Whether the liberation and occupation of foreign countries
for humanitarian reasons is commendable or not is a matter of debate. Even if
such an action is decidedly positive for all those involved, should the
liberating country stay for reconstruction? What right does a foreign power
have to ensure that the new local regime of a region is friendly to the
interests of the liberating country? Does the liberating country have the right
to profit off a so-called humanitarian intervention? Is it even a humanitarian
intervention if any form of profit goes to the liberating country? These are
very hard questions to answer in light of the actions the United States has
taken in the Middle East. Blood and Oil:
The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency on imported
Petroleum, by Michael Klare, discusses U.S. foreign interference and occupation
in the Middle East for the continued flow of oil to countries all around the
world. More recently, Stephen Farrell wrote an article in the New York Times
entitled ‘Hell No, They Won’t Go’ to
sum up Iraqi feelings that the American occupation of Iraq was far from over in
2011. This issue will also surface in the upcoming presidential election in the
U.S. Robert Parry wrote an article for
AlterNet that explains the present situation in Romney’s Neocon Foreign Policy and the legacy of 9/11.
Saudi Arabia is of interest to
the United States because of the extensive amount of known oil reserves in the
region. While U.S. relations with Saudi Arabia go back awhile, the United
States did not enter the region with military support until 1990, when the
Saudis (and their oil) needed protection from Iraqi forces in Kuwait (Klare, 2005). Operation Desert Storm, as
it was known as in the U.S., was supposed to end with the removal of U.S.
military forces after the Iraqis backed down (Klare, 2005). This did not happen because
the United States decided that Saddam Hussein’s continued leadership of Iraq
after the crisis abated was still a threat to the Saudis and their oil fields (Klare, 2005). While the Americans did not
completely break their promise because of the continued danger Saddam
presented, anti-American feelings grew with the military’s continued presence.
While it is difficult to determine how much of a factor Saddam’s threat to
Saudi Arabia was in the U.S. liberation and occupation of Iraq, American troops
were withdrawn to other bases outside of Saudi Arabia after Saddam’s regime
ended (Klare, 2005). In some ways this ended the
occupation of bases in Saudi Arabia, but many forces where simply moved to
Qatar, so American presence in the region was not too diminished (Klare, 2005).
According
to Klare, the war in Iraq was not entirely a response to 9/11 because war was
being called for before any connection could be established between Hussein and
Al Qaeda (Klare, 2005). Along with a whole host of
reasons, including weapons of mass destruction that were never found, oil also
appeared to be part of U.S. plans for Iraq. It is hard to establish how much of
a factor Iraqi oil was in America’s actions against Iraq, but even before the
war began, The State Department’s Future of Iraq Project included opening
Iraq’s reserves to outside, American approved, investors (Klare, 2005). Even the fact that there was
a plan created by the U.S. for the future of Iraq demonstrates how far outside
humanitarian intervention the United States has gone. Liberating oppressed
peoples and then outlining there future is not liberating them. All the U.S.
has appeared to do is exchange Saddam’s evil oppression for a form of American
oppression. When combined with the other reasons given for entering the war in
Iraq it is hard to see how most of it was justified. When the U.S. did finally
start leaving Iraq the locals did not believe it because they could not see why
such a powerful country would leave when there was so much to profit from in
Iraq (Farrell, 2011). Stephen Farrell quoted Artan
Omar saying that “The Americans didn’t come to Iraq just to take Saddam down
and just leave; they were here for their interests, and this will be for ever.”
(2011).
Saddam
Hussein is not the only leader of an unstable region unsympathetic to American
goals. Klare says that “The Bush Administration’s Ultimate Goal in Iran is the
same as it was in Iraq: a change in regime.” (2005, p. 105). If the majority of
the Middle East is considered unstable than where will interference in the
Middle East end? The United States surely does not have the right to remove
people from power whenever they deem it necessary. As of 2002, the Bush
Administration’s plan to create a more favorable situation in Iran was to put
diplomatic and economic pressure on the country while supporting local rebels (Klare, 2005). While it is not unreasonable
to push for change in regions that are being oppressed by hostile rulers that
threaten other countries, it should be asked who gets to decide what changes
are made in the country after a dangerous government has been removed.
Even after
the Bush Administration left office, the ideas that fueled their actions
continue to influence future policy. Mitt Romney is gathering together the same
kind of thinkers and neoconservatives that Bush did in formulating his foreign
policy (Parry, 2012). These are the same
neoconservative thinkers that ignored the threats leading up to 9/11 (Parry, 2012). On top of that, Romney is
criticizing Obama’s plans for pulling troops out of Afghanistan in 2012 and
intends to recreate a large portion of Bush’s foreign policy (Parry, 2012). If Romney wins the election,
it appears that occupation and inference in Middle Eastern affairs will
increase. This will more than likely feed anti-American discontent in the
region and decrease the stability of the region even further.
With a
foreign policy that considers other countries resources a matter of their
national security will there ever be an end to United States interference in
the Middle East? With the justifications, both true and false, used to enter
the Middle East in the past is there any foreseeable end to this type of
intervention? There are no easy answers. The one thing that is clear is that
the United States will continue to have an interest in the region. Without
direct control, the region will probably not stabilize. This commits the U.S. to
mothering countries in the region indefinitely. At what point does U.S.
intervention abroad go too far if any resource can be a justifiable reason to
interfere? Reasoning like this to get whatever a country wants is unacceptable.
The United States and its people need to recognize the dangers of this type of
policy because it gives the U.S. too much control and condemns them to a
virtually unending commitment in the Middle East.
References
Farrell, S. (2011). “Hell No, They Won”t
Go’. At War Blog. Retrieved September 16, 2012, from
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/hell-no-they-wont-go/
Klare, M.
T. (2005). Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing
Dependency on Imported Petroleum. Holt Paperbacks.
Parry, R.
(2012). Romney’s Neocon Foreign Policy and the Legacy of 9/11. AlterNet.
Retrieved from
http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-views/romneys-neocon-foreign-policy-and-legacy-911?akid=9378.29753.n5X9Px&rd=1&src=newsletter708628&t=23
No comments:
Post a Comment