How Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan came to be how they are today
Michael Kinsley's latest column at Slate explores how our historical interactions with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan have led to the situation we find ourselves in today. It's well worth reading. Here's a longish excerpt:
Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the Majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the Majlis voted in a man named Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.
But in 1952, the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the Majlis was ultimately dissolved, and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy-talk about nationalizing the oil companies.
But, speaking of crazy-talk, resentment of the shah and of the United States were central to the growing appeal of Ayatollah Khomeini. In 1979, the Ayatollah's followers overthrew the shah and made Iran a strict Islamic state.
[snip]
Meanwhile, next door in Iraq, an ambitious young dictator, new to the job, named Saddam Hussein sensed both danger and opportunity in Iran's chaos. So he decided to invade. Thus began the Iran-Iraq war, lasting eight years. It turned hundreds of thousands of people into corpses and millions into refugees. When it was over, nothing had changed. But it wasn't a complete waste. It provided another opportunity for the United States to promote its interests and values.
On the "enemy of my enemy" principle, the United States all but officially backed Iraq. We overlooked Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers (many of them children), and against his own people. Many of the human rights abuses President Bush and others have invoked two decades later to justify the decision to topple and try Saddam were well publicized in the '80s. But in the '80s, we didn't care. President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld, then a drug-company executive, as his "special envoy" to tell Saddam that we didn't care.
Meanwhile, of course, Reagan was also secretly selling weapons to Iran.
The big event in Afghanistan this past half-century was the Soviet occupation of 1979, often described as the last gasp of the Cold War and as Russia's Vietnam. Recent governments had been pro-Soviet, but apparently not pro-Soviet enough. After the occupation, some of the deposed thugs and others formed militias that roamed the countryside killing people and whatnot. These were called "guerillas," because we were for them. During the 1980s, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on weapons and other support.
The war we sustained in Afghanistan destroyed the country, turned half the population into refugees, and killed perhaps a million people. In 1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan (along with everywhere else, including Russia). But disappointingly, our guerrillas, also called the "mujahideen," kept on fighting--using our weapons--against the government and among themselves. In 1996, one particularly extreme group, the Taliban, took power. It was even more disappointing when the Taliban established an Islamic state more extreme than the one in Iran and invited Osama Bin Laden to make himself at home, which he did.
So, we marched in and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're--well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.
And they lived happily ever after.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes an interventionalist foreign policy is necessary. But Kinsley reminds us that in the realm of geopolitics, the law of unintended consequences reigns supreme. As our hawkish friends go off half-cocked about the need to do this and that right now, without any real planning or forethought, remember that these are the same kind of guys who thought all these previous acts of intervention were great ideas too.
Half a century ago, Iran was very close to a real democracy. It had an elected legislature, called the Majlis, and it had a repressive monarch, called the shah, and power veered uncertainly between them. In 1951, over the shah's objections, the Majlis voted in a man named Mosaddeq as prime minister. His big issue was nationalizing the oil companies.
But in 1952, the United States had an election for president, and the winner (Eisenhower) got more votes than anyone in Iran. That must explain why in 1953, in the spirit of democracy, the CIA instigated a riot and then staged a coup. Mosaddeq was arrested, the Majlis was ultimately dissolved, and the shah ran things his way, which involved torture and death for political opponents, caviar and champagne for an international cast of hangers-on, and no more crazy-talk about nationalizing the oil companies.
But, speaking of crazy-talk, resentment of the shah and of the United States were central to the growing appeal of Ayatollah Khomeini. In 1979, the Ayatollah's followers overthrew the shah and made Iran a strict Islamic state.
[snip]
Meanwhile, next door in Iraq, an ambitious young dictator, new to the job, named Saddam Hussein sensed both danger and opportunity in Iran's chaos. So he decided to invade. Thus began the Iran-Iraq war, lasting eight years. It turned hundreds of thousands of people into corpses and millions into refugees. When it was over, nothing had changed. But it wasn't a complete waste. It provided another opportunity for the United States to promote its interests and values.
On the "enemy of my enemy" principle, the United States all but officially backed Iraq. We overlooked Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers (many of them children), and against his own people. Many of the human rights abuses President Bush and others have invoked two decades later to justify the decision to topple and try Saddam were well publicized in the '80s. But in the '80s, we didn't care. President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld, then a drug-company executive, as his "special envoy" to tell Saddam that we didn't care.
