Study: U.S. Mideast policy motivated by pro-Israel lobby

I challenged a statement you made that our 'history was filled with examples of our toppling democratic regimes for despotic ones.' You can't name five examples of such and I doubt your definition of 'history filled with' means less than five. I'm disappointed that you'd resort to the opt out of 'you're just arguing semantics.' The challenge was to a specific assertion. You can rephrase your assertion, if semantics is your problem, or admit your statement was an exaggeration. Brushing off the challenge is beneath you, IMO. The rest of your history lesson is irrelevant. No one is disputing that we have worked with and supported despotic regimes. Frankly I'm surpised that the scholar in you would be so cavalier about generalizing assertions.

 

Well, this thread "jumped the shark," after page 1, the last page I had read, until now. I find myself agreeing with parts of both sides of the discussion (or what it turned into), and disagreeing with parts of both sides as well. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, at the tone taken when Taiwan entered the picture. Just say the word, "Taiwan," and folks like wnes, who had really been impressing me with his posts, get incredibly defensive of the PRC. Hayes, you're parsing the details, as usual, which is what wnes does, so I suppose you two are a logical nexus for "rabid" debate. (no offense)

Just a couple of points I'd like to make, which I'll probably regret making:

The United States acts in it's interests, as all sovereign states do, but the interpretation of what those interests are is a subject of disagreement among Americans... Iraq and Vietnam being perfect examples.

The United States has, on several occasions, intervened to "topple" democratic states, and has acted to influence, for good or ill, political movements in sovereign nations, if it was perceived (subject to disagreement among Americans) to be in it's interests to do so. It is subsidizing political parties in other nations today (look into the former Soviet Union for examples), so the practice hasn't stopped.

Largely, in my opinion, it has been a mistake to interfere with the internal politics of another nation, and has ultimately harmed US interests... but not always. (Iran and Iraq, in my opinion, are examples of US interference to topple a government, when it would have served US interests better had things been left alone)

Taiwan and Israel are two countries where US policy has been unique, and has been largely continued over many years, by numerous Presidents and Congresses controlled by both parties in this country. In both instances there is seen, in this country, to be a moral component, which complicates "straight forward" US policy serving US interests. In both cases, in my opinion, the US has acted, at times, in an immoral fashion in support of those moral issues, and US interests, concerning both countries.

As much as both sides would like to believe that they stand on firm ground regarding these subjects, in my opinion, both sides have a foot on solid ground, and one in quicksand.

As Latka on Taxi said, "thank you very much."



Keep D&D Civil.

 

I didn't brush them aside, I pointed out they didn't match your statement. You can't topple a regime that is not in power.

I don't think we do. I give you credit for those whose descriptions, YOUR descriptions, meet your original statement. In fact I even give you another (chile) for free. That still doesn't make more than five, which I think is a pretty low threshold for your statement to be considered valid.

Yes.

And yet you cannot name at least five, even with me spotting you one.

Thank you. That's much more valid than your original statement. Now we're good.

Haven't read too too much of the literature about the post-election actions, honestly. Not sure if lack of support or even negative opinion translates to 'actively undermining.'

Hmmmm...

 

They don't have the oil, but they are the main foothold for the West in the ME, so protecting it is not much different ... from that myopic perspective.

Israel also has many fundamentalist Christian supporters who see religious significance to the Jewish presence in Israel. Jst today Pat Robertson was pretty d*mn upset today with the Israeli elections...asking the Israelis what is their raison d'tre if they feel they can 'abandon' their historical lands.

 

D*mn Hayes, you didn't know how good you had it ... briefly ...

 

Sorry, but that sounds pretty much like fictional logic created after the fact, the 'fact' being the post 9-11 fundamentalist Islamic threat. Can you site any analysis of the day that indicates that mujahideen was the primary motivator for Bosnia intervention and not human rights?

