Posted on 10/07/2015 11:32:11 PM PDT by amorphous
“Do you realize now what you have done?”
So Vladimir Putin in his U.N. address summarized his indictment of a U.S. foreign policy that has produced a series of disasters in the Middle East that we did not need the Russian leader to describe for us.
Fourteen years after we invaded Afghanistan, Afghan troops are once again fighting Taliban forces for control of Kunduz. Only 10,000 U.S. troops still in that ravaged country prevent the Taliban’s triumphal return to power.
A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq, ISIS occupies its second city, Mosul, controls its largest province, Anbar, and holds Anbar’s capital, Ramadi, as Baghdad turns away from us—to Tehran. The cost to Iraqis of their “liberation”? A hundred thousand dead, half a million widows and fatherless children, millions gone from the country and, still, unending war.
How has Libya fared since we “liberated” that land? A failed state, it is torn apart by a civil war between an Islamist “Libya Dawn” in Tripoli and a Tobruk regime backed by Egypt’s dictator.
Then there is Yemen. Since March, when Houthi rebels chased a Saudi sock puppet from power, Riyadh, backed by U.S. ordinance and intel, has been bombing that poorest of nations in the Arab world. Five thousand are dead and 25,000 wounded since March. And as the 25 million Yemeni depend on imports for food, which have been largely cut off, what is happening is described by one U.N. official as a “humanitarian catastrophe.”
“Yemen after five months looks like Syria after five years,” said the international head of the Red Cross on his return. On Monday, the wedding party of a Houthi fighter was struck by air-launched missiles with 130 guests dead. Did we help to produce that?
What does Putin see as the ideological root of these disasters?
“After the end of the Cold War, a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think they were strong and exceptional, they knew better.”
Then, adopting policies “based on self-conceit and belief in one’s exceptionality and impunity,” this “single center of domination,” the United States, began to export “so-called democratic” revolutions.
How did it all turn out? Says Putin:
An aggressive foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions. … Instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, we got violence, poverty and social disaster. Nobody cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life.
Is Putin wrong in his depiction of what happened to the Middle East after we plunged in? Or does his summary of what American interventions have wrought echo the warnings made against them for years by American dissenters?
Putin’s concept of “state sovereignty” is this: “We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the right one.” The Soviet Union tried that way, said Putin, and failed. Now the Americans are trying the same thing, and they will reach the same end.
Unlike most U.N. speeches, Putin’s merits study. For he not only identifies the U.S. mindset that helped to produce the new world disorder, he identifies a primary cause of the emerging second Cold War.
To Putin, the West’s exploitation of its Cold War victory to move NATO onto Russia’s doorstep caused the visceral Russian recoil. The U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that overthrew the elected pro-Russian government led straight to the violent reaction in the pro-Russian Donbas.
What Putin seems to be saying to us is this:
If America’s elites continue to assert their right to intervene in the internal affairs of nations, to make them conform to a U.S. ideal of what is a good society and legitimate government, then we are headed for endless conflict. And, one day, this will inevitably result in war, as more and more nations resist America’s moral imperialism.
Nations have a right to be themselves, Putin is saying. They have the right to reflect in their institutions their own histories, beliefs, values and traditions, even if that results in what Americans regard as illiberal democracies or authoritarian capitalism or even Muslim theocracies.
There was a time, not so long ago, when Americans had no problem with this, when Americans accepted a diversity of regimes abroad. Indeed, a belief in nonintervention abroad was once the very cornerstone of American foreign policy.
Wednesday and Thursday, Putin’s forces in Syria bombed the camps of U.S.-backed rebels seeking to overthrow Assad. Putin is sending a signal: Russia is willing to ride the escalator up to a collision with the United States to prevent us and our Sunni Arab and Turkish allies from dumping over Assad, which could bring ISIS to power in Damascus.
Perhaps it is time to climb down off our ideological high horse and start respecting the vital interests of other sovereign nations, even as we protect and defend our own.
“A dozen years after George W. Bush invaded Iraq…”
No mention of the stellar accomplishments of Barry, Kerry, Biden, Hillary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
Someone is going to do moral imperialism. The one who wants it more wins.
Until now it has been ISIS.
The Russians are winning right now because they aren’t looking for reasons why they can’t win. No one told them that killing ISIS is a bad thing.
Russia’s Putin is making the post 9.11 USA look bad. Real bad.
I wonder what the 0bama/neocon response to this will be.
The WSJ and FOX (both de facto right arms of the Republican Establishment), will be engaging in some PJB charachter assassination by weeks end, methinks.
But that still doesn’t change the facts.
Gotta give Bush and Cheney a lot of credit though. Invading a two cent dictator and covering for Saudi Arabia. All of the Bushes have been one world government saudi butt kissers and Bush’s presidency was catastrophic not only in Iraq but certainly led to the election of obama.
The usual replies about how if we kept 10000 soldiers there isis wouldn’t have been formed may come. and it is probably true.
that doesn’t excuse that incredible lack of understanding at the highest levels of government about how the shias and sunnis would go at each other’s throats once a brutal dictator who kept them in place (and was Iran’s foil) was taken out.
When you go in to FREE a country from it’s dictator it leaves you precious little room to enact the brutal tactics needed to control a country.
” When you go in to FREE a country from it’s dictator it leaves you precious little room to enact the brutal tactics needed to control a country.”
It would have taken the same determination and staying power that we showed after wwii in Japan and Germany, and perhaps the partitioning of Iraq into three states - Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.
We were nowhere prepared to do that.
she disgusts me. At least Bush and co. had intentions that did not turn out the way they had hoped (although i still think Saudi Arabia got away with one).
This regime, including hillary, INTENDED to hurt us and help the MB. that’s sickening.
Trump should play that over and over and over and then cut to the disaster that is Libya.
and pulling all the troops from Iraq, that was traitorous.
What has been driving US interventions lately is cronyism. Not idealism. If we were pushing good ideals, they would be working. They were working in the past. Now we are pushing cronyism and are whoring out our foriegn policy to the highest bidder. Usually the House of Saud.
You are 100 percent right.
how do you crush a people you invaded to “liberate”
The three state solution would have been a great idea. Have Kurds as strong allies and keep a strong contingent force to keep the others from fighting each other.
Honestly, once we know Iran was supplying weapons AND killing Americans, it should have brought hell down on them. I guess the public was against it.
And now we reward them for killing American Soldiers.
Patrick J Buchanan is as blind as a bat. The middle-easter urge for Islam to dominate the universe has been the prime directive since Mohammed took Medina. Google “muslim siege list” and the point is clear that we are in a war of religions, not conservative ideologies. Too bad Buchanan can’t speak truth to power and has to be one more nail in the coffin of Christian Civilization.
Yep, It seems most of our "representives" do their best work lying on their backs with their legs in the air - not a pretty picture.
Something stupid, I'd bet.
NATO Threatens To Send In Troops After Russia Stations Ground "Battalion" In Syria
The protestant devolution of Christianity will be regarded as a big dead end after Russia nukes the EU and the US and sends in their orthodox priests to convert American muslim infidels and backsliders.
Russians say that they have taken on the mantle of true Christianity since we have resigned our country to a non christian, post christian, pro homosexual, pro moslem status.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.