MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Intervention: A Success Story!

Let's look back at our nation's questionable adventures in the Middle East.

In light of President Trump's missile strike on Syria, Reason has put together a quick refresher on a few of our many questionable interventions in the Middle East.

In 1953 the CIA lead a coup against Iran's democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq. In his place America and Britain helped install a king. That regime came crashing down in 1979, and Iran has been suspicious of America ever since. The United States subsequently supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War, providing both intelligence and arms to Saddam Hussein. Interestingly, Iraq's brutal dictator turned out to be a brutal dictator. We went to war with him during the early 90s and again in 2003. To the great surprise of the Bush administration, ousting the strongman has not transformed Iraq into a liberal democracy.

Similarly, when Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama bombed Libya to oust Muammar Gaddafi, the vacuum of power invited more strife and violence.

During the Cold War the United States provided support to a group of anti-Soviet Islamist fighters in Afghanistan called the Mujaheddin. Their ranks included Osama bin Laden and they would eventually spawn the Taliban the United States would fight in 2001.

Our attack on Syria is just the latest development in a long series of American interventions in the Middle East and it's worth considering the rubble, chaos, and ally-cum-enemies that often accompany our adventures in the region.

Written and performed by Andrew Heaton. Edited by Austin Bragg and Andrew Heaton.


Subscribe to our YouTube channel.

Like us on Facebook.

Follow us on Twitter.

Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Yeah, that was pretty good. You may have want to have mentioned that Barack Obama brought home the troops from Iraq FOREVER, but I won't quibble. At least you guys aren't talking about legal weed when the US is dropping bombs in contravention of international law. All said... 8/10. Thanks, Reason!

  • CatoTheChipper||

    It's well done, and it would be funny, but it's too damn depressing.

  • Cy||

    I'm tired of trying to argue with people that we should stop going into foreign countries and blowing up people and infrastructure. How is that so hard to understand? Why am I the one with the minority opinion?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, you don't get it.

    Iraq is completely Obama's fault. The entire fiasco. And Libya is WORSE than Iraq.

    I read it on Wingnut.com.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Come on, man. At least this time they aren't posting articles in favor of bombing a Middle Eastern country like they were back in 2003. We should be magnanimous. I sense some progress.

  • Sevo||

    "Iraq is completely Obama's fault. The entire fiasco."
    Staying there certainly was. Except to sleazy fanboys like you.

    "And Libya is WORSE than Iraq.
    I read it on Wingnut.com."
    Funny, there's a commenter here known as turd who has been telling us that Libya really didn't happen/it was because of some film/the hag had nothing to do with it/it wouldn't happen again.
    That would be you, turd. And how about telling us about how having two email addresses is EXACTLY like setting up a private comm network?
    I always find that amusing.

  • Brian||

    "You may have want to have mentioned that Barack Obama brought home the troops from Iraq FOREVER, but I won't quibble."

    Oh, really?

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Oh yeah, I forgot... he gave money to the feminists, socialists and communists fighting ISIS. A mission you Trump fanboys routinely ascribe as a success of this administration.

  • Brian||

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    I get it. This is all Obama's fault. He's both a naive and spineless ally of ISIS because he allowed them to take over half of Iraq in 2014 or a ruthless imperialist for sending dozens of advisors to bolster the Kurds. Golly he's probably both!

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    But Brian mostly what I do in assessing the military situation in Northern Iraq is to remark about how it's (once again!) a bunch of Leftists and communists that are standing up for freedom and democracy. They do that a lot!-- their moral complicity in Stalin's crimes in 1933 notwithstanding, of course.

  • Brian||

    Speaking of imperialism: I was reading the wiki on Communist Party USA (CPUSA). It looks like their hypocritical backing of the militaristic USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis, their invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia (eat that, democracy!) didn't pan out:

    The party attempted to recover with its opposition to the Vietnam War during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, but its continued uncritical support for an increasingly stultified and militaristic Soviet Union increasingly alienated them from the rest of the left-wing in the United States, which saw this supportive role as outdated and even dangerous.

    Too bad they blew credibility supporting the biggest Communist flameout ever. But, hey: at least they supported North Vietnam.

    Here's the way to decode all this:
    If you treat communists like peaceful, democracy-supporting non-interventionists, then their history just doesn't make any sense.

    If you treat communists like they hate the USA, it makes perfect sense.

    And if they didn't have double-standards, they wouldn't have any at all.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Like I was saying... the Kurds bear the weight of their implied association with the actions of the CPUSA and the Holomodor. I get it.

  • Brian||

    You mean you get it that communists historic support of "freedom and democracy. They do that a lot!" seems to have a bunch of qualifiers, provisos, and exceptions.

    But, other than that, spot on.

  • Sevo||

    "But Brian mostly what I do in assessing the military situation in Northern Iraq is to remark about how it's (once again!) a bunch of Leftists and communists that are standing up for freedom and democracy. They do that a lot!-- their moral complicity in Stalin's crimes in 1933 notwithstanding, of course."

    Yeah, lefties are all for freedom and democracy. Until they gain power.
    Pay your mortgage, scumbag.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, all the troops - except the ones that we still have there.

  • Robespierre Josef Stalin Pot||

    Nice touch. South Korea.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Thanks to George W Bush we have flowering democracies all over the Middle East.

    Except in Iraq, Iran, and Syria - which are all Obama's fault for not invading with 200,000 troops each.

  • Sevo||

    "Except in Iraq, Iran, and Syria - which are all Obama's fault for not invading with 200,000 troops each."

    Sat on his lying ass for 8 years and did nothing but add Libya to the mess. And you cheer that sort of happy horseshit.
    Too stupid to be embarrassed, turd.

  • Agammamon||

    Don't forget Libya.

    Its almost like our violent 'interventions' around the world don't work.

    But hey - you keep defending the good work the Democrats have done. Because its different when they have people bombed.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Let's not forget Yemen and various East African countries that have drawn the Lightworker's stern gaze.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    One of the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton is her extensive foreign policy experience in both the US Senate and State Department. I know she would have made an outstanding Commander in Chief, resorting to military force only when all other options had been exhausted.

    With this Russian puppet we have in the White House, it's only natural to be skeptical of his decisions, especially in the area of foreign policy. Is he dropping bombs because Putin told him to? Or because he's a racist who wants to blow up black and brown bodies?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    No, you are woefully ignorant.

    Hillary supported Obama's Iran Nuclear deal which prevents Iran from developing nukes for only 15 years That ASSURES Iran can develop nukes in only 20-30 years! Bolton and Trump want to invade Iran now with at least 500,000 US troops to prevent Iran from developing nukes by 2050.

    Also Israel. Think about Bebe's war boner!

    You need catch up, pal.

  • Brian||

    Hillary get's full credit for all the things she's going to have done in the future, including all the wars she's not going to start while she's not president.

  • Agammamon||

    *woosh*

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Yes.

  • Number 2||

    "In 1953 the CIA lead a coup against Iran's democratically-elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq."

    You mean the democratically-elected leader who very democratically canceled an election, literally in mid-vote, when he realized that he was about to be democratically voted out of Office?

    Whether we had any business intervening in Iran's politics is a legitimate question, regardless who was in power. But don't try to portray Mosaddeq as a Persian Thomas Jefferson.

  • Eidde||

    I don't think it was Mosaddeq nostalgia which prompted the 1979 revolution. I suspect it had more to do with thinking they could replace the Shah with something better...and something better turned out to be a wacko Islamist regime which would be out of power by now if fully free elections had been permitted.

    My suspicion is that civilized Persians (as Iranians used to be called before the Shahs bought into the oh-so-popular Aryanism myth) would, if consulted, arrange a moderately-corrupt, but tolerable-to-America, government.

  • mtrueman||

    "My suspicion is that civilized Persians (as Iranians used to be called before the Shahs bought into the oh-so-popular Aryanism myth) would, if consulted, arrange a moderately-corrupt, but tolerable-to-America, government."

    It wouldn't hurt reading a bit more. Support for the Islamic regime came from students, but more interestingly, it came from Iranian merchants who supported Khomeni's market reforms and liberalization. Right wing thinktanks like Canada's Fraser Institute recognized this at the time, giving the Islamic regime improved rankings for free markets over those they awarded the Shah. I hope you have the stones not to feel threatened by this 'new information.'.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 9:36PM|#
    "...It wouldn't hurt reading a bit more."

