It’s not surprising that US backing for Middle Eastern democracy is a hollow sham, given that:

* Two-thirds of Jordanians, Palestinians and Egyptians support a legal system based solely on the Shari’ah (with most others supporting a system based partially on the Shari’ah).
* Two-thirds of Syrians support a legal system based partially on the Shari’ah (with most others supporting a system based solely on the Shari’ah).

(from “Revisiting the Arab Street“)

and:

* 76% of Moroccans, 74% of Egyptians, 79% of Pakistanis and 53% of Indonesians support strict application of Shari’ah law in every Muslim country.
* 71% of Moroccans, 67% of Egyptians, 74% of Pakistanis and 49% of Indonesians support the political unification of the Islamic world (ie. the restoration of the Caliphate)

(from “Muslim Public Opinion on US Policy, Attacks on Civilians and al Qaeda“)?

When France (for example) opposed the 2003 Iraq war, I bet “Better Saddam than Shari’ah” was at least part of the reason…

Gee – I wonder if they know the difference between Egypt, the Lebenon and Iran?

I bet the neocons think that was America’s worst foreign-policy mistake (pissing off allies Britain and France, to suck up to the Arabs that turned against America regardless).

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

I think that’s certainly true and was part of the calculation, but I can’t shake the conviction that it was in no small part: “Fuck you, democracy is for white people.”

Suez.

Actually, the recent bill expressly prohibits funds going toward the construction of such bases.

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

Had it been a U.S. priority, the U.S. would have taken the same efforts to force France to an accomodation, just like the U.S. did with the British and several of its colonial territories, and it would have done so successfully. One of the problems was the degree of arrogance in presuming that the colonies would remain colonies for generations if not centuries hence. And had it been phrased in the same ideological terms of freedom and independence with which the supposedly anti-Red maniacal policies were phrased, it would have resonated both with the French and U.S. populations. (But then, that would have undermined the post-war effort by both French and U.S. authorities to slander and undermine the leftist and socialist resistance which fought the Nazis in WWII.)

That sanity would have been unrealistic is not persuasive to me, unless we’re being anthropological about the insane perspectives of the US foreign policy establishment. The fact is that they were willing to invoke upon the US population tremendous costs and losses whenever it served their crazy and aggressive purposes.

We are barely past these periods. Today it’s all viewed within the filtering valves opened by that same foreign policy establishment and its pundit worshippers.

One day, perhaps long in the future, perhaps not so long, the US establishment’s use of the Soviet foe to justify screwing up the rest of the globe in ways that served neither the populations under attack nor us here at home will be seen with as much fond remembrance as the Crusades.

The US funded the Viet Minh’s resistance against the Japanese during World War II. Ho Chi Minh’s 1945 Declaration of Independence was modeled on the American one. The US decided to back France instead, and ended up providing most of the funding and equipment for France’s war. When the Vietnamese beat the French, the US had its last chance to live up to its rhetoric, but we chose war instead.

The problem was that in Cold War terms, the US needed France more than it needed Vietnam. US hostility to French colonialism would have made bitter enemies of a France still reeling from the humiliation of 1940…

Take a look at what Ted Koppel said on NPR on Thursday. His conclusion is:

Where the Bush administration has failed, tragically and repeatedly, is in explaining to the American public why U.S. forces were sent into Iraq in the first place, and why they must remain there now.

…

Blood for oil has never been a popular slogan in America. But try to separate us from our motor vehicles and you’ll get a sense of where our national interests lie. And if you try to keep those vehicles running without Persian Gulf oil, you’ll know that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is nowhere in our immediate future.

http://www.darrelplant.com/blog_item.php?ItemRef=690

Point being, though, re Alter is that We Weren’t Imperialist.

All that our foreign policy establishment wanted to do was completely dominate the entire world and choose the type, purpose, and form of government in every nation on the planet, and make sure that their existence primarily served to enrich our investors.

