| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Side Forums :: Philosophy |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Iraq : Real Politik, Neo Con Politics, Selective Ideology | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| Vincent Vega |
|
||
Registered Member #578
Joined: Fri Feb 23 2007, 07:00AMPosts: 176 |
Hey guys, new to the forums so I thought I'd kick off with what I thought was one of my deeper essays. I'm heading to the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University next fall for Middle Eastern Studies, so writing essays such as these interest me greatly. I hope it's interesting to others, although I make no promises.  Enjoy.Real Politik, Neo-Con Idealism, and Selective Ideology: The Clash Enter Real Politik. On March 21, 2003, the ideal of Real Politik died in the United States Government. Stemming from mid-19th century German political ideals, Real Politik was extremely successful when coined implemented by one of history’s great statesmen, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck of Prussia, later Germany. The idea of RealPolitik is that the government should do and act on practical ideas rather than idealistic notions. Bismarck understood this enough to realize that the German states could be unified only through blood and steel; this realization led to the creation of the German Empire, one of Europe’s strongest states. War was a tool for politics, not ideologies. Real Politik is not new to the United States. In fact, it was only in 1970 that the Nixon Administration, through Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, implemented and near-perfected the use and working of real politik. This acceptance of reality over ideology allowed the U.S. to open relations with the People’s Republic of China and the Soviet Union, effectively allowing us to be closer with each, respectively, than they were to each other. A damn good foreign policy, most would say. Enter 2003 and Neo-Con Idealism. War is declared on Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, harboring and funding of terrorists, and, of course, Saddam Hussein’s atrocious human rights record. The American people ate what was on their plate, happy to accept the role as protector of freedom and deposer of tyrants. It was the neo-conservative approach to handling the War on Terror, which was already being effectively done in nearby Afghanistan. So begins the stray from realpolitik. The war was not being used for economic self-interests; this notion is foolish and cliché, as the last time I went to the pump proved that we did not go into Iraq for oil. Over time, the cause of the war began to be disputed. Once it was decided Saddam had no weapons of mass or destruction nor terrorists connections (an actual disdain for terrorists by Saddam lead the administration to look more foolish than it already did), we deposed Iraq because he was evil, tyrannical, and a mass-murderer. And so came the nail in the coffin for real politik. Enter what could have been Real Politik. Real politik dictates Saddam was a necessary evil in the region. Now we are beginning to feel the ripples of Saddam’s depose in the region. The country itself is in a state of near-constant civil war, with reprisals killings on each Sunni-Shiite side causing a never ending cycle of death. This rapid decline of safety in the country leads one to believe whether Saddam was born a tyrant or the country turned him into one. In a region of instability, it is highly debatable that Iraq and Iraqi politics turned him into what he was, a modern day Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. The country was stable under his reign, and it stands to reason: Saddam’s actions were justified to maintain the ever-sought after peace that all countries look for in the Middle East. Real Politik also dictates that Saddam was the counter-balance to Persian-Iranian power in the region and now we are suffering the consequences of his absence. It can be assured that the second Iran spoke of uranium enrichment that Saddam would have the tanks rolling over the border, with the U.S. most likely practicing some of lend-lease tactics on Iraq’s side. Saddam’s absence has led to a severe disruption of power in the region, and now Americans and Israelis will more-than-likely face Persian wrath in what could be another war in the Middle East. When one argues against the war, they often receive statistics on the Saddam killings; we’re looking at something along the lines of 180,000+ Kurds and others killed and tortured under his reign. His crushing of the Kurdish Rebellion with unnecessary force was inhumane, but not uncommon. What some leaders do to maintain peace in their country borders on sadistic, but Saddam was not the first. Take, for instance, Idi Amin. Enter selective ideology and hypocrisy. Idi Amin was the Ugandan president from 1972-1978. Six years of torture and killings. Idi Amin is estimated to have had 300,000 to 500,000 of his own countrymen killed. It even got the point where the bodies were being fed to the crocodiles rather than go to the trouble of burying them. In 1979, Idi Amin sought and received asylum in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, one of the U.S.’s “closest allies†in the Middle East. Which leads me to the hypocrisy: Saddam: 180,000; Amin: 300,000. Idi Amin remained in Saudi Arabia in a royal villa outside of Riyadh and was maintained a guest of the royal family for 24 years, a staggering number of years to harbor one of history’s great killers. He died in 2003. The U.S. never requested to obtain Amin nor to invade Saudi Arabia and take from them an even greater killer than Saddam. This selective ideology has thus led us into a pointless and costly war. Enter the now. Real politik needs to come back into American politics. Saddam was a necessary; a worse killer, Idi Amin, was not touched nor sent for; and most of our allies in the region (Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Jordan, Qatar to name a few) do not have the greatest human rights or freedom records. A Shiite can lead Iraq, but not democratically for a while; the fear of Iranian-Shiite influence is unfound, as the main thing separating Iran and Iraq will be their ethnicity, which is Persian and Arab, respectively. Iraq has to check Iran, or more Westerners will die at the hand of radicals. The government must avoid wars on ideologies and rather choose invasion or attacking to ensure the best interests of our country; Iraq is proving to us that it was not in our best disrupt the balance of power for foolish ideology. Real Politik, although it can be grim, is the great solution to our foreign policy in the 21st century. And let me assure you, friends, that it is going to get quite interesting in the Middle East for the 21st century. Enter the future. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| [FT](.)(.)'s a |
|
||
[FT](.)(.)\\\\(.)'s a](/media/avatar/100x0/upload/css_spray.1189739279.jpg)
Registered Member #355
Joined: Sun Jul 23 2006, 06:38AMPosts: 244 |
damn thats a hell of a essay | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Noname|Boom |
|
||
That one guy...
Registered Member #250
Joined: Tue May 09 2006, 11:59PMPosts: 2603 |
woah, nice. and welcome to forums vega, you should post a intro soon
|
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|