    Oh, I'm sure trueman has a link for us!
    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

  • mtrueman||

    Apologies, stoneless one.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 10:04PM|#
    "Apologies, stoneless one."

    Get fucked, brainless one.

  • Brian||

    The most bizarre part is, not sure which part of what you're quoting is contradicted by your assertions.

  • mtrueman||

    "The most bizarre part is"

    Not quite. It's not bizarre, but 'bazarri.' That's what Iran's merchant class are called. Ask your parent, guardian or sevo if you want help looking them up. You may be made to feel uncomfortable if you go any further, though. Consider yourself warned.

  • Brian||

    You need to work on the concept of "comprehension."

  • Eidde||

    I think we need a word that conveys the concept of some guy on the Internet indignantly beating up on a straw man.

    It's not just the straw-man tactic but the moral indignation and self-righteousness they engage in while using the tactic.

  • Brian||

    I think it's called "psychotic": "Here, allow me to ignore you while I argue with the voices in my head. I hope you're not offended by my education for you."

  • Eidde||

    The word I have in mind is more like "annoying."

  • mtrueman||

    "The word I have in mind is more like "annoying."

    You mean 'threatened,' don't you? Don't say I didn't warn you.

  • Eidde||

    What on earth are you going on about? Are you saying that the Iranian regime would win a genuinely free election today? Or a regime with similarly policies re America?

    Because it simply seems that you're triumphantly pointing out the popularity of the Iranian revolutionaries...in 1979.

  • mtrueman||

    "Are you saying that the Iranian regime would win a genuinely free election today?"

    Not if they were running against Trump. Or Clinton for that matter. That's the choice given to the sad-sack electorate who voted in America's last 'genuinely free election.'

  • Eidde||

    Misdirection isn't going to help you.

  • mtrueman||

    Sorry about the confusion. I meant to say the regime probably would win if they were running against Trump and Clinton, both candidates who admitted, if you recall, that 'the election was rigged.'

  • Eidde||

    But would they have won in 1979?

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 10:59PM|#
    "Sorry about the confusion."
    Not possible; you never post anything that isn't confusing to those with an IQ higher than a monkey.

  • mtrueman||

    " you never post anything that isn't confusing to those with an IQ higher than a monkey."

    Why thank you very much. Clarity through obscuratism are my watch-words. O, and I'm thinking of appointing you as the official spiokeshuman for my monkey readers.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 10:35PM|#
    "You mean 'threatened,' don't you? Don't say I didn't warn you."

    "Threatened" by the imbecile who posts:
    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    Those in kindergarten are threatened. Anyone else is laughing.

  • Eidde||

    You got me there. There was definitely no change in public opinion between 1979 and today, so I don't see why the regime doesn't simply hold a free election and get an overwhelming popular mandate.

  • mtrueman||

    It shouldn't be any surprise. Anywhere in the world you go you'll find muslims in business, much like the Jews. I was surprised in remote Tibet to find that pretty much all what few businesses there were, restaurants and shops etc, were run by Muslims, even though relations between the communities was not so warm and friendly. Brian and Sevo's idea that Islam is somehow antagonistic to trade and commerce is simply ignorance.

  • Brian||

    There he goes again.

    Fine: have it your way:

    "I don't believe you! Muslims don't do 'business'! Why, that's absurd!"

  • Eidde||

    It's interesting that you think any of this shows me wrong.

    You know what would show me to be wrong about Iran? The regime winning genuinely free elections.

  • mtrueman||

    "this shows me wrong."

    Perish the thought! Next time I want to know the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, you'll be the first person I consult. Right after I finish with my fortune teller.

  • Eidde||

    I made a prediction about the outcome of a genuinely free election in Iran.

    Once that happens, you can compare the results to my prediction.

    But you tried to "rebut" me by triumphantly pointing out that the Iranian Islamists were popular 40 years ago, when they overthrew the Shah.

    That is defective logic.

  • mtrueman||

    "But you tried to "rebut" me by triumphantly pointing out that the Iranian Islamists were popular 40 years ago, when they overthrew the Shah."

    That was mean of me. I apologize.

  • Eidde||

    Don't apologize, I also made reference to the popularity of the Islamists in 1979.

  • mtrueman||

    Wasn't it only a couple of years ago (maybe this holds true even today) that Nasrallah, head of Lebanon's notorious Islamist Hezbollah party, was the most popular figure in the muslim world? Or perhaps it was only the middle east.

