Peak Oil is You

Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)

Page added on March 18, 2012

Bookmark and Share

America in the Muslim world: War, intervention, and nation building

America in the Muslim world: War, intervention, and nation building thumbnail

Americans view their country’s activities in the Muslim world as a necessary part of the “war on terror.” Nation building and spreading democracy are activities whose popularity spans the American ideological divide.

But these activities raise questions about such fundamental concepts as the nation-state and sovereignty, and they raise fears in the Muslim world that America’s motives are selfish, its policies not in the best interests of the people in the countries where America interferes. There is growing interest in these countries in the politics of religion, ethnicity and varieties of pluralism.

After 9/11, America first attacked Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin laden and other Al-Qaeda leaders. Then, America attacked Iraq in order to free its people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. During the last year, the leaderships of Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen have changed. The West certainly played a decisive role in these revolutions by backing the revolutionaries in these countries. Syria is the latest addition to the list of countries facing pressure to change its leaders. America is strongly backing the revolt in Syria.

Most of the Muslim countries of the Middle East and Africa are ruled either by monarchs or by military dictators. The new unipolar world, after the fall of USSR, is being lead by America, and America is supporting democracies all around the world. The West fears the rise of political, radical Islam. Iran is an example of a fundamentalist regime that is an irritant in the eyes of the West.

America has imposed sanctions on Iran in the hope that it will quit its nuclear program, which is a danger for the security of the region. Whether these new sanctions stop Iran from pursuing its goals of making a nuclear bomb or not, only time will tell.

Might Pakistan be the next country that will be subjected to the American hegemony? Many have asked this question since the American invasion of Afghanistan.

Every war has a broader economic agenda, and so does the war in Afghanistan. But Pakistan is different from Afghanistan in many ways. By population, Pakistan is the sixth-largest country in the world. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and it a running democratic government. And above all, Pakistan does not have natural resources as the countries of Middle East and Africa have. Instead of being a source of natural resources, Pakistan is a huge consumer of natural resources in order to feed its huge population.

A motion was passed recently in the American congress calling for the right of self-determination for the people of Balochistan, which is a province of Pakistan. This act sent shockwaves throughout Pakistan and is against Pakistan’s interests, but it is not equivalent to a military attack. Pakistan has protested the resolution and asked America not to work against the interests of Pakistan.

A resolution proposed by America at the UN to help the rebels of Syria has been vetoed by Russia and China. Here the question rises about the sovereignty of Syria. Is America trying to undermine Syrian sovereignty? America should let Syria deal with its internal problems on its own. Any Western attempt to help the Syrian opposition militarily or economically would not be taken as a good move by the Muslim world.

The Koran-burning incident in Afghanistan, involving American military personnel, is taken very seriously by the people of Afghanistan, and by the Pakistani people as well. The politics of religion is a dirty game. American troops should not use religion in order to advance the agenda of conquering the people of Afghanistan.

The issue of ethnicity has become very clear in America’s internal politics. Republican nominees Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are trying to get the nomination from their party to run for the presidency of the USA. The Democratic Party is relying on Barack Obama. Because of the African ethnicity of Barack Obama, it will be very difficult for him to get reelected and win a second presidential term.

In the end, it is clear that just changing the leadership of Muslim countries is not enough. Every Muslim country has different culture and traditions and to export democracy to every Muslim country is not the right choice. Rather, a pluralistic approach should be encouraged.

 Washington Times

7 Comments on "America in the Muslim world: War, intervention, and nation building"

  1. dsula on Sun, 18th Mar 2012 11:00 pm 

    we should use those expensive nukes to decimate them, at the rate they multiply it will barely make a dent

  2. pete on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 12:50 am 

    ignorance will be the death of both you dsula and your children and gan and etc. I would suggest reading “THE PRINCE” by Nicole Machiavelli, also “PROPAGANDA” and “CRYSTALLIZING PUBLIC OPINION” by Edward Bernays. these books would be considered a good foundation to seeing and questioning the truth of all articles. As in this one, it says that, the US is supporting democracy, but yet Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are totalitarian monarchies. I have come to the conclusion that the US supports change when it is their interest only and democracy be dammed as can be seen by the passage of multiple recent legislation in opposition of the constitution. The same is happening here in Canada, wake up people the door to freedom is being slammed shut.

  3. BillT on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 1:37 am 

    The Empire does not want true democracy in the world. We do not have it here at home and we don’t want any other country to have it either. True democracy does not allow what has been happening in the US. Nor does it allow what is happening in Europe. At the first hint that a country wants to put something to the vote that will not go the way the US wants, it is denied.
    There is no true democracies left. Only governments run by sociopaths and psychopaths.

    Muslim currently number about 1,400,000,000. The estimated growth rate is about 3% to 4% per year. Assuming 3 1/2%, that means that there are 50 million more every year. in 20 years, that 1.4 billion could be 2.8 billion. (rule of 72) We would have to kill 140,000 per day, every day just to keep their numbers even. Is that moral or even possible? No.

  4. Anvil on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 2:34 am 


  5. Arthur on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 2:09 pm 

    @Anvil – I would prefer a regime change organized by American citizens themselves and/or Ron Paul. That would leave the world in one piece.

  6. Arthur on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 2:11 pm 

    @dsula – you are joking, right?

  7. James on Mon, 19th Mar 2012 11:24 pm 

    Even if the U.S. is successful at changing regimes in other countries, it will have to maintain a military presence in these countries as well to ensure that “democracy” prevails. If we don’t monitor and police these countries, they will revert back to what they were or even worst. There is no assurance that the population as a whole will support the U.S. efforts to maintain and support the U.S.installed regimes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *