Week 3 - The American Presence in the Middle East

1/10/2016

Read parts of each article. The sections are shown after the title of the article. Watch on of the videos below.

U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East - The Early Cold War Version (Read from the beginning, stop at the Intergovernmental Organizations section. )
Establishing the American Presence in the Middle East (Read Chapter 1)

US Army Specilaist Darrell Anderson Exposes U.S. Policy

The video above shows a variety of actions taken by the American military.

Live coverage of the bombings in Baghdad for our latest military intervention - March 2003.

Read both readings hyperlinked above. Watch one of the videos above. Take notes and be prepared to talk about the video you watch.

Answer the following prompt below.

In spite of long distance between Middle East and United States, U.S. has influenced and has connections in the almost every country in the region. Strategic interests have forced the US to build the relations with Middle East including the competition with the Soviet Union U.S. has been provoked by the Soviet Union for its interventions from diplomatic overtures of war and relationship. The goal of this week blog is to discuss the United States' ideological and physical presence in the region of the Middle East in the 20th century and more recently in the 21st century. The blog must has mainly focused on the points of the foreign policies of U.S towards Iraq and the War on Terror. Also be sure to discuss your perspective on the video you watched and how it relates to what you learned.

76 Comments

Kevin Quimino

1/19/2016 10:54:45 pm

Our presence in the middle east started with the gulf war in the 1990s. Ever since then, we've been having a bigger presence. This is because of the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001. i agree with going to war with the terrorists, but there is no excuse to do immoral actions that we don't even do in our own country of the United States. Child abuse, shooting civilians, and shooting at religious monuments where people pray is unacceptable. Now ISIS is on the rise attacking our allies countries, who knows how worse the actions of our military can get. It first started off as waiting for orders to shoot back and don't shoot innocent civilians. The military actions have gotten out of hand. The soldiers arguments are that the middle east shouldn't have messed with us. This argument is invalid because it doesn't have to do with the middle east. It has to do with the terrorists, not the innocent civilians who are scared for their lives, as well as ther families' lives.

Michael Stevens

1/21/2016 10:51:29 am

I agree that the behavior of the soldiers in the video is unacceptable and should be punished. I am not sure how sanctioned their actions were; for example, were the soldiers following orders or were they going rogue? Also, if we destroy ISIS, what would happen to Iraq then? I don't think Americans have thought that far ahead. Are we going to prop up another puppet leader?

Sharelle Smith

1/21/2016 11:06:49 pm

Sometimes, very rarely you do hear on them soldiers being punished for inappropriate
behavior. According to vet Darrell Anderson we are being told of strategies and thus and so but in reality they are telling the soldiers something else. It makes you look at things a little bit differently because he said it's like everyone in Iran has lost someone in the war. No wonder they hate the U.S

Jessie Chen

1/24/2016 07:28:22 pm

I agree that there are lots of inappropriate actions by us military. Shooting at a crowd full of innocent people isn't right. I think these actions not only infuriated the local citizens but also other countries.

Citlalli Flores

1/24/2016 09:58:10 pm

I think the way soldiers behaved was wrong and if anything, this kind of behavior has fueled the “terrorists” hate towards the United States (and other western countries). I agree with you that shooting civilians is unacceptable because those kind of actions back home (here in the US) would not be tolerated by the government.

Wenli Zhou

1/24/2016 10:15:30 pm

Yes I agree with you, we are in the 21 century now, I believe we are more developed as a human being than people hundreds years back. Which is why we shouldn't solve problems by killing each other, especially not innocent ones.

Megan Fernandez

1/24/2016 11:33:21 pm

Nice perspective, Kevin. I think it’s interesting how you bring up that the United States is constantly fighting a war on terror, one that has gone on now for thirteen years. And to little avail, the power or domineering power and force of the terrorist groups has only proliferated and seemingly gotten stronger, while the completely unjustified, inhumane, and uncalled for atrocities and infringements on basic human rights and protections continues against civilians of all people by American troops abroad. As a civilian in the Middle East, I would surely beg to answer the question, who is the real terrorist here? The people from our country or the ones who invade and behave without any moral conscience.

Madalyn Hart

1/24/2016 11:40:33 pm

I also agree with how you feel about the killing of innocent civilians. It makes me really wonder why the government/military officials where commanding these actions in the first place seeing as they are totally unnecessary and inhumane. I think its a little too late now to stop, especially with ISIS. Since it is almost impossible to know who exactly is working with ISIS I think its going to make our government (and people) even more paranoid and okay with killing more innocent people in the hopes it puts and end to it.

Anteo Swenson

1/20/2016 07:15:11 pm

The Middle East has long been a zone of conflict due to intervention of western powers. The United States has played a huge role in this situation. First of all, the Middle East was divided into nations by the western powers. Now, this is one of the reasons why conflict still prevails. A nation has to be formed by a population that have a culture in common, if there’s differences within the culture, there’ll be identity problems; which is something that has been used as an advantage for the idea of Pan-Arabism. In comparison with this, nations in Europe (for example) had the option of dividing their nations according to variety of cultures, but the Middle East did not, its physical and political boundaries were enforced by the western powers. This, undoubtedly, planted a seed of resentment from the Middle Eastern nations towards the western nations and its self-proclaimed messiah, the United States.
With the resentment already present, there were certain circumstances that massively enhanced it. The United States was the leading pioneer in oil exploitation and exportation, it provided it to the Allies during the Second World War II, and it was hugely benefited by it (profit wise). But the oil within the US’ territory was going to run out, and it wanted to secure other oil sources around the world. The Middle East was a zone where there was, and still is, a lot of oil reserves, so the US decided to introduce itself into the nation. Also, during this time, the Soviet Union was also intervening in the Middle East. It became, as in other parts of the world, a discrepancy between the Soviet Union and the United States. How the US decided to immerse itself in these nations was through one of its sources that has probably never been so well utilized in the history of our species: the media, the propaganda. This was a way to “subtly” influence culture in the Middle East, as well as to diminish the Soviet Communism that was so popular at that time. All these interventions and divisions among the Middle Eastern nations enhanced the resentment towards the western powers, particularly, the United States. Resenting ideologies towards the west became something more common, weapons and training began to occur with such ideologies; radicals, extremists, what later became known as terrorists, became organized. Eventually the “war against terrorism” began, guided by the western messiah (US). Military intervention in the Middle East, primarily Iraq, was internationally accepted and critically founded. The resentment already present only increased. As Darrell Anderson, an ex-soldier that took part in the war in Iraq, mentioned, things escalated quickly, people (regardless if they were terrorists or not) had hate towards the US, and they killed a lot of American soldiers, which then driven by the hate and sorrow, killed more people, disregarding their involvement in terrorism or not. It became a chain of murders; a morbid reality that, yet again, worsen the image of the western nations and the United States in the eyes of the Middle East and the rest of the world. The American foreign policy is guided by selfish profitable interests; they trust too much in their military; and it is a part of their foreign policy, in fact, it’s like its insurance.

Michael Stevens

1/21/2016 11:17:46 am

I agree. A large part of the conflict in the Middle East is due to the cutting up of states from Western countries. I can completely understand. If someone forced me to move or completely transformed my country, then I would be upset as well. The question is, how do we right this wrong? Do we dissolve the states we created? How could we make amends?

Gabriel Alcantara

1/24/2016 11:35:43 pm

Those are great questions Michael!! In response to the question about dissolving the states, I believe that it would only increase conflict. If we were to dissolve the, one culture would be left out without a country, while the other country would embody the whole space. The country that "wins" would eventually "consume" the losing culture, which could lead to a massacre. I'm not sure how to put it into words, but I hope that you can get my point!! Just an honest opinion.

Xiaoguo Zhang

1/20/2016 09:30:41 pm

Since the Cold War, American foreign policy to the Middle East having been change many times. However, national interest is the only thing of unchanging principle.
During the Cold War, the American national interests are Anti-Soviet alliance and oil recourse. In this case, the key of policy is the establishment of Israel in this period. During this time. American also focus on the relationship on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Iran. For Saudi Arabia, American has a business relationship with Arabia’s royal family—ARAMCO. American safeguarding the authority of this royal family, and the royal family share oil resource to the United States. The problem of Iraq is so complicated. The Great British control Iraq after World War I. After World War II, the British and United States try to use an ideology “unity among all Arabs” to maintain stability in Iraq. Of course, United States also wants to build a new Iraq government with his ideology of democracy. The Great British also control Iran before World War II. However, Iran government refuse to share the oil recourse to western countries. In this case, British, United States and whole western world boycott Iran and destroy its economic that still doing today.
American government used several policies to control this area and gain national interest. The first one is “propaganda”. The United States and Western countries bring some “Western elements” to the Middle East, such as newspaper, magazines and companies. They influence this area through culture invasion. For the United States, it also wants to spread its democracy ideology. Secondly, the economical boycott is an effective solution to punish some uncooperative countries.

Citlalli Flores

1/24/2016 09:49:17 pm

I agree with you that national interest is what has driven western countries (like the United States, Great Britain) to intervene with the Middle East. If anything the United States has been the main country with interests in the Middle East, especially for the natural resources there, like their oil.

Megan Fernandez

1/24/2016 11:37:20 pm

According to an article I was reading published by Ohio State University on Iraq-US foreign relations, thought it may have been true that the United States’ main goal was to prevent the spread of communism and though it is true that the United States was and still is a democracy, they full-heartedly devoted their efforts simply in fighting against communism rather than support and tout the benefits of a democratic government.

Gabriel Alcantara link

1/24/2016 11:39:08 pm

Although our policies have been changing towards the Middle East, our goal has always been one. Although our government wont admit it, but our priority in the middle east isn't terrorism, freedom or democracy, it's the oil that its found in the middle east. Oil is money, and money is something that our government is very fond of.

Madalyn Hart

1/24/2016 11:44:36 pm

I thoguht it was interesting that you mentioned the economical boycott in the middle east and how it was a method to punish countries that werent cooperating with the United States. This is something that I feel our country does a lot of to get its way. I just wonder if it was a good way to go aobut business with the Middle East?

Thu-Thao Ho

1/21/2016 12:31:32 am

The United States foreign policy towards the war on Iraq mainly focused upon one corrupting ideology, "propaganda". The whole reason behind people in certain areas viewing those with darker skin or even the Iraq community as being "terrorists" is due to portrayals in media. This media is none other than false war propaganda that is being put into the head of adults as well as child viewers in the United States. After persuading vast majorities of the public, the result is a policy that based upon "killing everyone in Iraq". This "War on Terror" is a devastating outcome of a foreign policy built upon propaganda. Darrell Anderson who experienced the war openly states, " these people were in sandals, many without homes, many who've lost families from this war, they are innocent people we are told to kill". There were no terrorists in Baghdad or Iraq, these were all innocent people, and the US Army is being ordered to kill them and bomb their homes. Families in homeland of America suffered loses adding to a total of 135 soldiers on April 4th alone. Not only is the US foreign policy towards the War On Terror a lie to the public, but on both sides of the battlefield, innocent lives were lost.
One major component of the US foreign policy is that "killing the innocent meant that terrorists would be put down". How does this constitute to a logical conclusion? Mothers, fathers, children... All are loses of family members in ashes and destruction. Bloodshed does not secure national security, nor does it end terrorist acts. There are much loses that are avoidable if the US would deter from the propaganda ideology, and focus attention towards the actual criminal.
Another factor of the US policy on the War On Terror is that politicians and anti-war organizations can profit from war. We the people are paying taxes, where do the taxes go towards? Most of that hard-worked money go towards war efforts on foreign soil. I agree with US Army specialist Darrell Anderson's disapproval towards the imposed taxes made by the government. Due to government legislation we are obliged to pay taxes for war costs even though we are opposed to the war in the first place. Our constitution even states that "the government has the right to levy taxes", and as a result we as citizens must be liable for taxes as stated in the terms for citizenship. To make matters worse, politicians and anti-war organizations profited from war. Wars in the Middle East rage on, but little is being done to push forward towards a peaceful resolution to conflict. If America would focus on a peaceful ideology and push aside entangling in unnecessary wars, there will be a brighter future for families in both Iraq and the US instead of ashes and destruction.

Michael Stevens

1/21/2016 12:16:27 pm

I agree. I've thought about this a couple of times: how one is living in the desert with modest clothes and a modest life then out of nowhere a group of foreigners with technology you've never even heard of comes in and destroys the town you've lived in all your life. Just for that alone, I can understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward Americans. Good job.

Madalyn Hart

1/24/2016 11:50:32 pm

I agree with you! I wish that the United States would try to focus on resolving global issues in a peaceful way instead of a hateful and controlling way. I think that if the United States did this we wouldn't have such horrible relationships with the majority of the world. It's easier to get help from someone who likes you, than it is from someone who doesn't. But because we haven't, we now have children, men, and women all over the Middle east idolizing suicide bombers, and being trained as ISIS members.

Michael Stevens

1/21/2016 09:30:08 am

In the 1920’s, Americans feared an energy crisis due to a higher demand for oil than was supplied. The result was that America attempted to find oil elsewhere. They found it in the Middle East. In the same decade, they were able to create a deal that allowed them 23.75% share of the Iraq Petroleum Company. In the 1940’s, Aramco, the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, became a powerful player in oil. It had invested too much money in capital, and it needed a loan. The United States agreed to grant the loan in return for an alliance; they considered it a matter of foreign policy.

In the 1940’s, another oil scare in America renewed its interest in the Middle East. This lead the president to create a national oil company (Petroleum Reserves Corporation). However, the oil companies did not want to relinquish their control over to the American government, in part fearing incompetence. The deal for the PRC to purchase Aramco outright fell through. As a result, the president wanted to build a pipeline from the Middle East to the Eastern Mediterranean. People were so upset by this pipeline plan and the secret negotiations with Aramco that the plan was scrapped and the national oil company was disbanded. During World War II, America controlled 14% of the total amount of oil being produced in the Middle East. There was a proposal to create an international oil company that would function in a similar manner to the IMF but for the oil industry. This legislation did not pass.

In order to increase American sentiment and decrease parity toward the Soviet Union, the United States engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. The project included movies, pamphlets, posters, radio, and even puppet shows. Since there was a sizable amount of the population that was illiterate, propaganda became more visual and less literature based. With a few exceptions, the campaign failed miserably. The populace were usually quickly able to see through the purposeful misrepresentations put forth by the Americans. The video that I saw revealed the terrible crimes being committed by American soldiers in the Middle East. These actions angered the local population and the men in those videos deserve to be prosecuted. Especially the man who threw a puppy off a cliff.

Thu-Thao Ho

1/24/2016 05:51:09 pm

It is horrifying to think that America has "Freedom of Speech", but uses that right by means of influencing the public in negative ways. Sadly the media is huge tool used by the government to reach out to people young and old worldwide. I agree that illiterate individuals could easily become targets to propaganda. However, visuals could be portrayed in ways that can be very deceiving. Though it is correct to raise awareness to the public, controversial topics such as warfare for example, should not be campaigned to brainwash people.

JeeSoo Lee

1/21/2016 03:54:11 pm

After the 9/11 bombings on the World Trade Center from terrorist organization al-Qaeda, President Bush declared that the United States will pursue a War on Terror in 2001. Since then, the U.S. has launched several military campaigns to fight against terrorism.