Meanwhile, of course, Reagan was also secretly selling weapons to Iran.
The big event in Afghanistan this past half-century was the Soviet occupation of 1979, often described as the last gasp of the Cold War and as Russia's Vietnam. Recent governments had been pro-Soviet, but apparently not pro-Soviet enough. After the occupation, some of the deposed thugs and others formed militias that roamed the countryside killing people and whatnot. These were called "guerillas," because we were for them. During the 1980s, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars a year on weapons and other support.
The war we sustained in Afghanistan destroyed the country, turned half the population into refugees, and killed perhaps a million people. In 1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan (along with everywhere else, including Russia). But disappointingly, our guerrillas, also called the "mujahideen," kept on fighting--using our weapons--against the government and among themselves. In 1996, one particularly extreme group, the Taliban, took power. It was even more disappointing when the Taliban established an Islamic state more extreme than the one in Iran and invited Osama Bin Laden to make himself at home, which he did.
So, we marched in and got rid of the Taliban. Then we marched into Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. Now we're--well, we haven't figured out what, but we're hopping mad and gonna do something, dammit, about Iran.
And they lived happily ever after.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes an interventionalist foreign policy is necessary. But Kinsley reminds us that in the realm of geopolitics, the law of unintended consequences reigns supreme. As our hawkish friends go off half-cocked about the need to do this and that right now, without any real planning or forethought, remember that these are the same kind of guys who thought all these previous acts of intervention were great ideas too.
posted by A.L. at 2:15 PM
6 Comments:
Appropos of the Kinsley article, Congressman Ron Paul, R.Texas, also has a history of the region on his web site. This is a speech he delivered on the floor of Congress, I believe April 5th. Ron Paul's presentation did not receive any media coverage that I am aware of, or would expect it should, since his views are in opposition to the Administration.
A.L., this is off-topic, but I wanted to thank you for a fine job filling in over at Greenwald's place while he was writing his manuscript. It is quite apparent that, like him, you maintain the qualities of what is a 'true' American--one that cares about people, and one who seeks to regain for America what the current Administration has made a shambles of--our dignity.
Wow, perhaps I'm in the minority (college student) but I previously wasn't aware of many of these things.
Specifically the fact that Rumsfeld at one point supported Saddam Hussein and held meetings with him. THIS needs to be on blogs right now-- paradoxically, the nigh unprecedented attacks from our top civilian military leaders, against Rumself, have not met with the PROPER response: Rumsfeld's departing.
The logic is this. Bush is an asshole and should clearly be impeached. But as this may take some time, we should FORCE him into ethical and intelligent action. Expose him and denounce him for spying on us, for illegally and immorally declaring war, etc-- but praise him for his positive action.
Terrorism is an issue such that if our leaders overly pursue its deterrence, it will rise in revolt. It's like for all the words we put in the balloon, the larger the balloon is the bigger its explosion. The same applies to the prohibition on drugs. The point, then, is not to tolerate them or not to pursue them, but to focus on more important issues, which of course our highly priveleged leaders (in terms of living conditions and wealth) have little experience of.
In short, thanks for the history. If we want to make a real impact on the Administration through the blogosphere, what we NEED to do is focus on the historical details of Rumsfeld's previous involvement with Saddam Hussein. Just think if this information were posted on a few major blogs...
MC Frontalot dedicated a lyric to Don.
I don't think it's accurate to say that "we were for" the guerillas. What we were for was putting a dent in the Soviet army. To serve this end, we gave Pakistan weapons which they distributed to the guerilla fighters at their discretion. I'm not sure how Slate is trying to characterize US involvement from that exerpt. Anybody care to enlighten or simply offer your interpretation?
By the way, anybody that's interested in the Afghanistan War should read Charlie Wilson's War. It's such an amazing book.
Of course the missing bit is how the US's support for Iraq against the revolutionary Iranians led to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, the US response, US soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden's declaration of war on the US, and 911.
Plebian
"in foreign policy the law of unintended consequences reigns supreme."
indeed.
if only we had had an experienced and knowledgeable president,
he would have been keenly aware of this.
instead,
we have had an ignorant, foolish gambler in charge of our nation and its foreign policy
for 6 long, disastrous years.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home