 

The last line of your post severely offended me. Latka Gravas was on Taxi , not Cheers . Let's get our facts straight before we debate on the D&D

P.S. You know I am giving you a hard time. Who really cares about Latka Gravas in the 21st Century, right?

 

Great post, Deckard. I agree with most of it, though I want to know the several occasions we have toppled or helped topple democratic governments.

One thing I want to point out, regarding self- interest. For some reason, it is ok for other countries to act wholly out of self- interest. Does anyone doubt that China will doubt whatever is best for China? In fact, it's even ok for them to hate the United States. If someone hates the US, it is our job as Americans to find out why WE made THEM hate US.

However, when the US acts wholly out of self- interest, even when it is to preserve or way of life or that of our long- term allies, it is somehow immoral and wrong (or, gasp, motivated by lobbies!). I believe that if we ever stop looking out for our self- interest then we will truly be putting ourselves in danger.

 

Dammit, I knew that!!
One edit, coming up.

Do you know why I thought of him? I've had Man On the Moon, by REM, running through my head the last few days. In order to drive everyone else crazy, I give you Man On the Moon:

Mott the Hoople and the game of Life. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Andy Kaufman in the wrestling match. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Monopoly, Twenty one, checkers, and chess. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Fred Blassie in a breakfast mess. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Let's play Twister, let's play Risk. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
See you heaven if you make the list. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hey, Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby. Are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.

Moses went walking with the staff of wood. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Newton got beaned by the apple good. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Egypt was troubled by the horrible asp. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Charles Darwin had the gall to ask. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hey Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey, Andy are you goofing on Elvis? Hey, baby. Are you having fun?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.

Here's a little agit for the never-believer. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a little ghost for the offering. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's a truck stop instead of Saint Peter's. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Mister Andy Kaufman's gone wrestling [wrestling bears]. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Hey Andy did you hear about this one? Tell me, are you locked in the punch?
Hey Andy are you goofing on Elvis, hey baby, are we losing touch?
If you believed they put a man on the moon, man on the moon.
If you believe there's nothing up my sleeve, then nothing is cool.


I saw Mott the Hoople in concert, BTW. They were fantastic! I watched Man landing on the Moon, via Walter Cronkite, CBS, and, of course, NASA. Anyone remember that? One of the great things done by this country and not, as yet, duplicated, although I have hopes my children will walk there, someday.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

There's nothing wrong with the US acting out of self-interest. Its what every country does as you say. However, the US also tries to claim a moral high ground as being the so-called "defender of the free world" and or fighter of "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights", etc etc in its rhetoric. While I admit that there is some moral component of US foreign policy, it is certainly out of proportion to the reality of US foreign policy which is largely amoral, realistic and self-interested.

When you set yourself up to seem like some impartial, super-altruistic, super-benevolent "holier than thou attitude" superpower and this isn't really completely or mostly true and people know this, well you can understand why some foreigners will get annoyed. Countries like China, or even most other free, democratic regimes don't routinely claim to be moral in its foreign policies or adopt a "holier than thou" attitude.

 

I know, I know....

No, its most unlikely that he can show that. It's an absurd recreation to dejustify the intervention.

Daaaaaaaamn. What do the kids say these days? P3wnd or something to that effect?

Well, for 50 years we were the defender of the free world, in case you missed the last half century.

Everything is relative. In comparison to other great powers we certainly have more of a moral component to our foreign policy.

Er, China certainly has a holier than thou attitude and they're a friggin authoritarian regime. Take a gander at the press releases from the EU and tell me they don't have a holier than thou attitude. That's just a silly claim. Especially when you consider that when the shi-ite hits the fan its not the EU or China that comes to the rescue, even in their own backyard.

