[Mb-civic] IMPORTANT: Where Do We Meddle Next? - Michael Kinsley - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Where Do We Meddle Next?
A Half-Century of Protecting Our Interests
<>
By Michael Kinsley
The Washington Post
Friday, April 14, 2006; A17

So, after more than a half-century of active meddling -- protecting our 
interests, promoting our values, encouraging democracy, fighting 
terrorism, seeking stability, defending human rights, pushing peace -- 
it's come to this. In Iraq we find ourselves unwilling regents of a 
society splitting into a gangland of warring militias and death squads, 
with our side (labeled "the government") outperforming the other side 
(labeled "the terrorists") in both the quantity and gruesome quality of 
its daily atrocities. In Iran, an irrational government that hates us 
with special passion is closer to getting the bomb than Iraq -- the 
country we went to war with to keep from getting the bomb -- ever was.

And in Afghanistan -- site of the Iraq war prequel that actually 
followed the script (invade, topple brutal regime, wipe out terrorists, 
establish democracy, accept grateful thanks, get out) -- the good guys 
we put in power came close a couple of weeks ago to executing a man for 
the crime of converting to Christianity. Meanwhile, the bad guys (the 
Taliban and al-Qaeda) keep a low news profile by concentrating on 
killing children and other Afghan civilians rather than too many 
American soldiers.

When the United States should use its military strength to achieve 
worthy goals abroad is an important question. But based on this record, 
it seems a bit theoretical. A more pressing question is: Can't anyone 
here play this game?

Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an 
elected legislature, called the majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, 
called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, 
over the shah's objections, the majlis voted in a man named Mohammad 
Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil 
companies.

But in 1952 the United States had an election for president, and the 
winner (Dwight Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must 
explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a 
riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the majlis was 
ultimately dissolved and the shah ran things his way, which involved 
torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an 
international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy talk about 
nationalizing the oil companies.

But, speaking of crazy talk, resentment of the shah and of the United 
States was central to the growing appeal of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. 
In 1979 the ayatollah's followers overthrew the shah and made Iran a 
strict Islamic state. Later that year Iranian "students" besieged the 
U.S. Embassy and seized 66 hostages, most of whom were held prisoner for 
over a year. Hatred of Iran in America became almost as fierce as hatred 
of America in Iran.

Meanwhile, next door in Iraq, an ambitious young dictator, new to the 
job, named Saddam Hussein sensed both danger and opportunity in Iran's 
chaos. So he decided to invade. Thus started the Iran-Iraq War, lasting 
eight years. It turned hundreds of thousands of people into corpses and 
millions into refugees. When it was over, nothing had changed. But it 
wasn't a complete waste. It provided another opportunity for the United 
States to promote its interests and values.

On the "enemy of my enemy" principle, the United States all but 
officially backed Iraq. We overlooked Hussein's use of chemical weapons 
against Iranian soldiers (many of them children) and against his own 
people. Many of the human rights abuses President Bush and others have 
invoked two decades later to justify the decision to topple and try 
Hussein were well publicized in the 1980s. But in the 1980s, we didn't 
care. Meanwhile, of course, Ronald Reagan was also secretly selling 
weapons to Iran.

The big event in Afghanistan this past half-century was the Soviet 
occupation of 1979. After the occupation, some of the deposed thugs and 
others formed militias that roamed the countryside killing people and 
whatnot. These were called "guerrillas," because we were for them. 
During the 1980s, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on 
weapons and other support.

The war we sustained in Afghanistan destroyed the country, turned half 
the population into refugees and killed perhaps a million people. In 
1989 the Soviets pulled out. But, disappointingly, our guerrillas kept 
on fighting -- using our weapons -- against the government and among 
themselves. In 1996 one particularly extreme group, the Taliban, took 
power. It was even more disappointing when the Taliban established an 
Islamic state more extreme than the one in Iran and invited Osama bin 
Laden to make himself at home, which he did.

So we marched in and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq 
and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're -- well, we haven't figured out 
what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.

And they lived happily ever after.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/13/AR2006041301664.html?nav=hcmodule
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060414/927c9e97/attachment.htm