We should eliminate all foreign aid...its unconstitutional and, as Senator Helms, once correctly noted...its money down a rat hole. Once the US cuts off all foreign aid to all foreign governments, the US government won't have to deal with the uncomfortable situation of having to cut off that aid to a democratically-elected government that's brought into power through an election we endorsed. Of course, we have the right to dispense foreign aid wherever we like...but the reality is that cutting off aid to the Palestinians after the election to Hamas (which is an enemy of Israel but not the US) will be seen as another example of US one-sidedeness in the Middle East. In the end, the push for democracy was, I believe, intended to eliminate the backwardness and authoritarianism of Middle Eastern governments because those conditions were seen as conducive to terrorism against the US. So obviously, the Arab and Muslim perceptions of the US are important to us and underly our approach to the Middle East. But, its no secret that the US is mostly reviled in the Middle East...for lots of reasons...the (correct I think) perception that we prop up corrupt regimes there...the perception that we benefit economically from the existence of these regimes...the (correct) perception that we favor Israel in their disputes with Arab Muslims...and the fact that as the lone superpower...we get a lot of blame for everything....fair or unfair
I think invading Iraq was a mistake...it seems to me that it will do nothing to improve our image in the minds of the Iraqis...I don't believe Saddam was ever really a serious threat to the US...and might even have been an ally had we not intervened in Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (it is a fact that Iraq approached the Bush Administration before invading Kuwait and was told by April Glaspie that the US was "not interested in Mid East border disputes"). The US maintained a permanent base presence in Saudi Arabia after Desert Storm...which was the original gripe of Bin Laden against the US.
I think that democracy in Iraq will ultimately strengthen Iran and, unless the US maintains a presence in Iraq for years to come (not something I think any of us want to pay for or have our children or grandchildren pay for)...the country will ultimately split apart...strengthening both the Shiites in Iran and Sunnis in Syria.
I guess I'm a non-interventionist (an isolationist some would say disparagingly)...the history of US foreign policy (and all nations; foreign policies) is one of unintended consequences...I think minding our own business is the best route...just my opinion
So, in the aftermath of 9-11, we should have turned the other cheek? Sorry I don't buy it. I think Saddam got what he deserved, maybe not all of it, but enough, to date, pending the outcome of the trial. Only the perceptions of the moderate Arabs is of account - those of the zealots can only be changed at the end of a barrel/bayonet.
As to the Iraqi perception of us, I truly believe it will be just fine, as long as we are moderately successful and withdraw. We can only do so much. They must eventually pick up the responsibility and I believe they are beginning to do just that.
Second and third order effects are the result of any/all human interaction. Some foreseeable and/or good, some not and/or bad. If we hadn't acted in WWI, who knows where things may have ended up. But failing to have acted in WWII would have been catastrophic. Korea and Vietnam are a mixed bag. One might even claim the vote is still out on Korea. A pretty strong case has been made that Vietnam was only a problem because we lost political will.
I fear I would concur that isolationism is not a good thing. To suggest it is necessary because all results haven't been perfect or that all have been bad, I think is intellectually dishonest.
When lamenting the costs of waging war and of nation building, we should also recognize the opportunity costs of not engaging in this conflict and not devoting resources that will hopefully squelch the terrorism bent in that region. We should realize that after the shock of the September 11, 2001 attacks, nearly $2 trillion of wealth were wiped out on paper, the economy soured along with employment figures (though arguably pretty tame by historical standards), and our elected officials had expanded the size & scope (and spending) of the central government (for our protection, of course). There would be costs associated with doing nothing, too.It could be argued that Iraq’s posturing - their numerous violations of 1991 cease fire agreements and snubbing of various U.N. Security Council resolutions - led to America’s image as a paper tiger and, hence, a target of intense and now emboldened hatred from that region of the world; primers for the escalating terrorism on American interests that culminated with September 11, 2001. It may have even emboldened the Chinese to down our spy plane in April of 2001 - a plane supposedly in international waters. If that’s an argument that one subscribes to, was it not incumbent on America to squash the image in order to remove the boldness [as long as the willingness to remain unified in American resolve allowed it]? So, if in order to try and maintain the unity, the leadership has to find a unique selling point - a selling point such as “democracy spreading” - are not America’s best long-term interests being advanced?
If the seeds of capitalism [forget democracy, that’s not even the most important ingredient for stability anyway] can grow and spread, theocratic desires will give way to economic liberty and then to religious tolerance. Is this a Utopian point of view that’s unrealistically optimistic? Perhaps, but isn’t it worth a shot?…especially since the nuclear genie was, by recorded history’s standard, just released out of her bottle 45 minutes ago - and she isn’t going back into it.
If nothing is done in that region to break the cycle, to break through the barriers to the access to information, to allow people to have ownership of more than just the intangible things within the human mind that can’t be taken away (except in the case of brain washing), in essence to provide a spark of hope by introducing some semblance of liberty, then why should We expect less tyrannical regimes and more peace from that side of the world…wouldn’t THAT be even more Utopian?
Remember, that in an indirect way - one which people either forget about or do not see - Iraq’s liberation & reconstruction is a huge set back for the enemy’s side in the War on Terror!