Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.”
Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East. The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis.
Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat. The tired assertion that America “supports democracy” in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources.
We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.
Processing your request, Please wait....









Recent Comments
9:33 pm: "far more integrity than the current soros puppet" - naturescaper
9:30 pm: "And once again I have stumbled into the bat-shit crazy section of YT. Serves me right for clicking..." - KamekoBruns
8:25 pm: "Best President we never had." - John Butler
8:24 pm: "The only one who is clueless is you!" - paducahdesk
7:44 pm: "Google the Central Bank of Canada. It’s owned and operated by a corportation for..." - USGeorgePatton
9:25 pm: "Dr.Paul is the greatest Patriot of our era… check out his ideals and speeches from 80′s..." - mrirish702
9:20 pm: "Ron Paul for president" - mrirish702
5:51 pm: "and beware of anarchists that label traitors as patriots" - TheChoujinVirus
5:50 pm: "call the retirement home, Ron forgot his meds" - TheChoujinVirus
9:02 pm: "Shove the Washington post crap up your rear mam" - Jon Doe
8:08 pm: "I wrote him in for president. Who did you vote for?" - Nate Hoffman
5:53 pm: "“What about obey the constitution?” Hell yea Ron!" - shane mack
5:52 pm: "THE LADY JUST CUT HIM OFF FROM WAKING YOUUU PEOPLE UP !!!!!" - Brian Themeatgrinder
5:51 pm: "As proud service member, I salute you Mr. Paul." - shane mack
8:52 pm: "Hey there, have you considered “MonEYEopener” or something like that (google it)? On..." - Mousumi Khatun
7:39 pm: "Yeah keep telling yourself that" - xNAILEDxITx
7:23 pm: "YOU the people have turned the presidency into a dictatorship. The normal, “I only vote for..." - TheGunxpert
7:04 pm: "we had to destroy the 4th amendment in order to save it" - itsallrigid
6:53 pm: "Suffering mass insanity by definition every 4yrs were told only a republican or democrat can win..." - Kronicilln3ss
6:50 pm: "2 factors are the only reasons why Ron Paul lost 1 Romney stole the republican candidate space and..." - Kronicilln3ss