You're right.... We are pretty close in our thinking.
But regarding the original Iraq/Iran conflict (where we egged-on Saddam, and armed his military... after previously resupplying the Iranians), how can it be said that our actions accomplished anything useful for the world?
Imagine if we had done NEITHER.
If Iran had finally toppled Saddam after he attacked (a distinct possibility), Desert Storm would perhaps not have been necessary. It is likely that the Suni Muslim world itself would have organized to halt Iranian expansion. We would have been needed as much or more, but without being resented so much. And, without the American-made Iranian Air Force flying because of lack of spare parts... there would have been a lot fewer Arabs dead.
Possibly that war, and the later Desert Storm, and perhaps this new "Terrorism War", would not have occurred at all.
Propping up - and selling arms to - dictators, (or giving money to Theocracies... as we gave money to the Taiban this spring), just don't seem to be effective strategies anymore :(
We keep shooting ourselves in the foot... and then living to rue the day we did it... embroiled in the same conflicts that we exacerbated.
I believe our biggest mistake was trying to view the rest of the world through the same prism of perceptions we applied to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
The rules of Power Politics and "containment" that we followed during that period, just don't transfer successfully to today's regional conflicts.
And again, it was the fear of losing access to cheap oil that put the blinders on us, and caused us to react in 'kneejerks', without thinking. |
