Why meddle in the Mideast?

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
1

I’ve been thinking since my last discussion here and I’d like some feedback. Objectivists here have been adamant that we must attack Iran in retaliation to the '79 hostage crisis, '83 Lebanon bombings, and current support for anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq. This is in spite of the fact that all of these events were made possible by an altruistic foreign policy, which you argue is a separate issue; retaliating and “winning” is obligatory so we don’t confirm to men like bin Laden that we are paper tigers.

Fine, understood. But let’s pretend we could go back in time: Would you meddle in Mideast affairs as much as we have been for the last 60 years? Would you offer full support for Israel and send in US troops whenever they were in need?

Our ultimate purpose in the Middle East since WWII has been to protect oil assets, both from Soviet meddling and internal disorder. Our unqualified support for Israel was initially for the former: to counter the increasing Soviet clout in neighboring Arab nations. Since its creation in 1948 we’ve sacrificed nearly $100 billion and hundreds of lives for them. This is even more damning when considering that Israel, who is quite socialist internally, has intentionally killed Americans on numerous occaisions (USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, etc).

To illustrate this better, here is a list I wrote of every major U.S. intervention in the Mideast between the end of WWII and the current occupations. Any sober assessment would be that each has led to more bad than good, and that just as when we meddle in the economy, meddling in the Mideast has created unintended consequences and leads to further interventions meant to fix past ones.

-Assisted in the '53 coup in Iran, conducted not to stop Mossadeq from nationalizing the oil fields, but rather an irrational fear that he sympathized with communists. This provided the impetus for the hostage crisis 26 years later.

-Pushed for the Baghdad Pact, which several Middle Eastern nations and Britain signed in '55 to prevent Soviet infiltration of the region. Egypt saw this as an attempt to split the Arab world, so they gravitated closer to the Soviets.

-Offered to help finance the High Aswan Dam, and in '56 reneged the offer. This pissed Egypt off, leading them to nationalize the British- and French-owned Suez Canal Company. This pissed Britain and France off, leading them and Israel to invade Egypt.

-Shipped arms to Israel and conducted aerial recon during the Six Day War. Afterwards, the Soviets gave weapons and troops to Egypt and moved closer to Syria and the PLO, which the U.S. responded to by giving more weapons and planes to Israel.

-Airlifted arms to the Sinai Peninsula after Israel took it over during the Yom Kippur War in '73. This caused OPEC to refuse further petroleum shipments to the U.S., making oil prices skyrocket and leading to the first fuel shortage since WWII. All told, the war cost us up to $18 billion directly and indirectly. Furthermore, after the Soviets suggested they may send troops to intervene, the U.S. put its conventional and nuclear (!) forces on worldwide alert, illustrating the escalation potential of foreign intervention.

-Provided several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Soviet invaders starting in '79. The U.S. maintains that aid was only provided to native Afghans, not foreigners like Osama bin Laden, but many still claim that the U.S. directly or indirectly assisted him.

-Sent 1800 Marines to Lebanon in '82 at their request to act as a peacekeeping buffer between Israel and everyone else. When Israel withdrew, the U.S. was left there for no reason and took (possibly unintentional) artillery fire from Lebanese factions, prompting the U.S. Navy to fire back. The following year these policies led to the bombing of the U.S. embassy taking 46 American lives, and the barracks bombing later that year taking 241.

-Provided aid to Iraq in '83 following the Iran-Iraq war and approved the French arming of Iraq with planes and missiles. In '87 we then sent warships to the Persian gulf to protect Iraqi oil tankers. Shortly afterwards, an Iraqi plane mistakenly attacked one of the ships, the USS Stark, killing 28 Americans. After several back-and-forth attacks between the U.S. and Iranian Navy, the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all 290 civilians, including 66 children.

-Deployed forces to Saudi Arabia six days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August '91, initially to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia but later to drive them from Kuwait. Such was the beginning of U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, a major grievance motivating Osama bin Laden.

2

Objectivists here have been adamant that we must attack Iran in retaliation to the '79 hostage crisis, '83 Lebanon bombings, and current support for anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq.

You are in error, in having misidentified the underlying causal principle, which is the fact that the existing mullah regime is a current threat to our existence.