The American government has made many efforts to secure control over the Middle East since the early 1900’s. One of the main motives behind globalization is to expand economic control, and the plentiful oil reserves in the Middle East coupled with the fear that America will soon eat up its own resources during WWI and the fight for worldwide democracy against spreading Soviet control led the U.S. to establish their presence in the Middle East. The Roosevelt administration has made several attempts to exert power, fighting with both international competitors (British Petroleum, Royal Dutch-Shell) and private domestic oil companies (Aramco: Exxon and Texaco). Efforts include having an “open door policy” for the reserves in Iraq, providing several tens of million dollars of loan money for Saudi Arabia’s economy to keep relationships in good standing, establishing a national Petroleum Reserves Corporation in effort to nationalize the domestic oil industry, and negotiating with stronger foreign forces in the Middle East for more control over the oil production. Not all of these efforts came to fruition, and the future of international petroleum lies in the hands of the oil companies themselves.

Bush also heavily pushed a U.S.-centric propaganda program in the Middle East, especially at the end of the Cold War. There were several posters, movies, radio programs, textbooks etc with anti-Soviet messages that also applaud and encourage organizations against communism. There were also efforts to “buy friendship” with promises of economic foreign aid if they promised to cooperate with western ideals, but there would be no aid otherwise.

I think that the billions of dollars poured into the war in Iraq is unethical and needs to be stopped. Politicians profit off of soldiers who are ordered to kill innocent people in Baghdad, because of the flawed thought that if we kill enough of them, they’ll stop attacking us. This senseless violence has the opposite effect, and the murder keeps on escalating as Iraqis kill the soldiers, the soldiers kill more Iraqis, the Iraqis kill more soldiers, etc. The sad truth is that this is all easily accessible information, yet this war will not be stopped without individual efforts from all people who are capable of putting their time and money to start a revolution.

Myah Rodriguez

1/21/2016 11:06:16 pm

Hi JeeSoo,

I really liked reading your response to the prompt. I liked how you made connections between globalization and the motives behind the U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
I agree that the United States had different reasons for getting involved during different periods in history, but I think it's important to note that oil was probably at the core of many of those reasons. Oil and the spread of "democracy" (aka capitalism) really drive and have driven our actions in that region for almost a century.

Also, I agree with your last point about senseless war. It's sad and also terrifying how our government will resort to killing thousands of people just to have control over another country's natural resources.

Megan Fernandez

1/24/2016 11:42:40 pm

Hi JeeSoo,

I agree. The support of funding the war in Iraq is both pointless and needs to be stopped. Furthermore, it saps billions of dollars away from worthy civic causes and like you said, it is unethical. The only way to reinstate a stable government is through one created by the Iraqi people themselves. I believe this needs to be a collective effort on behalf of the Iraqi people. Furthermore, situations are not conducive to such an uprising and revolution in Iraq. The atmosphere is unstable as it is. Living conditions are not ideal, and the different ethnic groups in Iraq continue to rival and disagree amongst each other.

Abhisheak Sharma

1/21/2016 07:37:05 pm

American foreign policy in the Middle East changes over periods of time. But the one thing that doesn’t change is America's interest to making such policies in middle east. Middle east was divided by the western powers. United States was a one point leader in oil production and a exporter which supplied oil to its allies in the World War 1. Which created great profit to the US. Slowly oil in the US was running out which made the government officials worried and made them look for oil in the middle east. Soviet Union and the US both wanted to get there influences spread in the middle east. Propaganda was used by the US to decrease the idea of Soviet Union and influence there people in the middle east to the ways of western powers. Basically trying to win the hearts and mind of the people in middle east so they can cooperate with the the US. War on terror that occurs in middle east countries is disheartening. A lot of innocent people die the most in these battle zones and there the ones who have no clue to who terror is and why is there nation surrounded by the US army. The video I watched was very disturbing and shocking to me on how American soldiers treat people in middle east countries like nothing. Shooting at a crowd full of innocent people isn't right. The main American policies care about is its full benefits and interest which is sad the a lot of people's life get put into risk by selfish policies.

Xiaoguo Zhang

1/24/2016 03:57:35 pm

You are right! The American national interest is the first and the most important thing for Middle East policy. War or peace, democracy or dictatorship, everything just around American interest. Of course, oil and other natural resources is the key of American interest.

Misa Toyoura

1/24/2016 09:45:13 pm

Hi, Abhisheak! I totally agree. We all know at this point that
The Middle East is the destination of the majority of American arms exports, creating enormous profits for weapons manufacturers and contributing greatly to the militarization of this already overly-militarized region.Those acts on the video are simply inhuman, and most importantly, I don't think it was worth the innocent lives lost at the end.

Myah Rodriguez

1/24/2016 09:33:39 pm

I definitely agree with your sentiments about U.S. foreign policy when it comes to the Middle East. Western powers divided this region after WWI and then proceeded to exploit it. It just makes me think about how many inhumane acts of violence that nations have committed in the name of "profit" or "progress". How can we resist these kinds of actions? I know one American soldier in the video said to stop paying taxes... And, honestly, I think that makes a lot of sense.
What would be your strategy to stop supporting unjust wars?

Wenli zhou

1/24/2016 11:07:59 pm

I really enjoy reading your blog and like your perspective on oil resources and American's interests. Before we can substitute dinosaur juicy with renewable energy, fighting on oil is what we have to face. This reminded me when we had a oil crises in the United States.

Christian Trinidad

1/21/2016 10:08:42 pm

The war on terror officially started in October of 2001, but this was not the first time the United States has had conflict with the Middle East. The gulf war may have lasted a year(90’-91’) but it had a big impact on the years to follow. Iraqi invaded Kuwait, Kuwait is our “ allies” , meaning they have something we want, and the U.S military has to go play world police. September 11, 2001 10 years after the gulf war the U.S is attacked a month later President George W. Bush son of President George H.W. Bush , president during the gulf war, give the order to as my marine best-friend put it , “ install some freedom!” Thus starting the war on terror that is still going on to this day. The United States overthrew, captured and ultimately killed leader Saddam Hussain leaving Iraq with out a leader. The US did a number of things to try and improve their image in the middle east including starting a radio station and running government funded ads.

The video i watched was a live picture of the bombings i was a bit confused by it or i should say it is not what i thought it would be. There was no explanation of what was being bombed, if it was a heavily populated part of the city or if there was even anyone in the city at that time. i think that the only thing that can be really gathered from that video is that war is hell.

Xiaoguo Zhang

1/24/2016 03:57:57 pm

In my opinion, there has two reason that American try to destroy terrorism in Middle East. The first one, of course, terrorism has become one of the top threats to world peace and security, especially for American people. Secondly, terrorism threatened American power to control Middle East. In other word, terrorism made America can not get more interest from Middle East.

Jessie Chen

1/24/2016 07:25:40 pm

I totally agree with your comment on the US military abusing its powers. Poor innocent people abused and killed just to make a point was something that I am really against.
It's sad and also terrifying how our government will resort to killing thousands of people just to have control over another country's natural resources.

Jessie Chen

1/21/2016 10:33:33 pm

US foreign policies in the Middle East changes depend on the different period. For example, during the Cold War, US foreign policy was completely dependent on Soviet strength, position, and action; the American national interests are Anti-Soviet alliance and oil recourse. Then the US presence in the Middle East got strongly in the 1990s, which was the period of Gulf War. The United States policy and intentions toward the Gulf Crisis were perceived as leading a "moral crusade" against Saddam Hussein's despotic oppression. President Bush even rallied the nation by comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. One of the ways to spread the idea is propaganda. According to the first article, the US “intended ‘to expose the fallacies of communism’ and to warn of its dangers.” As a result, it is not hard to think that some media was intended to vilify people in the Middle East even though only the part of people is “terrorists.” It was also a kind of culture invasion because the US also spread “Western elements” through newspaper, magazines, or other media.
Nowadays, the US still uses people’s taxes on the foreign countries. And desperately they are used for wars. It makes me call into question after I watched the video that revealed the terrible crimes being committed by American soldiers in the Middle East. Shooting at a crowd full of innocent people isn't right. I think these actions not only infuriated the local citizens but also other countries. Now I can understand why there is so much hatred and resentment toward Americans. However, now the question is, how do we make these get right?

