Starbug

During the '80's, the U.S. supported Afghanistan in its effort to contain the Soviet Union -- not so much to liberate the Afghans. Also, the U.S. supported Iraq to create a military wall against Iran. The U.S. did this in full knowledge of the Taliban and Hussein regimes and what they stood for. Are the current conflicts in effect the U.S.'s hypocracy biting us in the ass?

If so, this raises the question of the U.S.'s policy of supporting non-democratic, aggressive regimes in order to combat "greater," current political threats. Do the short-term political benefits justify such policies, knowing the potential long-term hazards? Are there better alternatives?

Quetzal

Interesting question. I'd say the problem lies less in US hypocracy, and more in short-sighted foreign policy. The US is absolutely notorious for taking a "short view of history", and dealing with the "friend of the moment". Part of it's a (probably inevitable) result of the way our political system is set up. Another part is that almost all foreign policies and adventures we've been involved with have a high element of domestic emphasis - how does it play in Peoria? I don't think the US has ever had a consistent, long-term foreign policy beyond some nebulous "democracy and free-market" ideals - most of which don't translate well except as pure concepts outside the US. I think our fundamental problem arises from a lack of understanding of - or inability to consider - long term hazards. We inevitably focus on short term benefits/results. So, yeah, the current situation is basically our past mistakes coming up and "biting us in the ass". I don't see any realistic way to avoid it. You might want to consider whether there are any countries the US supported that became democratic and relatively stable post-intervention. IF there aren't any, then this datum would seem to support your premise.

Of course, the same could be said of just about any country's foreign affairs at one point or another in their history. Take a look at any European country during its respective "world power" phase. From the Pax Romana to the Pax Britannica, all world powers throughout history have made significant mistakes - many of them stemming from power politics, rivalries, and/or domestic concerns trumping rational foreign policies.

As a btw - the taliban were a fairly insignificant group in Afghanistan during the time the US supported them. The US supported a large number of Afghan groups - the only criteria being they opposed the Soviets. The Soviets did the same thing with the North Vietnamese. It didn't work for them, either, in the long run. The main difference, of course, being that there were far fewer factions in Vietnam than there were in Afghanistan.

Starbug

Another problem is that there really is no objective rationale for who the U.S. helps, or by what means. One could say we should only help those nations with a democracy, but then no aid would go to nations in need in Africa. Besides, Iraq has a democratic constitution, but we know in reality it is a dictatorship.

I guess I just find it interesting that with our domestic democratic view, when it comes to foreign business affairs, we're imperialistic; militarily (sp?), it's all strategic; politically, we support nations who take a subordinate position to us; and on and on. There just is no universal democracy...obviously...but even as far as our foreign policies.

Also, the UN is obviously a joke, so what alternative is there in an effort to form an objective foreign policy, one which minimizes getting bit in the ass?

Loren Pechtel

What Taliban regime?! There wasn't one in the 80's!

beastmaster

In the event of a global thermonuclear war, there are no "long-term hazards." Indeed, that was the prospect faced by the U.S. during the Cold War. We like to recall the Cold War fondly as a time of stability; the reality was that the world came to the brink of catastrophe several times. During that time, the Middle East was the chessboard, and the U.S. and the USSR moved their pawns to and fro. These small moves ended up being decisive in ending the showdown. Afghanistan and Chernobyl were the two events that precipitated the unraveling of the Soviet empire, and brought a peaceful end to the Cold War.

So yes, abso-fucking-lutely, the U.S.'s support for Afghan rebels during the 80s was worth the "long-term hazards."

Of course, that's even assuming that there are long-term hazards. The Taliban did not attack the U.S. -- al-Qaeda did. True, al-Qaeda used Afghanistan as a base of operations. But al-Qaeda was using Afghanistan opportunistically. If not in Afghanistan, Osama would have set up shop in Somalia or Pakistan or any number of other failed states.

I am skeptical that U.S. foreign policy toward Afghanistan caused 9/11.

But even if it did, the short-term results more than outweigh the unknown long-term hazards.

John Hancock

Part of the reason the USA finds it's allies unreliable:

TRB FROM WASHINGTON
Once Bitten
by Peter Beinart
Post date: 02.27.03
Issue date: 03.10.03
The Bush administration is good at punishing America's enemies. But it's far worse at rewarding America's friends. As Franklin Foer noted in these pages last year (see "Fabric Softener," March 4, 2002), the White House responded to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's crucial support against his former ally, the Taliban, by denying his request to lift U.S. tariffs on his country's textiles. More recently, it has ignored Hamid Karzai's pleas to extend international peacekeeping throughout Afghanistan. And it has stiffed Mexican President Vicente Fox's calls for a new immigration accord, embittering the pro-American president and undermining his domestic support.

You must subscribe to The New Rebublic to read the rest.

Martin Buber

Autonemesis

You mean, peaceful for the US. I doubt the Afghans would call the end of the Cold War "peaceful."

Just like the US and the USSR did.

beastmaster

No, I mean peaceful for everybody in the sense that the world was not destroyed by a thermonuclear war.

Starbug

So, for those who've replied, is it your opinion then that US foreign policy in the 80's, or any other time, has nothing to do with the recent condition of Afghanistan, or Iraq, and we didn't help to arm or train those regimes, we didn't contribute in any way to the rise or sustaining of their power? We're just innocent victims in all this?

If this isn't your view, then explain, also.

(I'm just trying to get a discussion about all this, because so far, I haven't heard any.)

a8o

I haven't posted already, but here I go anyway. The US are trapped in a 'snowballing ball of intervention' as it was put so elequently tonight by a close friend of mine. The US has made it a habit of theirs to engage in any potential conflict with any slight possibility of Americans being affected. It happened during the 1980s and so it continues to happen.

Can someone please explain to me Nicarugua?