We do it all the time. Historically, for around 60 years, the United States has pursued, and continues to pursue, a strategy of supporting oppressive dictators around the world who mistreat and are thrown out by their own people, all in the name of “stability” and their “friendship” to us. Also historically, this strategy has largely failed. Yet we continue to pursue it. Like an insane person banging his head against a wall, the geniuses in Washington continue to tell us that “stability” and “historically close ties” and “friendship” are reasons to pursue this policy. Mubarak is just one in a long line of failures.
How has this strategy worked out for us? Lets take a quick look at the rundown of the historical justifications and “success” of this strategy. Castro would have gladly been our friend if we had given him support and money. Some say he might not have pursued communism, at least not as stridently. Instead we supported the outgoing dictator. The result - 60 years of oppression, a hostile neighbor, a mercenary force sent all over the world to support our enemies, and a suffering populace willing to risk everything to emigrate. Or how about Vietnam? Enough said. And then of course there was Iran. We supported the Shah, with his dreaded secret police, and we got Ahmedinijad. Then there was our support for Sadam Hussein in the eighties. Ooops. And of course, in order to defeat communism we supported Osama Bin Laden. Good job guys. And which was better embracing China or ignoring her and supporting Taiwan?
We consistently fail, as we have in Egypt, to see and understand the long term consequences of expediency, but more importantly we fail to see the “writing on the wall” and don’t want to drop failed regimes. The geniuses in the CIA and the politicians would say that we can’t drop them because then no one would trust us. What an idiotic position. First, they don’t trust us to begin with and, as we have seen they will throw us under the bus at any opportunity (see Mubarak speak out of both sides of his mouth about stability and US instigation). Second, the message we send is not that we are untrustworthy, but that we will stick by you, unless you start to terribly mistreat your people. Finally, we fail to use any leverage we may have. We tend to speak loudly and carry no stick instead of speaking softly and carrying a big stick as we used to espouse. We back down when threats don’t work so our threats are treated with disdain.
Our policy and our strategy should take a different turn. We should recognize that democracy is in our best interest and is much more sustainable and hence worthy of our support than a brittle dictatorship that is bound to ultimately fail. We should support democracy, not out of moral conviction (morality and international relations do not go together), but because such regimes are more robust, more stable and more economically friendly than their brittle alternative that is generally, among other faults, against free enterprise.
Recent Comments