  • Eidde||

    Look, let's see how a free election in Iran turns out, and if it's not what I predicted I'll admit I was totally pwned, OK?

  • Brian||

    You misspelled "stupid".

  • Eidde||

    This is getting silly. I ventured an admitted speculation about the outcome of a free election in Iran.

    You can say that I have no way of knowing what would happen. That would be true.

    But to say "aha, you didn't realize these guys were popular four decades ago!" is simply ridiculous.

    I notice that after winning elections four decades ago, the regime hasn't exactly shown full confidence in its ability to get re-elected in free elections - given how they rig the system in a way that would make American politicians envious.

    But maybe the regime is worrying without cause. Maybe they're actually popular and could beat off a challenge from secular, or at least noncrazy, candidates.

    But they're not taking any chances.

  • Eidde||

    Just for perspective, *disco* was popular four decades ago.

  • Sevo||

    Eidde|4.14.18 @ 11:03PM|#
    "This is getting silly. I ventured an admitted speculation about the outcome of a free election in Iran."

    Eddie, you've been here long enough to know that trueman specializes in inane, often obtuse comments in the hopes of appearing profound; trueman is never profound; he is at best 'clever' and/or stupid.
    He is also here in the hopes that someone makes a mistake and clicks on his handle which adds one more to the other two visits to his pathetic web site.

  • mtrueman||

    "Maybe they're actually popular and could beat off a challenge from secular, or at least noncrazy, candidates."

    That rules out my whole Islamists vs. Trump vs. Clinton fantasy free election, damn you.

  • mtrueman||

    "You misspelled "stupid".

    You know that Sevo's left us, don't you. Now's your chance to shine. Step up your game.

  • Sevo||

    As an example:

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 11:08PM|#
    "You misspelled "stupid".
    You know that Sevo's left us, don't you. Now's your chance to shine. Step up your game."

    Here's trueman's claim of profundity once more:
    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    'Nuff [posted]

  • mtrueman||

    "Nuff [posted]"

    No more straight lines? You may need to reconsider your role here as a second banana.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Some of that stuff was funnier than it was accurate.

    We don't know where the Taliban got their support?

    . . . um, yeah, we do.

    Also, I think the Cold War stuff needs to be considered within the context of winning the Cold War. Watching that video, you might come away thinking that the USSR hadn't imploded, China hadn't embraced trade, etc., etc.

    Actually, we won the Cold War, and, while there were certainly some mistakes made, our foreign policy wasn't entirely superfluous--especially in places like Afghanistan. Certainly, if you told us in 1980 that helping the Mujahideen was a bad idea because although it would contribute significantly to the peaceful implosion of the Soviet Union, it would also bring a terrorist attack in 21 years later, everyone would laugh you out of the room--and not in a good comedian sort of way.

    Oh, last but not really, what Trump did last night was either good or bad regardless of what other presidents have done in the past. Sure, you've shown that the future is unpredictable, but surely that isn't an excellent argument for perpetual inaction.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    I think too many libertarians forget that the Middle East was the southern front against the Soviet Empire and that America strived to pull Middle Eastern nations into our sphere of influence as part of the cold war. We've done much in the Middle East that the video doesn't cover, such as convincing our allies to back down when they had military advantages. When Egypt wanted to nationalize the Suez Canal in the 1950's, France, Israel, and Britain launched a successful military campaign against Egypt, but Eisenhower had them stand down for fear of the Soviets coming to Egypt's aid. This lead to the decline of France's and the UK's influence in the area. An 8 year war of independence in Algeria followed. Some people think the Algerian War of independence was a good idea, but it lead to refuges immigrating to France, and some people think that Puerto Rico should not be part of America.

  • Sevo||

    sharmota4zeb|4.14.18 @ 9:21PM|#
    "I think too many libertarians forget that the Middle East was the southern front against the Soviet Empire and that America strived to pull Middle Eastern nations into our sphere of influence as part of the cold war."
    Pretty sure a lot of us know that and are tired of paying to keep the Russkis out of here or there.
    Care to tell us about how the Euro-trash spent their money to accomplish what was 'way more important to them?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    By "Euro-trash", do you mean the residents of the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire that Wilson helped dismantle when he sent our troops overseas to save democracy FOREVER? Or do you mean the former residents of Turkey who were expelled when Greece won it's independence, because they spoke Greek and were on the wrong side of the new border? American fraternities have Greek letters for names, because they wanted to show solidarity with the Greek independence movement. Come to think of it, the Coptic Christians in Egypt maintain elements of the Greek culture that they inherited from the ancient days when Greek speaking Byzantines ruled that region.