There’s nothing imperialist about that, is there?

And by the way, if you think so, you’re just a weird freaky lefty-head who shouldn’t ever be allowed near real journalist folk, because we’re so smart and rational and have done such, such a bang-up job throughout history of keeping our nation out of foolish and immoral foreign entanglements.

Look, there are a lot of survivalist loons out there, and they do some crazy shit. But if you’re under forty, you need to start thinking seriously about this. You don’t need to go crazy, but think about what you need to have and what you might need to do to take care of your friends and family when it all just grinds to a halt. You need food, fuel, weapons and mobility. It’s like preparing for an earthquake or hurricane, except there’s two big differences. First, help is NOT coming in a week or so. There is no help. It will just keep getting worse. Second, if you are in a city or immediate suburbs, you are a target. People are going to kill you and take your shit. Your plan needs to include getting out of that 150 mile radius from any good sized city.

You ought to have at least a basic grasp on how to kill, clean and skin an animal, purify water and set a defensible perimeter. First aid skills. If you know how to plant a garden and fix a motor, all the better. If you have friends who won’t laugh at you, talk about it with them. Make a pool of money to buy supplies, weapons and negotiables like gold.

Look at it this way. If it never happens, it was a good, if slightly embarrassing exercise. If you don’t do it and the whole thing slides off the rails, you’re going to die hard, and that’s no use to the tribe. At least think about it, ok?

mikey

El Cid, there would have been no need for that, because Ho Chi Minh actually admired America, and tried to contact the Dear Leader Du Jour. He was rebuffed, which meant that he was then forced to seek help elsewhere. And the rest is history.

We’re not going to be the big shot forever. All great nations eventually fade, and it’s going to happen to us to, despite what the wingers would like to think.

Gundamhead, what’s most likely, at least at the moment, is economic collapse. The US government is squandering the wealth of the country on weapons and tax cuts, and while the debt is being shouldered by China, there is undoubtedly a point beyond which China will not go. They’re already starting to diversify their basket, I think, as are other countries. US dollars are not such a guaranteed investment these days.

The other possibility is that the USians themselves decide enough is enough, and shoehorn the Bush junta out in favour of some more moderate administration. And I use the term “moderate” carefully: I mean moderate compared to the current gang of idiots, not compared to the rest of the world. You guys are so far out in Rabid Foaming Righty Land that normal folk can hardly see you. Strange, considering that polls suggest (I hate that phrase) that most Americans are actually quite progressive. But you get the government that, well, somebody else wanted.

Dude, you didn’t even need to do that. Ho Chi Minh came to you first and said “Hey, help us get ridda the French”.

Can you imagine how much different the 20th century would have been if Wilson had paid attention?

It’s going to work out as well for the US in Iraq as it did for theFrench in Indo-China…

Just pontificating out my ass, but I think it’s something to think about.

Actually, they ARE out of character. Not from a goal standpoint, but from a methodology standpoint. The US has historically embraced an Imperial foreign policy, to deny that is to be simply unaware of history. But in most cases, the US used soft power rather than military intervention, because the political leadership prior to our current idiot in chief were aware that military action was unpredictable, and could very easily go sideways on you.

The US postwar power projection model was typically more along the lines of Iran 1953 than Iraq 2003. And the world genuinely believed the mythology of the unstoppable US military. Because the US seldom took the risk of exposing the fundamental weakness of a military only strategy. It really is a long stretch from the velvet-over-steel “diplomacy” of “nice little country you got here…” to a full blown, no stopping us invasion.

No, the bush/cheney cabal is a sea-change in US imperial doctrine. By invading countries out of choice and publicly acknowledging torture, renditions and permanent internment, they have ended the fairly effective playacting and demonstrated for all what the US is about, and the things it’s leadership are willing to do to protect economic power and corporate profits…

mikey

We’re saving that for Rove, Cheney, and certain other current occupants of the West Wing. Just before we ship them to the Hague, of course.