Christian Trinidad

1/24/2016 08:34:41 pm

hey jessie!

I agree with you that the United states is going a bit overboard with their presents in the middle east. I think another thing we forget is the soldiers coming home a lot of them dealing with PTSD and other issues or worse the ones that get blown up by IEDs and are missing limbs. ( sorry to be so graphic just getting my point across)

Misa Toyoura

1/24/2016 10:12:22 pm

Hi, Jessie!
Can't agree any better. These acts by military force absolutely inflame not only locals, but also the whole world of the view about America. We can blame all this on whoever we want. The question for all of us at this point is: what makes us think American military force has even the slightest chance of improving things in the Middle East? It's been nothing, but disasters since 9/11 (4 wars since 9/11),and there's no reason at all to think nothing have learned after losing many many innocent lives, which needs to be addressed.

Mark De Martini

1/21/2016 10:42:16 pm

U.S. Policy in the Middle East is mostly driven by a strategic asset: oil. There are other considerations such as Israel and advancing human development. The readings are accurate and important to understand. The Middle East offered little more than oil, but oil stands out as a global strategic asset. Who controls the world's oil reserves controls the world. The Germany and Japan lost WWII in large part because the Allies controlled the oil. No matter how many advanced planes, tanks and warships a country may have, without oil advanced weapons are useless. The Middle East was engaged and developed due to its oil reserves. Postwar, the USSR vigorously competed with the west for control of Middle East oil. It wasn't so much that the USSR needed the oil imports. The USSR intended to cut off Europe and the U.S. from oil that would leave them in a weak strategic position. The 1950s CIA's missteps in Iran with the support of the Shah is a result of U.S./UK/USSR competition over oil. Notice that the word "strategic" is mentioned several times. This indicates the importance of Middle East oil, and why the U.S. is interested in keeping it flowing as a means to keep the economy moving and stay one step ahead of its competitors. Postwar, The U.S. has always kept a naval presence in the Persian Gulf to keep the waterways open for oil exports. The U.S. has provided foreign aid to assist developing Middle Eastern countries to further good relations and promote stability. The Camp David Peace Accords are a great example of good U.S. diplomacy and policy. Today, there is little exploitation, since the Middle Eastern countries that pump the oil have made lots of money off of anyone who buys it.

It didn't take long for Middle Eastern nations to flex their muscles and nationalize much of the oil industry that explored, drilled and pumped the oil to Europe and America. OPEC was formed and stands as an example of pushing back and asserting themselves as a world power. The OPEC driven oil crisis of the mid-1970s, along with the current deflation of Saudi Arabian oil imports are examples where the Middle East is asserting its power to force a desired outcome. Today oil is cheaper than bottled water, resulting in the collapse of U.S. oil production.

In 1991 The U.S. went to war with Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. didn't act unilaterally, but enlisted a broad coalition to oust Saddam Hussain out of Kuwait. This was the First Gulf War. The war was was quick and largely successful. It didn't demand a regime change.

After First Gulf War Saddam Hussain went off the rails. He violated 17 UN resolutions, killed thousands of ethnic Kurds and was suspected of developing weapons of mass destruction. When Al Qaeda led by Osama Bin Laden attacked the U.S. on 9/11 200, President Bush invaded Afghanistan and in one year's time invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussain. Initially the wars were a success. What came later was not.

Both wars have not produced desired outcomes. Iraq and Afghanistan do not have fair, stable governments that can advance the needs of their people. Both countries are under pressure from strong Islamic fundamentalist foes intent on toppling those governments while spreading sectarian violence and terrorism. The epic failures of nation building while attempting to infuse democracy into countries that never had it displays the shortcomings of "idealism" and the limit of U.S. power.

I reviewed the video of SPC Darrell Anderson. In my assessment, Anderson does not have much credibility. As a soldier he went AWOL, refused to obey a lawful order to deploy, and was most likely dishonorably discharged from the army. Anderson took an oath to serve when he enlisted, and was unable to live up to that oath. Combat veterans are highly reluctant to discuss their experiences to the public, let along publicly make several charges of atrocities or war crimes. I feel he is exaggerating, and making much of his claims up to deflect from his own shortcomings, and self-justify the reasons why he failed his fellow soldiers who counted on him being there. Anderson is wrapping himself up in the uniform to display credibility he lacks to the eyes of those who couldn't know any better.

War is ugly and people die. Civilians and caught in the crossfire and sometimes killed. All that is regrettable. There have been isolated instances of American soldiers committing atrocities and they have met swift justice. Unlike the civilian courts, military court-martials are efficient and the punishments severe. When soldiers murder civilians they face the death penalty, or life imprisonment. There are a few high profile cases that prove this point. The U.S. military has proven to act so carefully to avoid civilian casualties, it has resulting in the deaths of several servicemen. Just look up complaints and arguments against the current rules of engagement and discover they are written and enforced to protect civilians. Few militaries op

Mary Rasooli

1/24/2016 11:32:29 pm

Hi Mark, I appreciate your views on this subject, it is good to think critically and I enjoy being able to hear different perspectives. I have a question about your last paragraph. Do you believe that all of the atrocities committed have been met with proper reparations/consequences for the individuals committing such crimes? Additionally, do you believe that the US truly makes an attempt to spare civilian lives or do you think that is the illusion they want to make? realistically I don't believe they care enough to consistently and consciously monitor their missions/engagements to ensure foreign civilian safety. that is my opinion and I am curious to hear what you think a well! Thanks

Mark DeMartini

1/25/2016 02:37:32 pm

Mary,
I am glad to answer your question. My paragraph got cut sort so my thoughts on the matter were not complete. The last thing the U.S. military wants to do is kill innocent civilians or destroy cities for the following reasons. Everyone in uniform understands the importance of winning hearts and minds to establish and keep rapport of the local population. The U.S. is bound by the laws of war and takes great care to minimize civilian casualties. Destroying buildings and critical infrastructure is counterproductive resulting in a huge mess that impedes operations and breeds resistance. Currently in Syria 75% of bombing missions are turned back while over target because of the risk of civilian casualties. Every mission order is reviewed by a military attorney (JAG) for recommendation of approval to the commander to ensure civilians aren't unduly placed at risk. This is unprecedented, and counters the idea that the U.S. is killing indiscriminately. Only a psychopath would want to kill innocents, and there aren't that many in the military with the emotional stability to serve for two weeks stateside, let alone serve an entire year overseas. You have to ask yourself that if you're being shot at by an enemy trying to kill you in a firefight, why anyone would want to waste a single round of precious ammunition on a peaceful civilian when every round counts. That lays waste to SPC Anderson's accusations. Sadly, some innocents do get killed in the crossfire or in explosions. I know of a famous case were a U.S. soldier went mad in Afghanistan, picked up his rifle, and on his own killed several civilians for no reason. He is looking at the death penalty and the Army has flown in witnesses from Afghanistan to testify at his court martial. He snapped, but this is rare. What personally upsets me is how callous some soldiers can be toward civilians. Such as the video of soldiers making fun of those kids. Often the leadership puts and end to this on the spot, abet after the damage is done. That is an ongoing problem due the widening gap between the Military and civilian population. For this there are many more examples where GIs treat civilians exceptionally kind, and sometimes risk their own lives for them. After all, U.S. soldiers are overseas protecting them on the ground more than they do us over here when you think about it. The U.S. military is the only thing separating innocents from those who would revel in sectarian violence. This is more the rule than the exception.