This is in spite of the fact that all of these events were made possible by an altruistic foreign policy, which you argue is a separate issue; retaliating and “winning” is obligatory so we don’t confirm to men like bin Laden that we are paper tigers.

“Made possible” is a coward’s analysis: let’s focus on cause. What caused these events is Islamic fundamentalism.

Would you meddle in Mideast affairs as much as we have been for the last 60 years? Would you offer full support for Israel and send in US troops whenever they were in need?

There’s no meddling involved, and I don’t know how you plan to quantify US involvement. Rather than have many low-intensity units of involvement, we simply need some seriously high-intensity involvements. When a foreign government invades a peaceful friendly nation such as Israel or the former Lebanon, we should offer our absolute support. When a foreign government invades by proxy, using terrorists, we should obliterate that government. I don’t mean “we should occasionally punish the terrorist camps in Afghanistan or Iran”, I mean, we should eliminate at least one city in that nation as a means of clarifying our resolve.

The truth is, the consequences of attacking American interests have been negligible. Our responses have been rather pathetic – how many troops did we send into Iraq in 1972 with they stole our property? None. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, how many Iraqi cities were flattened? None. Was Damascus nuked after Syria invaded Lebanon? No, it was not, we hardly shook a finger. Rather than having a lot of impotent diplomatic protests, I would suggest pursuing an unambiguous foreign policy.

3

-Assisted in the '53 coup in Iran, conducted not to stop Mossadeq from nationalizing the oil fields, but rather an irrational fear that he sympathized with communists. This provided the impetus for the hostage crisis 26 years later.

The Tudeh Party was gaining power in Iran and it was well-known that Mossadeq was in fact a Communist sympathizer. He may have not been a full-on Communist, but he was a Nationalist who favored the growing Soviet threat and despised the U.S. Imagine if Charles Lindbergh were put into power during WWII. He was not a Nazi himself, but he sided with Hitler over Allied powers.

-Pushed for the Baghdad Pact, which several Middle Eastern nations and Britain signed in '55 to prevent Soviet infiltration of the region. Egypt saw this as an attempt to split the Arab world, so they gravitated closer to the Soviets.

Egypt has never been a major threat to the U.S and their superficial siding with the USSR ( I’m not even sure of this ) never harmed the U.S. Signing the Baghdad pact was an intelligent move to stop Communist expansionism.

-Offered to help finance the High Aswan Dam, and in '56 reneged the offer. This pissed Egypt off, leading them to nationalize the British- and French-owned Suez Canal Company. This pissed Britain and France off, leading them and Israel to invade Egypt.

I’m not not familiar with the situation, but the theft of oil fields is always an act of aggression against the citizens of another nation. Simply because we reneged doesn’t give them the right to theft.

-Shipped arms to Israel and co nducted aerial recon during the Six Day War. Afterwards, the Soviets gave weapons and troops to Egypt and moved closer to Syria and the PLO, which the U.S. responded to by giving more weapons and planes to Israel.

Israel is our only true ally in the middle east. I think its totally in our self-interest to help them militarily when they are in danger. This is my position on most other questions regarding Israel

-Airlifted arms to the Sinai Peninsula after Israel took it over during the Yom Kippur War in '73. This caused OPEC to refuse further petroleum shipments to the U.S., making oil prices skyrocket and leading to the first fuel shortage since WWII. All told, the war cost us up to $18 billion directly and indirectly. Furthermore, after the Soviets suggested they may send troops to intervene, the U.S. put its conventional and nuclear (!) forces on worldwide alert, illustrating the escalation potential of foreign intervention.

That sounds like a problem with OPEC, not America.

-Provided several hundred million dollars a year in aid to the Afghan Mujahideen insurgents fighting the Soviet invaders starting in '79. The U.S. maintains that aid was only provided to native Afghans, not foreigners like Osama bin Laden, but many still claim that the U.S. directly or indirectly assisted him.

I’ve been on the fence whether arming Afghani rebels was the correct course of action to take against the Soviets, but I think theres no doubt that it helped. I’m not an expert on the subject though

-Sent 1800 Marines to Lebanon in '82 at their request to act as a peacekeeping buffer between Israel and everyone else. When Israel withdrew, the U.S. was left there for no reason and took (possibly unintentional) artillery fire from Lebanese factions, prompting the U.S. Navy to fire back. The following year these policies led to the bombing of the U.S. embassy taking 46 American lives, and the barracks bombing later that year taking 241.