 

Thanks, Mr. Clutch. Some examples of Democratic governments "we" didn't care for, and helped to topple? Tiger mentioned some a page or 2 back, but I'm happy to provide some for you:

Chile- (excerpts)

According to the 1975 Church Report, covert United States involvement in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973 was extensive and continuous. The Central Intelligence Agency covertly spent three million dollars in an effort to influence the outcome of the 1964 Chilean presidential elections [1], and eight million dollars in the three years between 1970 and the military coup in September 1973, with over three million in fiscal year 1972 alone. Covert American activity was present in almost every major election in Chile in the decade between 1963 and 1973, but its actual effect on electoral outcomes is not altogether clear. Chile, more than any of its South American neighbors, had an extensive democratic tradition dating back to the early 1930's, and even before. Because of this, it is difficult to gauge how successful its tactics were in swaying voters.

Efforts by the U.S. government to prevent Allende from taking office after his 1970 election are documented in U.S. metarials declassified during the Clinton administration. For example, a formal instruction was issued on 16 October 1970 to the CIA base in Chile, saying in part, "It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup. It would be much preferable to have this transpire prior to 24 October but efforts in this regard will continue vigorously beyond this date. We are to continue to generate maximum pressure toward this end, utilizing every appropriate resource. It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [United States Government] and American hand be well hidden..." [2], [Karamessines, 1970]

There is no doubt that U.S. officials ordered measures up to and including support for a potential coup to prevent Allende from taking office, although there are conflicting views as to whether the U.S. later pulled back from this position.

The CIA was notified by contacts of the impending Pinochet coup two days in advance, but contends it "played no direct role in" the coup. On September 16, 1973, after Pinochet had assumed power, the following exchange about the coup took place between U.S. National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon:

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.
Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [Garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.

The coup, regardless of the degree of U.S. involvement, achieved the U.S. government's objective of eliminating the possibility of socialism being constructed in Chile, and brought about a regime sympathetic to U.S. interests.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._intervention_in_Chile


Iran-

The United States also reacted with alarm as it watched developments in Iran, which had been in a state of instability since 1951.

Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), the British had a monopoly on the transporting pumping, and refining of oil in most of Iran. The company paid production royalties to the government of the Shah— placed on the throne by the British in 1941. But the royalties and salaries to Iranian employees were smaller, considering that the company's earnings were ten times greater than its expenses.7 Iran suffered from poverty, and nationalists insisted that controlling the company could alleviate this.

Many Iranians demanded that a higher share of the company's earnings be paid. In response, the AIOC replied that it had a binding agreement with the Shah until 1993, and collaborated with some Iranian political forces to draft a report opposing nationalization. In February 1951, the Iranian prime minister, suspected of being involved with the report— was assassinated and replaced by nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh. Later that year the new prime minister nationalized his nation's British-owned oil wells. The United States reacted with alarm as it watched Mossadegh begin to confront Western-owned corporations in Iran.

As the Iranians moved toward seizing the reserves, the Truman administration attempted to mediate. Later, the Eisenhower administration, convinced that Iran was developing Communist ties, used the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), joining forces with Iran's military leaders to overthrow Iran's government. Mossadegh drew on the Tudeh, Communist Party of Iran, for much of his support. However, by 1953 the party had began to criticize him as a U.S. "puppet." Since the Tudeh was the strongest Communist party in the Middle East at this time, the Eisenhower administration claimed to fear a first Communist takeover in the Middle East. In addition, Iran shared a border with the Soviet Union thus increasing Iran's strategic position. Later Eisenhower cited an August plebiscite in which Mossadegh gained a fraudulent "99.4%" of the vote as evidence of Communist influence. [2]

To replace Mossadegh, the U.S. favored the young Mohammed Reza Pahlevi. In return, Pahlevi promised to allow U.S. companies to share in the development of his nation's reserves. According to CIA documents finally made public in 2000, the U.S. provided guns, trucks, armored cars, and radio communications in the CIA-assisted 1953 coup, which elevated Pahlevi from his position as that of a constitutional monarch to that of an absolute ruler.8 With Mossadeq out of the way, oil profits were then divided between the Shah's regime and a new international consortium; in turn the British were awarded 40% of the country's oil revenues, five US firms (Gulf, Socony Vacuum, Standard Oil of California, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and Texaco) won another 40%, and the rest went to Royal Dutch Shell and Compagnie Française des Pétroles.9 The profits were divided evenly between the consortium and Iran. [3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War_(1953-1962)#Mossadegh_and_the_CIA_in_Iran


