Can "regime-change" really work?

[Wordie]

As many DUers know, the current administration has, from the very start of their first term, been pursuing a policy of "regime change" against those foreign governments (Iraq, Syria, Iran) that the administration percieves as working against the interests of the United States.

But have the proponents of this policy truly thought through the implications? Their grandiose schemes seem focused on toppling those leaders with whom they disagree, or who behave in ways counter to U.S. interests. But do these schemes ever once take into consideration the PEOPLE of those regimes, and what happens once a new regime is instituted?

I am asking, because it appears to me that in Iraq, when all is said and done, the major accomplishment may very well be the removal of one repressive secular regime (Saddam's) and installation of a new, repressive, theocratic regime (the new primarily Shia government, which favors Sharia law), which coincidentally may become in the coming years close to her neighbor Iran, another enemy of ours. Is this really worth the money we are spending, not to mention the lives that have been sacrificed? Have we actually set BACK any process which may have led the Iraqis to a more progressive government, as a result of our meddling?

The Law of Unintended Consequences alone should tell us that our approach is a very bad one.

What do other DUers think?

[punpirate]

1. Well, Bush, Sr., tried it twice...

... and Panama thinks we're assholes, and the first Gulf War was an elaborate attempt to kill Hussein which failed. We've installed new governments in two countries we've invaded in the last four years, and both those countries are as fragile and as or more fraught with problems as they were before we invaded, so, you tell me. Does regime change work? Doesn't seem that way to me.

That doesn't even address the cumulative damage to perceptions of the US internationally, or the effects of these wars on the fractiousness of American society domestically.

Everyone's the loser when war is unnecessary.

[Wordie]

2. "doesn't even address the cumulative damage to perceptions of the US"

Yes, you're so right there - your entire post was great, but that statement particularly caught my eye. My post didn't even cover that, but it should have.

I think a definite case can be made for the idea that we are *creating* terrorists, because our actions have just completely played into the picture that folks like ObL created, and other extremist elements within Islam have exploited, of the U.S. as the agressor against Islam. What a tragedy; so unnecessary.

This approach surely does not benefit any real U.S. interests, which would be far better served by creating a dialogue with Islamic countries. Instead we are driving a wedge that makes it harder for the moderates to support us.

[punpirate]

3. US "interests" created these wars...

... just as they've created the culture wars at home to divide the country.

It's been about money and power. *sigh* Nothing more, nothing less.

In a backhanded way, we created al-Qaeda. We created Noriega. We created Hussein. We've been creating our enemies for sixty years.

Cheers.

[Wordie]

4. Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become - LaoTze

I agree with you, but in the same weird way, when you really think about it, those enemies created us too.

The question becomes what to do about it.

And, I personally think the "real interests" of the U.S. are more in the direction of peace.

[punpirate]

5. Well, perhaps we need to define terms...

... what "real interests" are. If you mean the interests of the ordinary people of the U.S., I would agree with you--in part. Today, there is a component of society in which the right wing has managed to stir up a nationalism that invites war--mostly because they don't have to fight in it, if they choose not.

The interests of the government, however, are another matter. Ever since Monroe, we've used the military to benefit certain economic interests in this country. Over time, those economic interests have become "US interests" and they have taken precedence over any interests of the common people in peace.

Quite apart from what is happening in Iraq right now, Camp Bondsteel (not coincidentally, built by Halliburton/KBR) in Kosovo sits atop the route of a pipeline originally deemed necessary by Halliburton to move oil westwards with minimum chance of interference. That's one of the reasons why we are still in Kosovo. Soldiers there say the only patch missing from their uniforms is the one that reads, "Sponsored by Kellogg, Brown & Root."

[Wordie]

7. Yes, it does depend on one's perspective.

A thing that has always gotten me in trouble. It is really impossible, when you get right down to it, to define "interests" (and so many other terms) in a really effective way. The definition depends so much on the perspective from which one is viewing the issue. I am prone to trying to look at things from several perspectives, if possible, to try for a deeper understanding.

Yet, it seems that in order to communicate about these things effectively we must pretend that they are all black and white. Since in reality most of the situations and issues interesting enough to want to talk about are far more complex than that, a black and white reading of them can actually muddy up the waters, instead of providing clarity, imho. When we filter out some elements, others take on a distorted importance. The issue becomes something different that what it truly is, because the parts filtered out are sometimes crucial to an effective understanding. The problem is also who decides what black and white reading of the situation is the best one to use, and can we trust their decision to be the correct one.

:sigh:

Guess I'm feeling somewhat philosophical this morning. Forgive my musings if they seem OT.

[bluedawg12]

6. Was watching the History Chanel: Crusade show last night

Middle eastern history and the 1,500 year fight between shi'ites and sunni's. To think that a numb nut like chimpy ever had an over view of history sufficient for an avowed anti-intellectual like him to ever imagine that things were as simple as the necons painted it?

He had no idea of what he was getting us into, and was proud of the fact that he never read books.

I can just see it now, "well, we'll just smoke out, dead or alive, like Shane, or JOhn Wayne, yeah, that's it, Texas style. Remember the Alamo, remember that the good guys wear white has and always win. heh heh heh. let's go drop some shock and awe on 'em. heh heh heh."

Worked out nicely didn't it?

"The Law of Unintended Consequences alone should tell us that our approach is a very bad one." - Amen!

[Wordie]

8. Oh, so true. *'s understanding of the world is simplistic and ahistorical.

Its really quite scary when you think about it. The guy who's steering the ship of state couldn't have passed the driver's test, if one had been given.

And as far as the ME is concerned, from what I can see, those around him are not much better. Condi, for instance, is an expert in the Soviet Union and the cold war. Trying to apply the lessons learned in those arenas to the ME is...well, it just doesn't work. Apples and Oranges...or Apples and Giraffes would perhaps state it better.