Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
I think that they did want a power centre, other than Saudi Arabia, in the Middle East. I think that they truly wanted and believed that Iraq would make a smooth transition into a functioning liberal democracy.
I have a problem with the motives people assign the US. Personally, I'm against the war in Iraq, mainly because I believe in democracy, but not in democracy-building. I don't think the US was consciously acting as an imperial power, or were exclusively interested in acquiring resources. American history is weird, unique in a way only Americans can be.
The cultural influences affecting their foreign policy decisions swing between extremes and are ultimately very idealistic.
|
Agreed. American foreign policy history points to an almost unfounded idealism and optimism. It was never about oil and bases, those things were more easily secured by diplomatic (read: bribing corrupt countries) means than by an expensive war... which is the route most countries take anyway. This was a case of genuinely believing they could take out a major threat and build a beacon of democracy in the middle east. This was also a case of believing in evidence that was shaky at best, and non-existent at worst, while allowing enough time for Iraq to remove/destroy anything lingering.
Nowhere in fact or theory could that be thought possible, except in their war room. Western liberal democracy needs to be grown out of its own roots, not implanted.