highlander

Originally Posted by Horhey

The current Orwellian theme is that 'muslims ("terrorists" by definition according to much of the discourse) hate us for our freedom and our values and therefore we have to be over there so they dont come here.' These missperceptions have been further inflamed by opportunist demagogs in Washington and in the media to engineer consent for US imperial activities.

A study by the Defense Science Board, a Pentagon advisory panel, in December 2004 concluded that:

Muslims do not 'hate our freedom,' but rather they hate our policies. When American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.

Writing about the same 2004 Defense Science Board study, the Financial Times observes that:

The US and its main allies shored up local despots in the interests of stability and cheap oil. High quality global journalism requires investment.

For the most part, Arabs plausibly believe it was Osama bin Laden who smashed the status quo, not George W. Bush. Why? Because the 9/11 attacks made it impossible for the west and its Arab despot clients to continue to ignore a political set-up that incubated blind rage against them.

The Financial Times then rightly points out that despite Bush's "messianic mission", Washington also opposed and resisted the demands for democratic reforms in Iraq.

This January's elections in Iraq saw a remarkable display of heroism by its people that struck a deep chord in Arab countries. Yet however much the triumphalists in Washington claim this as vindication for their bungled strategy, these elections took place at the insistence of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities to shelve or dilute them.

In a staff discussion 45 years ago, President Eisenhower observed that:

The trouble is that we have a campaign of hatred against us [in the Middle East], not by the governments but by the people.

The reasons for the "campaign of hatred" were explained by the National Security Council:

In the eyes of the majority of Arabs the United States appears to be opposed to the realization of the goals of Arab nationalism. They believe that the United States is seeking to protect its interest in Near East oil by supporting the status quo and opposing political or economic progress.

Furthermore, the perception is correct:

Our economic and cultural interests in the area have led not unnaturally to close US relations with elements in the Arab world whose primary interest lies in the maintenance of relations with the West and the status quo in their countries.

The primary threat to US domination is indigenous nationalism in it's Third World dependancies:

[The United States should] be prepared, when required, to come forward, as was done in Iran [i.e. in a C.I.A. coup in 1953], with formulas designed to reconcile vital Free World interests in the area's petroleum resources with the rising tide of nationalism in the area.

The “conservative grouping” serving US interests:

forms a loose coalition of regimes that look to the US for aid because of their common interest in the existing system and opposition to the forces of revolution represented by the radicals.

The 1957 NIE warns:

Prospects for broadening or consolidating the position of the conservative forces in the Arab states are poor, although these forces will continue to be an important factor in the area. The majority of politically conscious Arab Moslems throughout the Near East, particularly the middle class intelligentsia, are sympathetic to this concept of Arab nationalism.

The obediant conservative elements, which reject the radical notions of Arab nationalism are:

largely confined to the upper and professional classes and [have] little popular support. (2)

Therefore, the United States must apply a policy of "containment":

If we choose to combat radical Arab nationalism and to hold Persian Gulf oil by force if necessary, a logical corollary would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-West power left in the Near East.

The only way to guarantee continued access to Persian Gulf oil on acceptable terms is to insist on maintaining the present concessions and be prepared to defend our present position by force if necessary. (1)

The United States cannot tolerate even the tinyest spec of independance as it can become a "virus" and spread to the energy producing country's in the Middle East. The US poicy of "containment" was designed to prevent the real version of the "domino theory" which was the Arab Spring, most recently. The dominos fell and now it's trying to preserve of existing institutions the existing system in Egypt.