We should’ve left as soon as we needed to, but we were fired upon. It was our moral obligation to fire back

-Provided aid to Iraq in '83 following the Iran-Iraq war and approved the French arming of Iraq with planes and missiles. In '87 we then sent warships to the Persian gulf to protect Iraqi oil tankers. Shortly afterwards, an Iraqi plane mistakenly attacked one of the ships, the USS Stark, killing 28 Americans. After several back-and-forth attacks between the U.S. and Iranian Navy, the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all 290 civilians, including 66 children.

Bad move. I’ll give you that.

-Deployed forces to Saudi Arabia six days after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in August '91, initially to deter Iraq from attacking Saudi Arabia but later to drive them from Kuwait. Such was the beginning of U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, a major grievance motivating Osama bin Laden.

Osama can cry all he wants. We were protecting supposed allies…Though, I don’t like our alliance with immoral middle eastern nations, I disagree with it on an entirely different premise than that inhuman scum.

4

Objectivists here have been adamant that we must attack Iran in retaliation to the '79 hostage crisis, '83 Lebanon bombings, and current support for anti-U.S. insurgents in Iraq.

My guess is that I am one of the individuals who you are referring to. To start off, I do not represent anyone else’s views other than my own. My position is that Iran is an ideological threat and a financier of terror. In my case, this does not translate into advocating a military attack, especially given that such a war might be led by an administration sympathetic to Neoconservative ideas and therefore, fought improperly resulting in trillions of dollars of unnecessary expenditures as well as significant losses of American lives. Needless to say, attacking a country because of what they did over 25 years ago would be stupid and immoral. The real issue is that Iran is a threat today and has made no effort to distance itself from supporting Islamic terrorism financially, politically, spiritually and in some cases militarily.

However, I am opposed to those who do not acknowledge the nature of the Iranian government, including the claim that Iran is a hostile country as a direct result of misdeeds in U.S., British and French foreign policy and therefore of no responsibility to the individuals in the Middle East who support the Islamic Theocracy or the ideas that they embrace. From viewing your statement here:

This is in spite of the fact that all of these events were made possible by an altruistic foreign policy

this seems to be directly what you are insinuating. If you think I am mistaken, please clarify your position. Regardless, this is not a premise that I will grant you.

To discuss your original question of, would I advocate all of the interventions in the Middle East that you have listed? Definitely not all, but I do not have the time or the motivation to provide detailed reasons on how I think each operation should have been pursued differently, if at all.

Instead, I wanted to address a few of the “facts” that you have provided.

This is even more damning when considering that Israel, who is quite socialist internally, has intentionally killed Americans on numerous occaisions (USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, etc).

Statements like these make me question entering this discussion. First of all, Israel is not a socialist state, but a mixed economy like the United States. Even though there were some socialist influences in the founding of Israel, particularly in the establishment of the kibbutzim, Israeli residents still enjoy a significant number of freedoms, especially property rights. It is not fair to characterize them as a socialist state. Second of all, Israel has not “intentionally killed Americans on numerous occasions”. Let’s first examine the case of the USS Liberty. According to the Wikipedia article:

The Israeli and American governments conducted multiple inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was the result of a mistake, caused by confusion among the Israeli attackers about the precise identity of the USS Liberty and the fact that the United States Ambassador to the United Nations had publicly announced to the world at the U.N. that the United States had no ships within 350 miles of Israel and the battle.

Basically, the ship was mistaken to be Egyptian, who was a military threat to Israel during the conflict. There is no reason why Israel would intentionally attack the ship of a nation who was the only world power that was relatively supportive of Israel. The argument for the attack being intentional, according to Wikipedia, is that the ship was easily discernable from an Egyptian ship in both size and lettering. (U.S. ships used Latin as opposed to Arabic lettering.) However, this still provides no motive for why Israel would intentionally attack a U.S. ship. There is no reason to believe that this attack is intentional.