Myah Rodriguez

1/21/2016 10:54:35 pm

After World War I, the United States emerged as a world power. The country’s huge stores of oil and petroleum allowed us to win WWI, and as modern industry became more and more reliant on fuel, the U.S. was able to capitalize on this market. However, other world powers wanted to secure their stake in the oil industry as well, and soon enough, the Middle East became an epicenter for international powers to gain control.

After the second World War and the onset of the Cold War, the United States was more focused than ever before on securing its stronghold in the Middle East - particularly in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. These three nations have huge amounts of natural resources (especially oil), and the U.S. feared that if communism had too big an influence in the region, then the American monopoly over Middle Eastern oil would collapse. So, in the 1950s, the U.S. began an aggressive propaganda campaign to target the people of these nations and shift their allegiance to western ideals (capitalism) and to instill hatred/mistrust for communism and a hatred/mistrust for a more people-centered approach to governance. It’s relationship with these three countries would have major influence over their development in the coming decades and establishment of America as a modern super power.

Moving into the 21st century, the people’s of these nations started to form political and military based groups in order to gain autonomy and freedom from what can be seen as modern U.S. imperialism. As these minority groups gained power, and began fighting against American backed rulership, the United States decided it needed to take action to secure its power. Suddenly terrorist attacks strike on American soil, killing hundreds of people, and justifying U.S. military action in the Middle East (specifically Iraq).

This brings me to the video I watched entitled “Kill Everybody: American Soldier exposes US policy in Iraq.” In the video, an ex-soldier talks about how he learned that his purpose in Iraq was less about fighting terrorism and more about scaring the country into submission with terrible acts of violence. It just goes to show how our government will twist the truth and kill thousands of people and destroy countless things in the name of capitalism. The worst part is how blind many of us our to this reality, and how propaganda can be extremely effective.

Christian Trinidad

1/24/2016 09:07:01 pm

hello myah !

I enjoyed reading your post you had a lot of information and it was very well formatted. It is easy to see that you grasped all of the main ideas from the articles and videos. i think you are right on about the U.S being afraid of losing control over oil in the middle east.

Myah Rodriguez

1/24/2016 09:54:56 pm

Hi Christian,

Thanks for your response! I'm glad that my writing was easy for you to follow and logical. Sometimes I worry about that, but it's great to get feedback.

You mentioned that you agree with the fact that the U.S. has a monopoly on oil. But, I'm curious about your actual opinion on this fact. Do you view it as more of a positive or a negative reality? Would you say it's ok for a country to monopolize an industry? Or do you have any other thoughts on this topic?

Sharelle smith

1/21/2016 10:54:43 pm

I watched the video on Darrell Anderson. This video was powerful. He brought me back to when I was little and my grandfather said "never serve in the military". He always knew that our government lied about the reasons for war and what our soldiers were really doing. Both of my grandfathers fought in the wars. What Darrell said in the video about civilians being murdered is accurate. What's is confusing is that we're suppose to be allies with those countries, but how is that possible if we are murdering them. If they are being terrorized by extremists there than we're making it worse because the civilians are being hit from both sides. He mentioned his experience with racism because the media only showed olive toned full bearded individuals that were ambiguously ethnic. I've heared people myself say lets bomb the whole country. That is so wrong that a few people would cause so many people here in the US to basically want to commit genocide. Although Darrell tried to help as many awol war vets there are too many. For our vets to risk there lives for a lie, they should not be punished. PTSD is serious! No human being is meant to see that kind of carnage! I doubt any progress will be made in regards to that. To many people believe what the government says. Until that changes we will be creating more carnage and retaliation.

Mark De Martini

1/22/2016 08:39:53 am

Sharelle,
What Americans should be concerned about is its government fighting wars where there are no clear, realistic end state. The U.S. has been at war for over 12 years and there is no real progress because few, if any strategic goals were met. Both Iraq and Afghanistan are in chaos and it is unclear if their current governments can stave off opposition forces bent on sectarian violence and terrorism (ISIS & Taliban). Those governments that we helped create, are corrupt, shortsighted, ethnically prejudiced, and do not have wide public support. There is a big reason for this. Political "Idealism" is the root cause. This political philosophy believed the U.S. could bring democracy to a people who never had it, and possess no practical understanding, or perceived need for it. Political "Realists" would have installed a benevolent strongman to keep the competing factions in check. This is the reality that the U.S. failed to grasp. The same mistake was made in Egypt (endorsing the Muslim Brotherhood), Libya (choosing anarchy over Gadhafi) and Syria (choosing anarchy over Assad). The Arab Spring is in reality a frozen hell because our current policy from 2001 to now is dictated by those who have no grasp of reality. By advocating regime change the U.S. popped the top off of pent-up ethnic hatred and power lust by violent factions . It's counterproductive to blame the U.S, military for any of this. They are caught in the crossfire of failed policy by our current President, the last President and a Democrat presidential candidate who was Secretary of State over much of it. Whatever isolated instance of U.S. servicemen killing civilians exists, is pale in comparison to the wanton killing in the Middle East to own kind. This is due to sectarian violence the Middle East indulges itself with. I wouldn't take the words of those who advocate "bombing everything" too seriously. This would never happen, and it only annunciates the frustration Americans have with the failed policies in the Middle East.

Myah Rodriguez

1/24/2016 10:14:02 pm

Hi Mark,

From what I understood from Sharelle's post is that she is not necessarily blaming the military. In fact, she explicitly states how the government outright lies to citizens and then, after they enlist in the military, refuses to grant sufficient aid to them as veterans.
I bring this up because I know politics and military action can both be sensitive subjects, as they deal with those who have power and those who under the will of those who have power. But, my concern is that you are misunderstanding Sharelle's lived experiences within this country and with people who have fought for this country, only to be discouraged and disillusioned by the mistreatment from the government. Of course, this only my interpretation.

Sharelle, please let me know if I have misunderstood you.

Thanks

Mark demaritni

1/25/2016 02:55:33 pm

Dear Myah,
One of the reasons why I responded to Sharelle's post is because it was very thoughtful and deep. What I was attempting to project is that SPC Darrell Anderson should not be taken seriously. I don't think he is honest or creditable. I am very unhappy with the direction of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the end I think they have damaged the U.S. in more ways than we know. What I do take issue with is folks like Anderson who advocate that the U.S. Military is committing murder as policy. This is wrong, and it has undue influence over our fellow students if taken at face value. I am doing my best to provide a reasonable argument to prove otherwise. Thanks for the concern and awareness. I am grateful for a heads up that my comments could be taken in a dim light. Mark

Anteo Swenson

1/24/2016 11:48:58 pm

I do agree that it's horrible and really discouraging to know that people don't know about all this. But what does this reflect about the US' foreign policy? It is definitely the fruits of such policy that is so subtly menacing towards the rest of the nations. What do you think?