Guatemala-

Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was the democratically elected, center-left agrarian reformist President of Guatemala. Overthrown in a CIA-led coup, he was replaced by a military junta that proved to be one of the bloodiest in the region, and led to a thirty-year civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobo_Arbenz_Guzman


The Phillipines- (excerpts)

In December 1898, the U.S. purchased the Philippines and other territories from Spain at the Treaty of Paris for the sum of 20 million United States dollars, after the U.S. defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. government made plans to make the Philippines an American colony. However, the Filipinos, fighting for their independence from Spain since 1896, had already declared their independence on June 12, 1898. On August 14, 1898, 11,000 American ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines. On January 1, 1899, Emilio Aguinaldo was declared the first President. He later organized a Congress at Malolos, Bulacan to draft a constitution.

Tensions between the Filipinos and the American soldiers on the islands existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by the feelings of betrayal on the part of the Filipinos by their former allies, the Americans. Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier named Robert William Grayson shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into American-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war.[1] U.S. President William McKinley later told reporters "that the insurgents had attacked Manila" in justifying war on the Philippines. The Battle of Manila (1899) that followed caused thousands of casualties for Filipinos and Americans alike.

The administration of U.S. President McKinley subsequently declared Aguinaldo to be an "outlaw bandit", and no formal declaration of war was ever issued. Two reasons have been given for this:

One is that calling the war the Philippine Insurrection made it appear to be a rebellion against a lawful government, although the only part of the Philippines under American control was Manila.
The other was to enable the American government to avoid liability to claims by veterans of the action.

As of 1900, Aguinaldo ordered his army to engage in guerrilla warfare, a means of operation which better suited them and made American occupation of the Philippine archipelago all the more difficult over the next few years. In fact, during just the first four months of the guerrilla war the Americans lost nearly 500 men who were either killed or wounded. The Filipino resistance fighters began staging bloody ambushes and raids. Most infamous were the guerrilla victories at Pulang Lupa and Balangiga. At first, it even seemed as if the Filipinos would fight the Americans to a stalemate and force them to withdraw. This was even considered by President McKinley at the beginning of the phase.

The shift to guerrilla warfare, however, only angered the Americans into acting more ruthlessly than before. They began taking no prisoners, burning whole villages, and routinely shooting surrendering Filipinos. Much worse were the concentration camps that civilians were forced into, after being suspected of being guerrilla sympathizers. Thousands of civilians died in these camps. In nearly all cases, the civilians suffered much worse than the actual Filipino guerrillas.

The subsequent American repression towards the population decreased tremendously the materials, men, and morale of many Filipino resistance fighters, compelling them in one way or another to surrender.

While some measures to allow partial self-government were implemented earlier, the guerrilla war did not subside until 1913 when US President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed a change in policy that would, after a transitional period, grant the Philippines full independence.


I found this quote from Mark Twain to be eerily appropos to what we see in Iraq today. From Wikpedia:

Mark Twain famously opposed the war by using his influence in the press. He felt it betrayed the ideals of American Democracy by not allowing the Filipino people to choose their own destiny.