Lastly, the Lavon Affair seems pretty sketchy but there were no American or British casualties. Here is a description of the incident from the Wikipedia article:

[israeli intelligence minister] Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, a post office in Alexandria was firebombed, and on July 14, the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo, and a British-owned theater were bombed. The homemade bombs, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine, were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths.

Here is the cited motivation of the bombings from that same Wikipedia article:

The goal of the Operation was to carry out bombings and other acts of sabotage in Egypt with the aim of creating an atmosphere in which the British and American opponents of British withdrawal from Egypt would be able to gain the upper hand and block the withdrawal.

According to this article, there were no deaths, no injuries and relatively little damage. This operation sounds very sketchy, to the extent where I would call it bad. Nevertheless, it cannot be honestly listed as an example of Israel “intentionally killing Americans” considering that the detonations were intentionally done in empty buildings with no civilians in the area.

In summary, you have provided no evidence of Israeli officials ordering the intentional killing of American civilians.

After several back-and-forth attacks between the U.S. and Iranian Navy, the USS Vincennes mistakenly shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, killing all 290 civilians, including 66 children.

I also wanted to briefly add to this. According to both this Wikipedia article and Michael Oren’s book Six Days of War, the Iranian airbus was shot down while the USS Vincennes was under attack from Iranian gunboats. The U.S. position is that the plane was mistaken for a F-14 Tomcat.

5

Everyone,

Since all of you brought up Israel being an ally, I will address it first to avoid redundancy. Here are four basic points:

  1. Welfare for Israel. Nobody disputes the massive amounts of economic and military aid we’ve given them. The total number, as I said, reaches about $100 billion, though in the first couple decades most of it was for infrastructure and food. Now, I don’t understand how any Objectivist can justify such outright welfare.

  2. USS Liberty. Contrary to DarkWaters’ brief “research” on Wikipedia of the USS Liberty, which was observed by Israeli recon planes for several hours and then attacked by their fighter jets and torpedo boats, the investigations are widely believed to be cover-ups - read this for starters.

If you want motive, how about this paper written by a Lt. Commander of the US Navy for Naval Law Review:

The Israeli attack on the Liberty was intentional and premeditated. The question is, why? Obviously, Israel wanted to keep something hidden. Given the timing of the ship’s arrival on the 8th of June, and the slightly later attack on Syria, the most likely thing that Israel wanted to conceal was something dealing with the attack on Syria. One reason might be a fear on the part of Israel that, if her battlefield successes up to June 8th were known, she would be pressured not to attack Syria in the first place. Additionally, Israel may have attacked Syria intending to keep the land that she seized. If she appeared to be the aggressor in the attack, this might not be possible. The Liberty was the only ship close enough to be able to fathom from radio traffic whether Israel or Syria had truly violated the cease-fire. If the Liberty were out of action, the world would only know Israel’s version of events. This would leave Israel with Syrian land.

  1. The Levon Affair. Even DarkWaters admits that the Levon Affair is “sketchy” and even calls it “bad” (!). The fact that nobody died is certainly not to their credit - one cannot assume that they didn’t intend to hurt anyone by exploding bombs in a post office, two U.S. government libraries, and a British-owned movie theater. There is no excuse for a supposed “ally.” And if you think this is ancient history, consider that the surviving members of saboteurs were given awards just a couple years ago.

  2. Harassment of U.S. Marines. In 1982, Israel invaded Lebanon to eject the PLO, ostensibly in response to the attempted assassination of their London ambassador, which the PLO was not responsible for. Reagan then sent 1800 Marines as peacekeepers, but as Time Magazine reports, Israel wasn’t acting like much of an ally:

In a scathing letter to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, which was later released by the Pentagon, U.S. Marine Commandant General Robert Barrow complained that Israeli forces in Lebanon have consistently “harassed, endangered and degraded” U.S. troops. He asserted that the Israelis “persist in creating serious incidents” and suggested that these episodes had been “timed, orchestrated and executed for obtuse Israeli political purposes.”

DavidOdden,

  1. So your argument for war is not past events, but the supposed threat they currently pose. I do not want to get into the subject in this thread, but maybe we can return to the subject some other time.