    Turkey is a NATO member and applied for EU membership a few years ago. Iraq, Syria, and Iran border Turkey. All four countries have Kurdish populations and Kurdish separatist movements. It's easy for most libertarians to draw a line on a map and say the guys on the other side of the line don't talk like us or look like us so they aren't our concern, but unless you get us out of NATO, we've got ties to that area. Until then, it's a question of whether we let a situation simmer in the hopes that is will calm down without us or if we try to nip a problem in the bud in the hopes that we're not going to make things worse.

  • Greg F||

    American fraternities have Greek letters for names, because they wanted to show solidarity with the Greek independence movement.

    First American fraternity Phi Beta Kappa founded 1775.
    Greek Independence Movement started 1821.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, before the United States became the largest foreign donor to Egypt, that proud distinction belonged to the USSR. Our support for Israel really can't be properly understood outside the context of the Cold War either.

    Our support for Pakistan was about India siding with the Russians. They called them "non-aligned", which really meant they weren't siding with the United States.

    When I've talked to Muslims from all over the world, it's a common misconception that the United States is obsessed with Palestine and the problems of Middle East, too, when actually, it was always almost completely about the Cold War.

    It's not exclusive to Muslims either. I've had similar discussions with people from Guatemala, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. No, American foreign policy in the 1980s wasn't all about Guatemala, although it may have seemed that way if you were living there at the time. Guatemala was just one battlefield in the Forty Years War, which lasted from 1948 to 1989 and featured contests between the USA, the USSR, and China--between all their proxies all over the world--from Africa, Vietnam, and Asia to Central and South America.

  • mtrueman||

    "Actually, we won the Cold War, and, "

    and the prize was getting permanently mired in a futile war with the muslim world. Congratulations.

  • Brian||

    As opposed to the Cold War losers, who are...

  • mtrueman||

    "who are..."

    ... sore?

  • Brian||

    Enjoying Syria?

  • mtrueman||

    I just started reading vol 2 of Kotkin's bio of Stalin. It's 1930. Dekulakization has just begun.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 10:47PM|#
    "I just started reading vol 2 of Kotkin's bio of Stalin. It's 1930. Dekulakization has just begun."
    When did it come out in comic-book form?

  • mtrueman||

    "When did it come out in comic-book form?"

    Sorry, you'll have to wait. At the moment it's still a big boy book.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 11:58PM|#
    "Sorry, you'll have to wait. At the moment it's still a big boy book."

    So you haven't read it.

  • mtrueman||

    "So you haven't read it."

    As I said I just started it. I think you'd like it though. You can steal it from the pirate bay if you've got the stones.

  • Ken Shultz||

    and the prize was getting permanently mired in a futile war with the muslim world. Congratulations.

    We didn't get mired in Iraq because we won the Cold War.

    We chose that war for ourselves.

  • mtrueman||

    America would never have dared invade Iraq during the cold war.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Another one of your blanket pronouncements without premises? You're getting famous for that.

    The risks and costs relative to the benefits of Bush Jr's Iraq War were more or less the same as they were in 1991. The only difference is that Bush Jr. made the mistake that Bush Sr. didn't.

    We wouldn't have invaded Iraq while they were fighting the Iranians, perhaps, but that isn't because we were afraid of Iraq joining forces with the USSR and Iran during the Cold War--for goodness' sake.

  • mtrueman||

    America never dared invade North Vietnam for goodness sake. The existence of the USSR and their threat to turn the nation into ashes tended to keep US adventurism to a low boil. That's at least part of the reason why the US started bombing Iraq after the fall of the Soviet regime, and not before.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The fact is that Bush Sr. resisted the temptation to occupy Iraq after the Soviet Union dissolved, and Bush Jr. could have done likewise--the absence of the USSR notwithstanding.

