta, even if that was just as bad or worse for the average Iraqi.
However, one thing Saddam was good at was preventing anyone else from gaining enough of a power base to challenge him. Nobody in the army stuck their neck out into the chopping block, but the shias took Bush up on his invitation to rise up. They wouldn't be quite so easily influenced, though, and the uprising threatened to split the country in three (the third being the Kurdish area). So Bush had our forces stand by while Saddam put it down, and the country (& and our forces' mission there) stayed in limbo for the next 10 years, apparently waiting for Saddam to keel over of his own accord. That also kept us in Saudi Arabia, and one of the things that had Osama bin Laden in a lather was our infidel presence in holy (to him) lands. So Poppy's non-solution was one of the things fueling al Queda. Huzzah!
One of the big alarm bells with the 2002(3?) authorization of force (other than its passing in the first place) was how geographically open-ended it was. If he had the chance, Bush could have used it to push on to the other countries on the neocon list.
He recounts a 1991 conversation he had with Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon (Wolfo was the #3 man there at the time), where PW laments not ousting Saddam and has his eye on "cleaning up" the old Soviet client states in the region. That view can be seen later in the policies PNAC advocated, and under Dubya they had the chance to try it.
I don't have the timing for the first video, but on the second it starts at the 3:10 mark.
Clarke also notes that this conversation took place just after the Shia uprising, also noting that we provoked it then stood aside. The thing to remember with that incident is that (Poppy) Bush had been fishing for a coup d'etat by the Iraqi military or elements within to oust Saddam. That would let him declare victory and go home with Iraq safely in the hands of a new friendly dictator or junta, even if that was just as bad or worse for the average Iraqi.
However, one thing Saddam was good at was preventing anyone else from gaining enough of a power base to challenge him. Nobody in the army stuck their neck out into the chopping block, but the shias took Bush up on his invitation to rise up. They wouldn't be quite so easily influenced, though, and the uprising threatened to split the country in three (the third being the Kurdish area). So Bush had our forces stand by while Saddam put it down, and the country (& and our forces' mission there) stayed in limbo for the next 10 years, apparently waiting for Saddam to keel over of his own accord. That also kept us in Saudi Arabia, and one of the things that had Osama bin Laden in a lather was our infidel presence in holy (to him) lands. So Poppy's non-solution was one of the things fueling al Queda. Huzzah!
One of the big alarm bells with the 2002(3?) authorization of force (other than its passing in the first place) was how geographically open-ended it was. If he had the chance, Bush could have used it to push on to the other countries on the neocon list.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
36 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Question: Why would the U.S. overthrow secular governments in the Middle East [View all]
UnrepentantLiberal
Mar 2013
OP
I don't know the logic, but empirical evidence suggests that Islamic fundamentalist government...
JVS
Mar 2013
#1
That's an interesting question and I don't have an answer. I've gotten this far:
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#5
Because the Neocons in think tanks are the ones who were too stupid to teach at Chicago?
Recursion
Mar 2013
#23
When Saddam left the dollar for payment for oil he sealed his fate and that of Iraq
Fumesucker
Mar 2013
#8
yes, that's part of it but I think it's more than a coincidence that so many
NoMoreWarNow
Mar 2013
#11
I doubt it. Because they keep doing the same thing, despite the example of repeated
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#7
It is human nature that people do not like living under repressive kings/dictators.
pampango
Mar 2013
#12
most of humanity lived under repressive dictators for most of history. and the repressive
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#17
We supported Mubarak for decades and Egyptians showed they were quite ready to overthrow him.
pampango
Mar 2013
#26
Follow the money - Saudi Arabia gains. Who do you think owns many multinational oil corps along
leveymg
Mar 2013
#13
So you're saying U.S. polititians are overthrowing secular governments in the Middle East
UnrepentantLiberal
Mar 2013
#15
Essentially, yes, we are viewed by the Saudis as hired mercenaries. Useful, but only to a point.
leveymg
Mar 2013
#22
From what I read about Egypt, the Islamists provided a social safety net
Lydia Leftcoast
Mar 2013
#27
Well said. Dictators (and their foreign supporters) in the region have created the Islamist
pampango
Mar 2013
#32
they are only interested in creating chaos in secular governments (including the US)
librechik
Mar 2013
#36