  2. No, “Islamic fundamentalism” didn’t cause all of the events I listed. Certainly that was the case in the hostage crisis, but the '83 bombings were motivated by Lebanese nationalism. It’s not cowardly to point out the obvious fact that our altruistic policies made such attacks possible; the motivation of the attackers is a separate issue. The fact is, if we weren’t over there (and we didn’t need to be), they wouldn’t have been able to hit us.

TheEgoist,

  1. You are totally wrong that it was “well-known that Mossadeq” was a communist sympathizer. The pro-communist Tudeh Party, who was outlawed by his regime, protested against him for being too bourgeois and pro-American. At one point he even ransacked their newspaper offices.

  2. Wait, you just finished saying we needed to overthrow Mossadeq’s regime because he was a communist sympathizer, but now when I mention that our meddling actually made Egypt come closer to the Soviet fold you say they weren’t a major threat so it doesn’t matter? Huh?

  3. I never suggested that these countries were justified in their responses to our meddling, I’m just showing you the unintentional consequences that come. Our reneging on the promise to fund the Aswan Dam led to the Suez Crisis, and our involvement in the Yom Kippur War led to OPEC’s embargo.

  4. You say we “shouldn’t [sic] left as soon as we needed to,” but you’re not addressing why we were there in there first place. Our Marines were sent as a peacekeeping buffer, supposedly to maintain order in the region. You think that’s a justifiable use of American lives?

  5. Why is it okay to sacrifice American lives for Israel, but not Saudi Arabia? I totally agree that the Saudis are several orders of magnitude more evil, but in what way does it protect America to defend a small sliver of land in the Mideast the size of New Jersey?

DarkWaters,

  1. No, I am not insinuating that Iran’s evil was caused by our policies. As I told DavidOdden, all I’m claiming is that if we weren’t over there (and we didn’t need to be), they wouldn’t have been able to hit us.

  2. Of course the USS Vincennes incident was an accident, that’s not my point. The list I provided was to show examples of unintended consequences of pointless interventions - in this cause, the accidental killing of 290 innocent men, women, and children.

6

TheEgoist,

1. You are totally wrong that it was “well-known that Mossadeq” was a communist sympathizer. The pro-communist Tudeh Party, who was outlawed by his regime, protested against him for being too bourgeois and pro-American. At one point he even ransacked their newspaper offices.

2. Wait, you just finished saying we needed to overthrow Mossadeq’s regime because he was a communist sympathizer, but now when I mention that our meddling actually made Egypt _ come closer _ to the Soviet fold you say they weren’t a major threat so it doesn’t matter? Huh?

Mossadeq supported Nationalism, the nationalization of natural resources, swept Iran with many other radical, socialist reforms and did work side-by-side with the Tudeh party. It was the American installed Shah that banned the Tudeh party.

As for Egypt, they supported the USSR with lip service ( as far as I know ). The fear of Iran was that they would be enveloped by the Communists.

4. You say we “shouldn’t [sic] left as soon as we needed to,” but you’re not addressing why we were there in there first place. Our Marines were sent as a _ peacekeeping buffer _ , supposedly to maintain order in the region. You think that’s a justifiable use of American lives?

That depends. If theres a nation ( Such as Israel ) that needs us there, I think its a justifiable use of our military. But once Israeli forces no longer cooperate, its obvious we need to leave.

  1. Why is it okay to sacrifice American lives for Israel, but not Saudi Arabia? I totally agree that the Saudis are several orders of magnitude more evil, but in what way does it protect America to defend a small sliver of land in the Mideast the size of New Jersey?

Because its the only nation in the mess that is the middle east that supports the concept of individual rights. Now, they certainly don’t always live up to this standard. Neither does America, but we should fight for that sliver of land because

7

Well, it appears as if there is more to the USS Liberty incident than I have initially thought.

Contrary to DarkWaters’ brief “research”

You have no idea that all of my knowledge on this situation is based on a “brief” searching of Wikipedia. If you are going to make a claim that you know is going to be highly controversial amongst the members of this forum, such as that “Israel has intentionally killed Americans on numerous occasions”, you should support it with easily checkable references. You did not do this in your first post. There is no necessity for you to be condescending or to adopt a sarcastic tone.

The motive you have cited does not seem sound to me either. Why would attacking a U.S. surveillance ship allow Israel to retain the Golan Heights from Syria, given that there were plans to also occupy territory from Jordan and Egypt? Furthermore, in his paper here, Michael Oren (a senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem) identifies how if the attack was intentional, it would have been more devastating:

Common sense would also dictate that the Israelis, in the process of handily defeating three Arab armies, could have easily sunk a single, lightly armed ship if they had wanted to. In such a case, they would not have attacked the Liberty in broad daylight with clearly marked boats and planes - submarines could have done the job - nor would they have ultimately halted their fire and offered the ship assistance.

Furthermore, he goes on to address the alleged Golan Heights campaign motive:

But it is no longer necessary to decide the argument on the basis of common sense alone. Like the other claims for Israel’s alleged motive in attacking the Liberty, the one linking the assault to the Golan Heights campaign cannot withstand the scrutiny of the newly declassified documents. These confirm that Israel made no attempt to hide its preparations for an offensive against Syria, and that the United States government, relying on regular diplomatic channels, remained fully apprised of them. Thus, on June 8, the American consulate in Jerusalem reported that Israel was retaliating for Syria’s bombardment of Israeli villages “in an apparent prelude to large-scale attack in effort to seize Heights overlooking border kibbutzim.” That same day, U.S. Ambassador Walworth Barbour in Tel Aviv reported that “I would not, repeat not, be surprised if the reported Israeli attack [on the Golan] does take place or has already done so,” and IDF Intelligence Chief Aharon Yariv told Harry McPherson, a senior White House aide who was visiting Israel at the time, that “there still remained the Syria problem and perhaps it would be necessary to give Syria a blow.”

Similarly, the United States National Archives contain no evidence to suggest that information obtained by the Liberty augmented Washington’s already detailed picture of events on the Golan front and of Israel’s intentions there. The Israeli records, for their part, reveal no fear whatsoever of American opposition to punishing Syria, but only of possible Soviet military intervention. (It was this fear that led Israel to delay its decision to capture the Golan until the morning of June 9.) Nor do they suggest that there was any danger of an American ultimatum. On the contrary, from his conversations with presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy and other administration officials, Foreign Minister Abba Eban understood that “official Washington would not be too aggrieved if Syria suffered some painful effects from the war that it had started…”

I did not notice if the author addresses the claim that Israel had spotted the USS Liberty with reconnaissance for several hours. Nevertheless, Israel obviously knew about the ship, since they attacked it. Instead, it should be argued that Israel could have easily identified the ship as a U.S. ship.

Anyway, if anyone wants to read more into this and summarize their findings:

  • Michael Oren’s paper can be found here.

  • National Security Agency documents on the incident can be found here.

  • A website dedicated to arguing that Israel knowingly attacked a U.S. ship can be found here.

Reagan then sent 1800 Marines as peacekeepers

One of the missions of these peacekeeping forces was to escort the well-known terrorist Yasser Arafat and his thugs out of Lebanon and into Tunisia. The anger displayed by Israeli troops was at least justifiable, although I would need to do more research to learn of what the extent of the protests entailed.

I’m claiming is that if we weren’t over there (and we didn’t need to be), they wouldn’t have been able to hit us.

Transporting U.S. troops in the Middle East certainly made them more vulnerable to ground attacks from Middle Eastern militants, yes. Similarly, if Trisha Meili had not been jogging through Central Park, she may not have ever been raped. The important issue is if Islamic Terrorism is enough of a threat to U.S. citizens to warrant military action. Anyway, you have already said that you do not want to explore this issue further in this thread. Needless to say, this became an issue in this particular thread, since you brought up the issue of why you perceive Objectivists want to militarily strike Iran.

In terms of foreign policy, the United States should adopt a foreign policy of rational self interest. This means that it should not engage in pointless interventions. It also means that it should not ignore threatening ideologies, such as militant Islam, and it should consider smashing such threats if it becomes necessary. I will leave the specifics of the other incidents of interventionism that you mentioned for other forum members to discuss with you.

8

TheEgoist,

  1. What sources have you read on Mossadeq other than Wikipedia? Here are two, one online and the other print:

One morning, 5,000 students and unemployed, led by the outlawed Communist Tudeh Party, invaded Majlis Square, shouting “Death to Mossadegh!” They were confronted by 5,000 police and soldiers, reinforced by 5,000 nationalist hoodlums. Stones flew, bayonets flashed and tear-gas shells popped for five hours; when the Tudeh mob finally broke, a police colonel had been killed, eight of the rioters lay dead, and hundreds more were under arrest. While the police looked the other way, Mossadegh’s huskies, led by a cheery thug nicknamed “Brainless,” methodically sacked two Tudeh newspaper offices, then systematically did the same to seven anti-Communist papers opposed to Mosadegh.

Source: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/…,859452,00.html

As a mouthpiece of the Soviet Union’s foreign policy, the Tudeh opposed Mossadeq, labeling him as the representative of the “regressive national bourgeoisie” and an anti-British aristocrat who was serving the interests of “American imperialism.”

  1. You can’t have it both ways regarding Iran and Egypt. You applaud our intervention in Iran to halt the spread of communism, but when our interventions caused Egypt to move closer to communism you brush it off. Unlike Iran, there weren’t just unsubstantiated rumors of sympathies in Egypt - the Soviets actually began sending them arms, including SAMs to use against Israeli fighters.

  2. You didn’t explain how defending Israel protects America, you just stated that its the only one in that region that supports individual rights. So what? How would we be more vulnerable to attack if Israel was destroyed?

DarkWaters,

  1. In all your righteous indignation you failed to say whether or not I was right about my characterization of your research. So here’s your chance to prove me wrong: How much did you know about the USS Liberty before I mentioned it, what sources did read before your first reply (other than Wikipedia and articles linked to it, like Mr. Oren’s), and about how long did you spend?

  2. To answer your objection to the alleged motive, the reason Israel would’ve wanted to keep the events leading up to the seizure of the Golan Heights secret was because of the cease-fire agreement they had with Syria. If Israel was known to be the aggressor, it would follow that they violated that agreement. They had no such agreement with Jordan or Egypt.

There are other speculated motives as well. For example, Lt. James Ennes suggests it may have been done to cover up Israel’s mass execution of Arab POWs just 13 miles away from the USS Liberty’s position.

  1. Mr. Oren at the pro-Israel think tank has his facts wrong. As the Lt. Commander I linked to notes, the fighter jets were unmarked, which actually violated international law. Combine that with the fact that they shot at the Liberty’s life rafts as they were lowered, and jammed its radio communications, it seems like a pretty concerted effort to conceal the attack.

  2. Sending U.S. troops into the Middle East on a peacekeeping mission isn’t a jog through Central Park, it is a blatant sacrifice of American lives. As I asked of TheEgoist, I would love to hear your explanation of how defending Israel in general contributes to the safety of Americans.

9
  1. Sending U.S. troops into the Middle East on a peacekeeping mission isn’t a jog through Central Park, it is a blatant sacrifice of American lives. As I asked of TheEgoist, I would love to hear your explanation of how defending Israel in general contributes to the safety of Americans.

In general it doesn’t. However in particular, the enemies of Israel are largely the Islamic crazies who are also enemies of the secular West. So in fighting Israel’s enemies we might also be fighting our enemies. Defending Israel, per se, should not be a goal for our policy. Our Defense Department should be in the business of defending the United States of America. However, sometimes the enemy of my friend is my enemy. Sometimes not.

Bin Laden’s thugs who hijacked commercial flights and crashed them into our tall buildings, did not do it because the U.S. is an ally of Israel. Bin Laden had a hard on against the U.S. for polluting the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. The Saud family invited U.S. troops in to defend against the like of Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden never forgave that. You will notice there was not a single Palestinian involved in the 9/11 attack. It was a Wahabi anti-Western thing from the git-go. The participants were either Arabian Wahabis or members of the Egyptian Brotherhood. They were all students of Sayid Q’tub, who wrote the -Mein Kampf- of the Islamic world, -In The Shade of the Q’ran-. Read it sometime (in translation if necessary). It will make your flesh crawl.

Bob Kolker

10
  1. In all your righteous indignation you failed to say whether or not I was right about my characterization of your research. So here’s your chance to prove me wrong: How much did you know about the USS Liberty before I mentioned it, what sources did read before your first reply (other than Wikipedia and articles linked to it, like Mr. Oren’s), and about how long did you spend?

Your accusations are wrong but I am under no obligation to delineate everything I have read for you. Especially not when you ask like this.

So why did Israel not sink the ship? How would partially battering a ship prevent knowledge of Israel violating a cease-fire with Syria? How would this prevent knowledge of the alleged massacre of Arab POWs from being discovered? An intentional and knowing attack on the USS Liberty still does not make sense.

Either cease your condescending tone or expect me to cease discussing with you.

11

Robert J. Kolker,

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and the PLO were not threats to the United States, so it’s inaccurate to say that Israel’s enemies are our enemies. Yes, all of these entities have done barbaric things, but so have the Tamil Tigers, Abu Sayyaf, the Irish Republican Army, and the Janjaweed, but we don’t send Americans to die in order to pacify them.

DarkWaters,

  1. Can we stop this manufactured outrage and just debate the substance of the issue? If it’s condescending to ask what research you’ve done before this discussion, I’m guilty. But honestly, if this is enough to offend your sensibilities, you will have a very difficult time debating those you disagree with. It is a recurring theme for those who don’t like a discussion to cry afoul of the other side’s “tone” and leave in a righteous flurry.

  2. They didn’t need to sink the ship, they needed to destroy its antennas to prevent it from listening in on radio traffic (either regarding the Golan Heights or the POW executions, depend on which motive you believe) - and they did that. I should also point out that the ship did almost sink; the crewmen were making preparations to abandon ship on the remaining life rafts that hadn’t been shot at by the Israelis.

  3. I still want to know how defending Israel makes us safer.

12

They didn’t need to sink the ship, they needed to destroy its antennas to prevent it from listening in on radio traffic (either regarding the Golan Heights or the POW executions, depend on which motive you believe) - and they did that. I should also point out that the ship did almost sink; the crewmen were making preparations to abandon ship on the remaining life rafts that hadn’t been shot at by the Israelis.

This could be true. However, if Israel did think it was an Egyptian ship, they would surely target the antennae and the lifeboats as well. Your argument is still not convincing given the explanation that this attack was accidental is more reasonable.

It is a recurring theme for those who don’t like a discussion to cry afoul of the other side’s “tone” and leave in a righteous flurry.

Your response is also a typical troll response when individuals cease responding. All of your posts on this forum have essentially been to argue either that 1.) the U.S. should ultimately blame itself for Islamic terrorist attacks on American interests or 2.) Israel is a “socialist state who has intentionally killed Americans on numerous occasions.” You are just here to argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views on foreign policy. I have no values to gain from continuing to interact with you.

13

DarkWaters,

  1. Then you disagree with eyewitnesses and high-ranking officials, including a former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman who said: “It’s ridiculous to say this was an accident. There was good weather, she was flying the U.S. flag and the planes and torpedo boats attacked over a long period of time. I think Congress should investigate the incident, even now.”

  2. Firstly, how does coming here to “argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views” make me a troll? I thought that was the point of this forum, or is it only for people who agree with those views? Are those the only people you have “values to gain from”?

Secondly, I will not concede that your views are “Objectivist.” Objectivism is defined by the written works of Ayn Rand, none of which addresses Israel to my knowledge.

Lastly, you violated an (unwritten?) rule of this board: Characterizing another person’s views instead of letting them speak for themselves. Obviously, I do not believe the “U.S. should ultimately blame itself for Islamic terrorist attacks,” and the fact that you think this indicates what little interest you have in understanding your opponent’s views.

  1. I still want to know how defending Israel makes us safer.
14
  1. Firstly, how does coming here to “argue with those who sympathize with Objectivist views” make me a troll? I thought that was the point of this forum, or is it only for people who agree with those views? Are those the only people you have “values to gain from”?

No, that is not the purpose of this forum. The purpose of this forum, in my understanding, is to spread knowledge of Objectivism - not to dispute it. There is a debate forum set up for that purpose.

I don’t know why people continue to make that mistake.

15

Fair enough, Inspector, but providing welfare and troops for Israel is not an “Objectivist view” unless someone can produce an essay or statement of some sort in which Ayn Rand promoted it. So, I think it’s a legitimate thing to discuss here among Ayn Rand fans.