    If the absence of the USSR wasn't the issue in 1991, why would it be the determining factor in 2003? The USSR is a red herring. Vietnam is a red herring.

    We did not get mired in Iraq because we won the Cold War. We got mired in Iraq because that's how George W. Bush chose to spend his political capital. He could have restrained himself like his father did, but he chose not to do so.

  • mtrueman||

    Not sure I'm following you. Are you contending that the break up of America's biggest military threat (USSR) had no influence on America's strategic thinking or actions?

    America was mired in Iraq long before either Bush became president. But it took the fall of the USSR to set the stage for the outright bombing of Iraq.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Bush Sr. invaded Iraq after chasing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. The reason he didn't occupy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with the Soviet Union or its absence. Bush Sr. didn't occupy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein for two reasons:

    1) Because Powell-Weinberger Doctrine was driving his thinking.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....ne#Summary

    The Bush Sr. administration was particularly taken aback by the part about an exit strategy.

    2) Because they wanted Saddam Hussein to remain a check on Iran's regional ambitions.

    Both of those reasons not to occupy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein were just as valid in 2003 as they were in 1991. The difference was that the necons in the Bush Jr. administration rejected concerns about an exit strategy--because they expected the Iraqi people to embrace democracy with enthusiasm--and they weren't worried about Iran's regional ambitions--because they expected democracy to spread throughout the region like a contagion once Iraq was free.

    Bush Sr. was correct.

    Bush Jr. was wrong.

    And concerns about a direct confrontation with the Russians or their allies was never pertinent.

  • Ken Shultz||

    We repeatedly engaged the Russians through proxies throughout the Cold War. The idea that we had a free hand to invade Iraq because wining the Cold War took our concerns about Russia off the table is factually incorrect and doesn't even make sense.

    Saddam Hussein wasn't even a Russian ally.

    We didn't get bogged down in Iraq because of we won the Cold War.

    We got bogged down in Iraq because the Bush administration chose to occupy Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein. He did it on purpose because he believed in some neoconservative ideas that turned out to be bogus.

  • mtrueman||

    "The idea that we had a free hand to invade Iraq because wining the Cold War took our concerns about Russia off the table is factually incorrect and doesn't even make sense."

    That's not my recollection. The fall of the Soviet Union set the stage for the invasion and subsequent continual bombing. Remember Bush Sr's maneuvering at the UN to organize the international actions against Saddam Hussein, even going so far as to abandon the pro-Chinese allies, the Khmer Rouge, for the (pro Russian) Hun Sen regime? It wouldn't have happened without the disappearance of America's foremost military rival from the scene.

    I suggest that Bush Sr and Clinton were both bogged down in Iraq without having sent in troops to occupy the place. Commitment to continual, ineffectual bombing is just another form of bog,

  • The Last American Hero||

    If Iraq stayed out of Kuwait, there would have been no bombing of Iraq.

  • mtrueman||

    "If Iraq stayed out of Kuwait, there would have been no bombing of Iraq."

    Very likely. The point I've been trying to make is that were the USSR still a force to be reackoned with, the business with Iraq would have turned out differently, as in I doubt an invasion would have taken place.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.14.18 @ 10:18PM|#
    "Actually, we won the Cold War, and, "

    "and the prize was getting permanently mired in a futile war with the muslim world. Congratulations."

    Exactly there is the expression of trueman's idiocy; no more need be said.

  • mtrueman||

    "Exactly there is the expression of trueman's idiocy;"

    Don't knock it. Permanent war against muslims has proved to be a gold mine if you're in Lockheed of some similar outfit. Money talks, sevo. Close your ears if you have to, but it still talks.

  • MSimon||

    Well. War against Muslims has been traditional for 1400 years.

    Why should this year be any different?

  • mtrueman||

    "Why should this year be any different?"

    We're gonna need Muslim allies when we get around to war with China.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|4.15.18 @ 11:08AM|#
    "We're gonna need Muslim allies when we get around to war with China."

    One of these days, you'll need a brain.

  • mtrueman||

    "One of these days, you'll need a brain."

    To keep up with dimwits like you? Not necessary.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Well, the Huffington Post (not my preferred source, but I'll concede to the left-wingers by linking to it) explained how Muslims and Christians lived in harmony in Sicily. At one point the Fatimids ruled Sicily when Cairo was the capital of their empire. That means Sicily was once part of North Africa. When the USA took out Gaddafi, I saw African-Americans rally outside the UN with posters of Gaddafi saying that he was the king of Africa, because they see North Africa as a part of their continent. The diaspora Libyans who were rallying in support of USA strikes on Libya thought those pro-Gaddafi Americans were foolish. But the point is, plenty of Africa-Americans view North Africa as part of their homeland, and Sicily was once part of North Africa.

    My cousin is half-Sicilian, which means one could argue that he is as African-American as Obama. I'm thinking of sending him this album in the summer and encouraging him to learn those songs and sing them in his high school so that he can embrace his African-American culture.

  • Mickey Rat||

    In terms of plate tectonics, Sicily is part of Africa. Not that that means anything politically or culturally. The Japanese island of Hokkaido is on the North American Plate, for instance, and no one says that should be considered "American".

    With the Saharan desert being such a great natural barrier, North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa don't have much to do with one another. North Africa has always been culturally part of Mediterranean Basin.

  • Intelligent Mr Toad||

    Free the Curds! Let them have their own national homeland, separate from the Whey.

  • Eidde||

    Little Miss Muffet hardest hit.

  • Anantmundhra5||

  • mikekrohde||

    Ya, we have one hell of a record in the Middle East. We supported the European jews that came and seized land after WWII to found the jewish state. That 3/4 of a million Arabs were made refugees in the process isn't something that gets published in the U.S. but that is a reliable number. The Syrian operation is an Israeli mission in regime change, they have been targeting Assad for decades. trump said mission accomplished but Israel doesn't feel that way.

    I thought trump was serious when he said he wants to bring our troops home from there but predicting his behavior other than being offensive is not a profitable enterprise. He seems to be extremely reactive but to no particular stimulus other than penis size. He seems a little obsessed with that stuff. But hey, he's prez, he gets to obsess, right?

  • L. W. Paton||

    Loved every second of the video. A great way to educate people on why American and the Middle-East have the relations they do today can't think why else the Arab world hates the US.

    Oh wait... Israel, Kurdistan, Drone strikes of Yemen and Pakistan, Saudi oil reserves, Egypt...

  • prediksi singapore||

    Ceann de na cúiseanna a vótáil mé as Hillary Clinton ná a cuid beartas forleathan eachtrach i Seanad na Stát Aontaithe agus sa Roinn Stáit araon. Tá a fhios agam go ndearna sí Ceannasaí neamhspleách i gCeannas, ag dul i ngleic le fórsa míleata ach amháin nuair a bhí na roghanna eile go léir a ídithe.

  • pemaintoto||

    Saya pikir terlalu banyak libertarian lupa bahwa Timur Tengah adalah front selatan melawan Kekaisaran Soviet dan bahwa Amerika berusaha untuk menarik negara-negara Timur Tengah ke dalam lingkup pengaruh kita sebagai bagian dari perang dingin. Kami telah melakukan banyak hal di Timur Tengah bahwa video tersebut tidak mencakup, seperti meyakinkan sekutu kami untuk mundur ketika mereka memiliki keuntungan militer. Ketika Mesir ingin menasionalisasi Terusan Suez pada 1950-an, Prancis, Israel, dan Inggris meluncurkan kampanye militer yang sukses melawan Mesir, tetapi Eisenhower membuat mereka mundur karena takut Soviet akan datang membantu Mesir. Hal ini menyebabkan penurunan pengaruh Prancis dan Inggris di daerah tersebut. Sebuah perang kemerdekaan 8 tahun di Aljazair diikuti. Beberapa orang berpikir bahwa Perang Kemerdekaan Aljazair adalah ide yang bagus, tetapi itu menyebabkan pengungsi berimigrasi ke Prancis, dan beberapa orang berpikir bahwa Puerto Rico tidak boleh menjadi bagian dari Amerika.

  • 5Arete22||

    Ek dink dat ons almal ons poste moet vertaal in ewekansige tale.

  • Berha123||

  • prediksi hk||

    bocoran hk

  • angelpslab||

    One of the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton is her extensive foreign policy experience in both the US Senate and State Department. I know she would have made an outstanding Commander in Chief for Download Viva Video for Android, resorting to military force only when all other options had been exhausted.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online