Yumi Okawara

1/21/2016 11:05:58 pm

There are several changes American foreign policy to the Middle East since the Cold War. Moreover, it concerned on one which let an ideology (propaganda) decay as for the the American foreign policy mainly the war on Iraq. The American presence in the Middle East started in 1990s. After 911, the United States gave a vivid presence and clout in the world. I never expected human being can be cold-bloodedness till I watched the video. I actually was going to stop watching the video because I obediently thought it was not human things that the U.S. force did.The U.S. force made meaningless violence to civilians and an animal; it truly expressed the cruelty of war. In my opinion, I do not agree with having terrorist for going to war; in the United States may be more possible to go to war with terrorist than other countries, but as stated in the video, the United States seems like to do immoral actions to civilians and children. Therefore, I believe that there is no justification for doing violence, and they do not have a strong sense of moral responsibility anymore. However, the war against terrorism has started, and it was let by the United States. The U.S. or other countries’ the armed forces send to Iraq and it founded in the Middle East.
Of course, Iraq has had enmity towards the United States; hence, they killed many American soldiers. For example, ISIS has executed many people who are unrelated to anything since they declared.

Jessie Chen

1/24/2016 07:32:14 pm

Some media was intended to vilify people in the Middle East even though only the part of people is “terrorists. Sadly the media is huge tool used by the government to reach out to people young and old worldwide. And I also see both sides in the actions of the soldiers. I would say they both fight for living.

Wenli Zhou

1/21/2016 11:18:38 pm

The United States maintains an ongoing military presence in the Middle East since the Gulf War. The Gulf War in 1992 was an action to push Saddam Hussein back into Iraq. Even Though the Persian Gulf Arabs and their leaders felt grateful for US’s strong arm force, senior Bush administration’s motive still be questionable. Obviously The United States government were fought for oil access rather than human rights and international law as they claimed to be. The United States strategies towards the middle east are always interest driven. In the future, The US should support sustainable economic development in the Islamic world, so that the benefits of foreign investment and globalization can be fairly distributed.
the second video was very hard to watch, I stopped in the middle. Which actually reminds me that most of the soldiers has high school degrees only, so I wouldn’t expects them to do things gently and respectfully. My boyfriend, who is a army specialist come home yesterday for his Home Recruits. So I asked him what's the American's future strategy in middle east. He told me that he have no idea, and I quote: “Soldiers listen to orders, soldiers don’t talk about politics”. This pretty much sums up videos. Soldiers in the front want to make home alive, and they will never watch their battle buddy die without payback. In the first video, that resistor said their permission was: “If someone shot at you, you kill everyone”. I believe thats something these soldiers will do, they want to make home alive. The problem is from the upper division, their supervisors, their generals, the government.

BY THE WAY: did anyone of you got the short essay question? could you please tell me? I didnt receive that email. thanks so much.

Mark De Martini

1/22/2016 08:02:50 am

Wenli
I haven't seen it myself. Class was canceled last week and I didn't receive any updates via email.

Abhisheak Sharma

1/23/2016 01:25:36 pm

Hey Wenli,
Soldiers do want to come back home alive to their loved ones. Most soldiers who join the army don't either go to college or there in a need to provide income for their family. Many soldiers don't realize what they get themselves into until they're on battlegrounds. Soldiers just follow orders that are being sent to them up upper offices. Some soldiers do think why are they told to do something that they know isn’t right but they still end up following orders because they have their own family to provide for.

JeeSoo Lee

1/24/2016 01:55:43 pm

Hi Wenli,

I was also very close to someone who was in the army ROTC program at his university in order to afford his education. I think that many soldiers are being exploited by the government. Too many soldiers serve in order to survive, not because of any political cause. Unfortunately, they are still struggling to survive in the battles that they don’t agree with. They are also forced to follow orders; going AWOL may lead to a dishonorable discharge which will be on their record forever and make it difficult for veterans to find other jobs.

Anteo Swenson

1/25/2016 07:35:34 pm

It's an interesting history about the Gulf War and how it influenced the American presence in the Middle East. Thanks for the information. However, I do believe that the American presence did not start with this event. American presence in that area has been existent for a long time, but it was enhanced during the Cold War; not to mention that the "West" was already being seen as an evil force. The U.S. influenced people's life through propaganda and media, and it started with the Cold War and the diminishing of Communism (a popular idea that still prevails today, particularly, in the U.S.). It then, of course, was incredibly enhanced during the Gulf War, and eventually, the 9/11 attack.

Also, it is really sad what your boyfriend told you. But it is sadly true, which is why educations is so important. Politicians (people with power) harvest ignorance.

Gabriel Alcantara

1/21/2016 11:31:32 pm

National Security Council (NSC) report in 1952 said that aid programs should be designed to achieve "psychological" objectives.

Gabriel Alcantara

1/24/2016 11:40:49 pm

just now I realized that my blog was not posted, and just a seciton of my quote! I hope it is still valid to post it here :

It is an intense subject that we are dealing with this week. The presence that the United States exerts with its military is humongous. Since the first World War, the United States has focused a big part of its economical power into its military, and has used it in order to influence its economy and ideologies onto other countries, specially middle-eastern countries. A lot of people use 9/11 ( a horrible event that truly devastates everyone, even nowadays ) as a justification to invade the middle-east and stay put in there in order to “hunt down” the terrorists. However, when we watch the “Some war crimes of the United States of America in Iraq” video, we can clearly see that there’s a lot more than just terrorists being hunt down overseas. There’s an interesting quote in the “U.S. Propaganda in the Middle East - The Early Cold War Version” article where the National Security Council (NSC) reported in 1952 “that aid programs should be designed to achieve ‘psychological’ objectives.” Even though we are definitely not dealing with aid programs in the middle-east case, quite the opposite actually,we surely are rooting down a negative psychological effect into the middle-eastern people’s mind.
Our presence in the middle east has clearly been a cause for hate from the local innocent people whose lives were destroyed by our “liberty” driven soldiers shown in the video. Although the need to contain terrorism is true and valid, we must make sure that we do not destroy our path along the way, so that by the time we “end” the terrorist actions, we won't be the same, if not worst than what we tried to stop.

Mary Rasooli

1/21/2016 11:45:22 pm

The motivating factor for the few very powerful countries in the world to engage in international business together is one thing; Natural resources. To be very specific, the natural resource called oil! The US’s physical presence in the middle east may have been motivated by the prospects of gaining more control and influence over countries that had a lot to offer to the largest oil producer and exporter. The Us’s attempts to look like the country that other countries ought to be through propaganda failed miserably. With the middle east being poked at left and right from big powerful countries, resentment and frustration grew and not even propaganda could fool anyone.
In regards to the wars overseas and the monstrosities that have been committed, we see a huge problem in the way that our policies and practices lack consistency, integrity and our “leaders” lack accountability. I actually watched all 3 videos and I can tell you that every single one of them was disgusting and shameful. From hearing a veteran talk about the betrayal of his own country, to the video of the warzones blowing up the night sky with explosives and whatever other destructive weapons, all I can think is “where is the justice for those innocent lives and for our very own soldiers?” Must we continue to worship hatred, greed and elitism to be great? Is that what makes America great?

Abhisheak Sharma

1/22/2016 09:25:13 pm

Hey Mary,
The US main reasons can be said in different ways but you are right in my opinion to why the US got themselves involved in middle east. Gaining control to spread their views and trying to use the natural resources that the middle has. The main resource was oil, which at one point US didn’t need from any other place. The fear of running out of oil kind of got the US attention towards Middle east.

Gabriel Alcantara link

1/24/2016 11:46:47 pm

The fear of losing natural resources is real. However, that isn't stopping companies from abusing it. Tons of oil is being dig from the earth. But not only oil, other natural resources such as rich minerals and wood are being extracted in vast amounts, which worries me. When are we going to say that we have "enough" of everything, and let our planet Earth "heal" itself. If you watch the video that I'm about to link here, you will see that we're on our way to running out of resources, and we'll be sorry when we do!