"There is the case of the Philippines. I have tried hard, and yet I cannot for the life of me comprehend how we got into that mess. Perhaps we could not have avoided it -- perhaps it was inevitable that we should come to be fighting the natives of those islands -- but I cannot understand it, and have never been able to get at the bottom of the origin of our antagonism to the natives. I thought we should act as their protector -- not try to get them under our heel. We were to relieve them from Spanish tyranny to enable them to set up a government of their own, and we were to stand by and see that it got a fair trial. It was not to be a government according to our ideas, but a government that represented the feeling of the majority of the Filipinos, a government according to Filipino ideas. That would have been a worthy mission for the United States. But now -- why, we have got into a mess, a quagmire from which each fresh step renders the difficulty of extrication immensely greater. I'm sure I wish I could see what we were getting out of it, and all it means to us as a nation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War



I think that is as much as I have energy for. Sure, much of this needs to be seen through the lens of the Cold War, when paranoia, some deserved, and some not, over the Red Menace drove so much of our policy... that, and economic desires driven by Western business interests. Pretty damned complicated. Greece was an absolutely chaotic mess, with factions all over the place. Communists supported by Tito in Yugoslavia fighting Communists supported by Moscow, with different factions opposing them... monarchists, right-wing military groups (the ultimate winners, off and on, until fairly recently). I'm not going to attempt to get into that.

I'll just say that there were numerous instances of American and other Western intervention of one kind or another. Some justified and some not, in my opinion. The Cold War was a b!tch. I remember strolling through the large square in front of the Presidential Palace, in Athens, in 1965 with my family. There was a huge crowd, tens of thousands, and we wondered what the occasion was. Finally making it to the front of the palace, we realized that the front steps were lined with huindreds of soldiers holding automatic weapons, and they were trained on the crowd... us! Needless to say, we split as best we could, but ended up getting wet from water sprayed on the crowd.

Strange days.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Excuse me for interrupting, but I'm pretty sure we covered this already. The Philippines were not a democratic government that we didn't care for and help topple. Please refrain from such excess in rhetoric. Further, while I'll give you Guatemala and Chile, Iran hardly fits as the PM removed had suspended action under the Constitution of Iran - not exactly 'democratic' material. Its really silly to have the same conversation twice.

 

The point still remains whether the rhetoric matches the reality. This is a matter of opinion and is subjective but when you're touting "democracy and freedom" as your modus operandi rather than admitting self-interest is involved, and you're someone suffering under the corrupt and repressive regimes such as the Saudi or Egyptian regimes or you're a Palestinian who sees the US as enabling Israeli oppression and rejecting the democratically elected Hamas govt or rejecting a religious Shiite dominated Iraqi govt, then certainly people won't see the US as being THAT much different than most other great powers.

I have no idea what you are referring to here regarding China so can't respond to that. As far as I know, their leaders always stress "non-inteference in internal affairs of other countries" and wordings to that effect. I would highly doubt that China has ever claimed it was acting as an altruistic, moral power to advance freedom and democracy and such (that was what I meant by "holier than thou", perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by that term specifically)

 

To quote a Republican, "There he goes again!" Parsing the details, Hayes. The Philippines had been revolting against the colonial rule of Spain. After the Spanish were defeated by the United States, the Philippines declared independence. We told them, "Whoops! Sorry about that. We'd rather have a colony." Many Americans opposed the action at the time, and many thought it was groovy to have a colony. Do you think it was groovy that the United States, the country that prides itself as beginning democratic government as it is known today, chose to aquire a colony over the protests of the people of that colony, who expected to attain freedom, at last? You don't think that falls under foreign intervention to change a government? You don't think the Philippines might had developed a democracy at that time, had the United States decided to do what the Philippine people thought they were going to do?

Did you even read it?


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Well it wasn't just acquiring a colony over the protests of the people of that colony, it was acquiring that colony and then waging a brutal war against the people of that colony who were actively resisting American imperialism. The war lasted from 1899–1913 and during the war Philippine military deaths are estimated at 20,000 (16 thousand actually counted) while civilian deaths numbered in 250,000 to 1,000,000 Filipinos.

There full article describing the war is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine-American_War

which details everything that happened.

I know this was in 1900 so not real recent but it certainly shows that the US acted no different than the British or French and weren't really that much more democratic-loving, freedom-loving, moral or altruistic than the other great powers.