Peace be unto you, Fallen.
In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Originally Posted by
FallenWyvern
What foreign policy specifically does America need to change?
It is impossible to understand what must be done, without first discussing what *has* been done. Let me explain why there is so much anger in the Muslim world...It would take a HUGE book to mention all the things America--and the West in general--has done to the Muslim world. There are over 50 Muslim countries, and America has done these things in almost all of them. However, I will just pick one of them: Iraq. Understand though that although what the West did to Iraq would be enough to explain the hatred in the Muslim world, know that this is just one country and there are similar doings in the rest of the Muslim world, which together gives a synergistic effect to the hatred in the Muslim world.
The pathetic situation of the Muslim world today is only a very recent phenomenon. The garbage condition that Iraq is in today was not the way it was in the 1800s or before that. Rather, Baghdad was even at one point in time the jewel of the Muslim world, a center of culture, learning, and the arts. Up until World War I, Iraq was part of the great Ottoman Empire. The Muslims had a Caliph, a single leader of the Muslim world; true, it was a largely symbolic position, but it united the Muslim world and it was a sense of pride, and it was also a part of our religion to remain united upon a Caliph.
Then World War I occurred. Keep in mind that the Muslim world still has the Ottoman Empire (and honor). The Ottoman leader Abdul Hamid II appoints Husayn ibn Ali to be the local ameer (kind of like governor) of the Arab heartland. The British send their spy, TE Lawrence, to incite the Arabs against the Ottomans. The British Sir Henry McMahon enters into talks with Husayn, the Arab governor of the Ottoman province. The Husayn-McMahon correspondence takes place, where the British *promise* to establish an *independent* Arab Caliphate in the lands of the Arabs, in exchange for the support of these Arabs against the Ottomans. Iraq and Syria (including Palestine) was a part of this agreement, all to be united under a single independent Arab state/caliphate. McMahon pledged:
"Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca." (Sir Henry McMahon to Sharif Husayn, October 24th, 1915)
Here is what one history book says:"In addition to agreeing to recognize an independent Arab state after the war, Britain promised to provide Husayn with supplies, weapons, and funds for his revolt against the Ottomans and to recognize an Arab caliphate should one be proclaimed. Husayn, in turn, committed himself to an all out armed uprising and to a denunciation of the Ottoman regime..." (A History of the Modern Middle East, by William Cleveland, p. 157)
Of course the British never kept their word. At the same time that they promised the Arabs their freedom and their own states under an Arab Caliph, they were hammering out agreements with the other Great Powers on how to divide up the Middle East into "spheres of influence", i.e. colonial states. As one scholar called it "expansionist bookings in advance." They made the Siykes Picot Agreement amongst themselves, carving out the Middle East into small states ruled by the British and French.
The Caliphate is thus destroyed by the West, and through treachery, they destroyed the freedom of the Muslim world, and carved out the Middle East into random states, lines which they drew up themselves. That was the death blow to the Muslim world, one we've never recovered from. For example, Iraq itself has never been a country like it is today. Either an idiot (or a very clever person) decided to pack the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds into one country.
The Westerners made sure that no Arab country would ever be large enough to pose a threat. That is why they created the state of Kuwait: to land-lock Iraq. The land of Kuwait was given to the corrupt puppet government known as the Saba family, basically a bunch of mafia like goons. The Westerners expanded the borders of Kuwait into Iraqi territory, in order to block Iraq's access to water and land-lock it. I think I am not being clear, so let me reiterate: the border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait (i.e. Saddam invading Kuwait) was a direct result of the decision of the Great Powers to give land that had always been a part of Iraqi provinces to the Kuwaitis.
So the Muslim world including Iraq is then ruled either directly by the Western nations or through "Vichy" puppet governments. Flash-forward to the year 1950's: public discontent is growing against the puppet government (the Hashimite MONARCHY), who are prostituting Iraq to the West. But the West is crushing democracy in the region, by ensuring that the strong-handed despotic monarchy stays in power. Most of Iraq's natural resources (OIL) goes to the West, who allow the puppet government leaders to live lavishly while poverty and despair grow amongst the Iraqi masses.
Finally, in the late 1950's, the popular leader Abd al-Kareem Qasim--with the support and blessing of the people--overthrows the puppet government. Ahhh, democracy achieved! Iraq kicks out the British soldiers and military officers in their land. Abd al-Kareem Qasim dissolves the monarchy and declares Iraq a republic! He nationalizes 98% of the country's oil, thereby blocking the rape of the country's resources. Keep in mind that Qasim's father was a farmer. Qasim felt for the people, and passed a bunch of legislation to give power back to the people, and expand the middle class.
Qasim's government creates a CONSTITUTION proclaiming the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting htem freedom without regard to race, nationality, language, or RELIGION. The government passed laws to protect the rights of women and better their condition. The government freed political prisoners and reached out to the Kurds, granting them amnesty for rebelling against the Iraqi government.
Things are looking good...
Then America enters the picture.
In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein, a part of the Ba'ath Party. Saddam stands no chance...Qasim is too popular.
Enter the CIA.
In 1963, the CIA orchestrates a SUCCESSFUL assassination and coup of Qasim, and puts Saddam's party into power. The CIA then provides the Ba'ath party with the names of all of Qasim's former supporters and activists, and thousands of these people are killed in a rampage of mass murder carried out thanks to the CIA and its bed buddy, the Ba'ath party (Saddam's party).
America ensures that the Ba'ath party stays in power, and these years are extremely brutal for the Iraqi people. All public dissent is crushed. The Ba'ath party jails thousands, closes mosques (the Ba'ath party is anti-religion), and persecutes its own people.
Meanwhile, in Iran, the United States has installed another puppet government, installing the Shah as the leader of the Iranian people. (I am going to be brief, since this would take forever to describe why Iranians are angry at America.) America's puppet leader of Iran is overthrown in the Iranian Revolution. Khomeini comes to power.
The Kurds of Iraq are still in a state of rebellion. (Remember: they had joined the government of Qasim, since Qasim had promised equality to all races. But the Ba'ath regime--installed by the US--were Arab nationalists [a fancy word for racists] and wanted nothing to do with the Kurds.) So the Kurds fled to the outskirts of Iraq and were waging a rebellion. The Iranian puppet government of the Shah had closed its borders to Kurds, but the Khomeini government opened them and thereby granted the Kurds refuge and a base to launch their rebellion.
The United States is worried about the loose canon Iran under Khomeini. The US encourages Iraq to invade Iran. The Iran-Iraq War begins, perhaps one of the bloodiest wars of all time, and lasts many long years. It would have been a quick victory for Iraq, had it not been for the Iranian zeal, along with.......US military aid. This is the Iran-Contra Affair. While publicly supporting Iraq, the US is secretly funneling weapons to Iran.
But why on earth would America give military aid to both countries? "Let them destroy each other." So long as the Iranians and Iraqis have parity of arms, they will keep fighting each other, neither will ever succeed, and America can ensure that neither country can ever extend its hegemony in the Middle East.
As a consequence of this American duplicity, up to 1.5 million Muslims die in the Iran-Iraq War.
Iraq had a much superior army to Iran, and is surprised that the Iranians are holding out so well (not knowing that America is giving them aid). All of Iraq's resources are being drained, and Iraq is forced to take out extensive loans from various countries. Of those countries is Kuwait.
As the war ends, Iraq is wasted and now burdened with a huge debt load. Worse yet, the port of Basra is destroyed by Iran. Now Iraq is not 99% land-locked, but 100% land-locked, and Iraq requests Kuwait to allow it access to the water. Kuwait refuses. Iraq protests, arguing that Iraq was waging a war against Iran for all Arabs. (Kuwait, as a puppet government of America, was also being labeled as such by Khomeini. Therefore, Kuwait had a stake in Iraq's victory, and hence the loans to Iraq.)
Iraq owes billions of dollars to Kuwait. Iraq requests Kuwait to forgive the loans, arguing that the war was fought for Kuwait as well, and Iraq is the one that dealt with the devestation, not Kuwait. Kuwait refuses. Worse yet, Kuwait violates the oil quota system, to which it had pledged to. Kuwait starts selling more oil, thereby declaring an economic war on Iraq's already shambled economy. Iraq decides that (1) not allowing it access to water, (2) not forgiving any of its debt for a war fought on behalf of Kuwait, and (3) declaring an economic war on Iraq, was enough to annex and take back the land that was initially Iraq's to begin with.
Again, from the same book I quoted earlier:
"The most enduring disagreement [between Iraq and Kuwait] was caused by Iraq's refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the border dividing the two states. When British officials defined the Iraq-Kuwait border in 1923, they gave Kuwait more territory in the north than the Kuwaiti rulers traditionally controlled. This was not a reward to Kuwait but rather a deliberate British attempt to restrict Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf. By granting 36 miles of coastline, all of which was poorly suited to the development of modern port facilities, Britain intended to prevent the country from becoming a major Gulf naval power." (William Cleveland, p. 463)
Keep in mind that the Rumeila oil field was in that territory, the same oil that Kuwait was using to go over the OPEC quotas, oil that should be used by Iraq to pay off its debts to kuwait. Incensed, the Iraqis were considering declaring war with Kuwait. But being a puppet of America, Saddam decided to consult America first.
Saddam Hussein had an emergency meeting with April Glaspie, the United States Ambassador to Iraq, on July 25th of 1990, airing his concerns. April Glaspie informed Saddam that the United States had no interest in border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait. Iraq then invaded Kuwait.
Meanwhile, on the boob tube, all American citizens hear is that Saddam invaded the innocent country of Kuwait and America was coming to the rescue of an oppressed country.
The Americans told Saddam that they don't care about border disputes, and yet now invade Iraq on the basis of said border dispute? Absurd!
Then began the pulverization of Iraq, bombing it to the stone ages. If that was not enough, they didn't remove Saddam, but instead decided to create an embargo against the Iraqi people. The sanctions ALONE resulted in the death of over half a MILLION Iraqi children. Those are very conservative numbers, as published in the New York Times. Madeleine Albright was asked if she thought that half a million dead Iraqi children was worth it, to which she replied: "The price is worth it." (60 minutes)
Sanctions are inhumane, as they only punish the population and just make the regime in power more powerful.
The reality is that MILLIONS have died in Iraq due to the multiple wars waged against it, and the crushing sanctions placed against it. Then Bush invades Iraq again on the pretense of weapons of mass destruction; as the joke goes in Washington: "we KNOW he has WMDs; we still have the receipts!" Who gave Saddam the weapons? Who supplied Saddam and ensured he'd stay in power? The US of A. Now the Iraqis are being punished for that. What circular logic.
They put Saddam in power, then they punish the Iraqis for that. They talk about democracy, yet they are the ones who overthrew it. They talk about WMDs, yet they are the ones who supplied them. They talk about human rights, yet they are the ones who violate them.
As God says in the Quran:
"When it is said to them: 'Make not mischief on the earth,' they say: 'Why, we are peace-makers only.' Of a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive not." (Quran, 2:11-12)
This leads us up to what *has* been done, which will give us an idea on what *must* be done, or rather, what should *not* be done.
More to come, God-Willing...
Reply With Quote