Madalyn Hart

1/21/2016 11:52:39 pm

The United States has had a physical presence in the Middle East since the Cold War. Their goal was to widen their ideological beliefs to other countries against communism in the hopes to bring down the Soviet Union and also expand their allies at the same time. However, since the attack on 9/11 the presence of the American government in the Middle East has skyrocketed, and in a more negative way. I grew up in a very republican household, so I grew up hearing about how going to war after 9/11 was necessary in order to protect our people. While I still agree with that and the importance of having a very strong military presence, I do not believe in abusing it. After watching the videos provided above I couldn’t help but feel sick to my stomach, and ashamed having come to the realization that our military force was most definitely abused. While I understand the need to defend ones country, I do not understand the need to completely ruin another’s by demolishing its metropolitan areas and killing its innocent civilians just to make a point. In the first video, the Iraq war veteran explained to us how they were taught to kill anyone and everyone if they were present and or around any kind of shooting, and to assume that they were involved in the terrorist acts. I also learned that the majority of the soldiers were only there fighting in the hopes that they would eventually get to go home. When a countries own military force doesn’t see the need to fight, then I think its necessary to revaluate the real reasons why we are there.

Abhisheak Sharma

1/22/2016 08:45:08 pm

Hey Madalyn,
I totally agree with your comment on the US military abusing its powers. Poor innocent people abused and killed just to make a point was something that I Am really against. The videos showed us how civilians in middle eastern countries were treated unfairly to most point. Making them fear the US instead of what our government tells us in the US that our military is in the middle east to help the innocent citizens.

Misa Toyoura

1/24/2016 09:54:37 pm

Hi, Madalyn!
I agree with you. I understand both why we need the military and why not. However, those act by the military force shown in those videos were inhuman and also made me sick to stomach as well as upset. It's not only inflame the people in the area, but also the world about america.

Mary Rasooli

1/24/2016 10:46:20 pm

Hey Madalyn! It's interesting to hear that even despite the ideas you grew up hearing in your house, that you feel a bit weary of the situation and have though critically about the unfortunate events that have occurred through out military presence. Abusing power and dominance is a toxic, terrible thing that happens when we let our self interest and frustration get in the way of our core values and purpose. I absolutely agree that re-evaluation is something that needs to be practiced more consistently and more often. Thank you for sharing!

Anteo Swenson

1/25/2016 08:27:38 pm

Hi.
You did a really nice summary of the American presence in the Middle East. But even after all you wrote, do you still believe that it's necessary to have a strong military presence?
I mean, all these horrific acts were committed through having strong military presence in a different country, regardless of what the reason of such presence might be. It is a well known fact that the U.S. considers itself the international police regarding international conflicts, but they always have had interests involved. I do believe that the U.S. should have a strong military (not presence), for its own survival, if it didn't have a strong military, it would've already been attacked. However, war circumstances are horrible and morbid, but I think it's even sadder that the situation is known and has not been changed.

Misa Toyoura

1/21/2016 11:58:13 pm

The Middle East, as virtually everyone knows, is the repository of half of the world’s proven oil reserves, the locus of vital shipping lanes and the heartland of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Events there directly affect the U.S. economy and its national security, which is why we almost universally view this region as one of paramount importance. That the U.S. military presence has declined since the end of the Cold War in every part of the world except this one is a natural reflection of the region’s strategic centrality. The increasing willingness of the United States to use force and violence to shore up the flow of oil to global markets has not been a sign of American strength but rather of its limits.

Popular political discourse in the United States often posits Americans and their government as unwitting victims of an unhealthy and unsustainable addiction or as dupes of duplicitous oil producers. It would certainly be wise to break this addiction to oil, but to do so requires coming to terms with the history of that addiction and the multiple costs it entails. But it is hardly clear that any such reconsideration is happening. Instead, the United States appears set to continue along a familiar path. Having crafted a set of relationships with oil and unstable oil producers and having linked the fate of those relationships to American national security virtually ensures that while the United States is wrapping up the most recent oil war, its military and political strategists are already preparing for the next one.

Terrorists and its entire network of jihadists are American-trained terrorists who committed, with American soldiers genocide in Afghanistan, Syria, Libya as well as Iraq. So the serial genocides in continuous series of wars and genocide, killed 5 million people mostly innocent women and children, and all the victims were civilians, displaced that is exiled population is over 15 million and it is genocide and crimes against humanity, therefore, civilization and ethics morally are dead because of genocide and nobody condemns. The truth about the criminal nature of the US-led wars in Iraq is reaching an ever-wider public. Because of this, all over the world, the US government is regarded as imitating the methods of the Nazis, both in its violence and its systematic and shameless lying.

Mark De Martini

1/24/2016 10:47:05 am

Misa,
I would not go as far to say that all Jihadist terrorists are American trained and directed to commit genocide on their own people. Dedicated Jihadists don't need any assistance from the U.S. to find reasons to commit atrocities. U.S. military interaction with any foreign force has a strong component of demanding that they follow the rules of war according the rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention. under no circumstances does the U.S. military encourage its members of allied foreign soldiers to commit war crimes against civilians. This is not to say that horrible incidents don't take place, they do but this is not an official or secret policy. Often once trained foreign soldiers become terrorists due to their own beliefs, not what the U.S. directs them to do. The U.S. got approval from the United Nations and the U.S. Congress to go into Iraq and Afghanistan so the U.S. acted legally according to international law. That said, it is a major disappointment the wars have gone so terribly and put the U.S. in debt into the trillions. A lot of people died without gaining security that comes form a stable, government that should have emerged after the U.S. overthrew two, truly brutal regimes. As far as genocide is concerned, the Middle East needs to look at themselves for the reason why they indulge in sectarian violence. They willing kill their own in a revenge circle of violence beyond human comprehension. Understanding that, the U.S. needs to be very careful about regime change since we seem to have no way to control the violence that results from good intentions. Flawed yes, but Nazis we are not.

Misa Toyoura

1/26/2016 03:01:19 pm

Hi, Mark,
I totally agree with you, and I shouldn't have said the method of Nazis, you guys are not! Those videos really made me upset at the moment I was writing this blog. Thank you for your response, and educating me!

JeeSoo Lee

1/24/2016 01:46:21 pm

Hi Misa,

Your point about how America has an addiction to oil was enlightening. I think in a perfect world, we would stop unnecessarily draining so much natural resources (i.e. oil) and convert, on a global scale, to much more environmentally friendly sources of energy. Also, as times change, many people have hoped that America would implement more peaceful foreign policies. As it is, the U.S. has always fixated on capitalism and global economic dominance. Old habits die hard, especially when it is not just one person, but an entire nation’s government that needs to shift its focus.

Misa Toyoura

1/26/2016 02:54:45 pm

Hi, JeeSoo,
I totally agree, the US needs to think how their growth obsession with global economic dominance leads inequity and can kill innocent people.
Thanks for your response by the way!

Ralph Balaoing

1/21/2016 11:58:24 pm

What many, myself included, believed in that the US presence in the Middle East was linked to oil is true, however only to an extent. Before Gulf War, before the Cold War, before even World War II there was an acknowledgement of the limited amount of oil in the world. This lead to policies being enacted in order to establish US control on the limited location of these black gold mines. These policies however have led to many negative repercussions, the most prominent of which is terrorism. In turn the US has responded with more force, using so called “shock and awe” methods. Sadly this has only lead to a cycle of violence and retaliation which we are still engaged in to this day. Many people condemn the actions of those terror groups and yet the US has employed equally worst military campaigns against civilians of the region. The US now has the job of cleaning up this mess, and finding new sustainable energy sources as a way to effectively end these conflicts.

Steven Pham

1/22/2016 05:09:51 pm

After WWII, the demand for oil, petroleum, etc. skyrocketed which led most of the countries, especially the U.S. to go to the Middle East to soak in the gold mine of natural resources there. The U.S. quickly settled down in the Middle East and immediately started to make an agreement for the permission to plant their companies on their land. It seemed like smooth sailing from there for the U.S., but then they feared that communism may have spreaded to the Middle East which will hinder the operations there greatly. So the U.S. decided to place propaganda throughout the Middle East by any means like the television, radio, newspaper, etc. The propaganda were pointed toward the negatives of communism and that capitalism is a much better alternative. They try to show the people of the Middle East that they should love the U.S. for what they do and display hate for commmunism.

I have watched the second video and although I find the actions of these soldiers to be extremely disrespectful and untolerable; I can see their motive in performing this war crime. They do this because they want to exact revenge for something bad that happen to them or their friends. For example, if a comrade of theirs were to be injured or killed, some would want to payback for that comrade and do the same to the other Middle Easterns people. Like the idiom, "An eye for an eye", or another case, is that they do this for the hell of it. They want to induce fear in the people and to show that if they mess with them, they will have it coming. I definitely don't agree with their action whatsoever though, because I believe that we should protect instead of terrorizing the innocents for they have not commited anything wrong.

JeeSoo Lee

1/24/2016 01:13:50 pm

Hi Steven,

I also see both sides in the actions of the soldiers. It’s difficult to see the big picture when people are living their day-to-day lives; in the first video, the ex-soldier was able to step back and declare that he couldn’t morally agree with the war and wanted no part in this life anymore. But I can see that when the consequences for leaving the military are so big, comrades are being killed, murder is normalized, and you’ve been living in a war zone for so long, it’s much easier for soldiers to give in and take part in the payback.

Mary Rasooli

1/24/2016 10:52:46 pm

Hi! I agree that the actions of the militants was in part to avenge their comrades and to release their frustrations... however, I do see a very deep, institutional problem in regards to military/war culture. Then again, war is a very violent thing, so there is no doubt that it has such a psychological, mental and physical strain on everyone involved. Still, the approach that the US military takes in relation to the way it views foreigners and possible "threats" is something that should be addressed and examined. To question the underlying belief system and the way the military goes about their decision-making a crucial point, in my opinion.

Megan Fernandez

1/24/2016 11:28:36 pm

Iraq was under the guidance and care of the United Kingdom in a mandate of the League of Nations during the 1920’s and 1930s. The start of the Cold War generated a heightening fear on behalf of the United States of spreading communism in the Middle East. During this time period, the United States set about to spread propaganda to suggest the benefits of a Western (U.S.) – Iraqi relationship that would fight against the force of Soviet communism. In 1955, the United States formed the Baghdad Pact, an anti-Soviet defense partnership between Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, and Britain, with the support of the United States. In 1958, the monarchial government established under the British was overthrown in a coup. Despite the coup and unraveling political unrest, the United States was able to maintain diplomatic relations with Iraq and eventually ended the Baghdad Pact. However, American-Iraqi relations began to decline in the 1960s. The monarchial rule was replaced by Ba’thist regime with Saddam Hussein as leader. As a result of the longstanding British imperial rule in Iraq and the United States’ position in supporting Israel, anti-Western sentiment developed. Under Hussein’s leadership, Iraq experienced a relative state of stability and cohesion, which did not exist in the years prior under the government set up by the British. During the Iran-Iraq War, the United States took to supporting Iraq under Saddam Hussein, providing economic and military aid in fighting against Iran. In 1988, the Iran-Iraq war ended in cease-fire. Two years later, Saddam Hussein invaded the country of Kuwait, igniting the start of the Gulf War. The war ended the following year with Iraq withdrawing from Kuwait as a result of a US led coalition. Hussein remained in power following the Persian Gulf War. Tensions between Iraq and the rest of the world, including the United States worsened as Iraq continued to harbor technology and weapons that it was prohibiting from keeping under economic sanctions of the United Nations. Operation Desert Fox in 1998 was the sanctioned bombing of military installations under President Clinton in Iraq. Iraq, however, continued to resist following its agreements with the UN, denying inspectors to enter and reopening trade with bordering countries.
In late 2002, the United Nations Security Council cracked down on Iraq and demanded that they allow the entrance of inspectors and follow the afore mentioned preexisting agreement. Months later, Iraq was found to not have complied with UN demands, and the United States (President George W. Bush) ended diplomatic relations with Iraq, ordering that Saddam Hussein leave Iraq. Few other countries were moved to take such blatant actions that would inevitably lead to war as Bush. However, the United States had only recently experienced the devastating and emotional terrorist attacks of 9/11, and Bush was committed to fighting Al Qaeda and cracking down on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction. The Iraq War prevailed for eight years despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was captured within a year of the war having started. The war did not end until 2011. By then, the Ba’thist regime had been overthrown and Iraq had returned to a state of political and cultural disorder, possibly worse than before.
I watched the video on war crimes in Iraq. In some ways, it seemed symbolic of the role the United States had in Iraq for the role of destruction and lack of “aid/assistance” it provided. The United States military did not belong in Iraq. The dilemma and unrest had a long history involving the different ethnic groups of which the United States was largely insensitive too. Instead, the United States intervened again in a matter, behaving in the best interest of itself. In the 1940s and 1950s all its efforts to fight communism, the United States hardly advocated for a creation of a democratic state. The United States’ intervention caused more death, disruption and left Iraq in a worse state than it was in before.

Mark De Martini

1/25/2016 08:01:47 pm

Megan,
Well written, and all of it true. I enjoyed this blog immensely!

Luis Ballesteros

1/26/2016 07:45:41 pm

I believe that the physical presence of the US in the middle east has a huge ideological impact on the way cultures not only in the local areas but globally perceive the US, specifically in Iraq have fueled/created many situations which otherwise would not be happening right now. Such as ISIS I think that we have a large responsibility on why this is all happening. The US as a country has a hard time admitting when they are wrong, a lot of the policies drafted and passed early post 9/11 did more harm then good. I believe that overall on the war on terror we as a country have become safer, but globally many other people are being affected such as Europe. I think that overall a lot of the policies in place come from the WWII experiences which changed the view of war for the entire world, which is also around the same time we became the world police.

The video about the soldier is the one that most got to me, everything was described as happening in true US fashion. Even till this day there are many blanks to the events that lead of to the invasion which I would like to have the government answer and hold someone accountable for, the fact that we cant even seek internal justice for taking our country to war and killing many soldiers is very troublesome and its offensive that the media tries to make us forget by playing the next big story.

Michelle Bounkousohn

3/27/2016 12:31:23 pm

The United States has been more involved with the Middle East since the end of WWII, with post-war fears leading to American and Soviet tensions about which state would be able to influence the region most. The US increased its involvement when their ideological fears were additionally backed by the economic incentive to secure Western access to oil, and the fears of terrorism following the 9/11 attacks.

The US had limited involvement with the Middle East prior to WWI, and joined in with European neo-colonial policies to carve up the Middle East in order to satisfy their respective needs for petroleum. The US pushed the creation of the Israeli state as their solution to the issue of Israeli-Arab relations.

In 2001, US-Middle Eastern relations became more strained following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and have culminated in almost 15 years of US occupation in Middle Eastern territories like Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq, and Pakistan, where US military and CIA personnel have been deployed to utilize tactics like drone strikes, arming and supporting local forces, executing Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden, etc. This war has utilized many unconventional––and in some cases, unethical––war tactics, and the American military and private military subcontractors have been alleged and shown to commit some egregious crimes against humanity, like the massacres of innocent civilians, the killing of children, torturing of allegedly suspicious folks, and bombings and drone strikes that devastate the livelihoods of civilians. Over 1.3 million have been killed so far during the span of this war.

Week 3 - The American Presence in the Middle East

Leave a Reply.

Poli 3 - DeAnza

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Week 3 - The American Presence in the Middle East

Leave a Reply.

Poli 3 - DeAnza

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS