Seld-defeating US foreign policy

[Tyler Durden]

>As I said, an Islamic regime is objectionable if it tolerates
>terror against non islamic minorities, thus creating, perhaps
>unintentionally, an environment that facilitates terror against
>external infidels - that is to say, terror against me and
>people like me.

You say a lot of wacky stuff, so it suprises me that I find this pragraph to 
actually make some sense.



> > In this context a very strong case can be made that the US
> > caused the Khmer Rouge to come to power, precisely by
> > performing in a way similar to what you espouse.
>
>That "case" is a nutty rationalization put forward by the
>former fans of the Khmer Rouge to rationalize their bad
>conduct.

No. You've got to do more reading. Sihoanouk was in power and loosely held a 
coalition together. In part because he believed it and in part because it 
was necessary to hold this coalition together, Sihoanouk did not spout 
particularly pro-American rhetoric. As a result, the US/CIA backed Lon Nol 
to overthrow Sihoanouk. Lon Nol could by no means hold things together , so 
in swept the Khmer Rouge, backed by Mao and the Chicoms.

Let's remember some facts here: The US backed the ferociously corrupt Chiang 
regime, even helping them sack China's treasuries. The US fought China in 
Korea and was now occupying it. MacArthur threatened to make China a nuclear 
"Parking Lot". The US was in Vietnam trying to fight their way up. So it 
would have been pretty evident to anyone watching that the US was trying to 
undermine the PRC. In fact, this was also a main motivation for the Cultural 
Revolution: Mao wanted to move heavy industry out into the countryside, away 
from easy bomb-ability by the Americans. (Of course, that idea was actually 
used by Mao for consolidating his politcal power which was always with the 
peasants, but that's besides the point).

Mao did the reasonable thing and fought us (and won) in all 3 theaters. I'll 
agree with you pretty quickly if you say Mao was a fairly Stalinist butcher, 
but in any event he made use of the Khmer Rouge to push a US-backed puppet 
out of the peninsula. Note that only after Mao kicked our asses repeatedly 
did Nixon and Kissinger decide to make friends with Mao and the PRC (which 
was the smart thing to do all along after the Sino-Soviet split).

What if the US had not followed such an aggressive policy towards the PRC? 
Chinese history gives us a clear indication: They would never have backed 
the Khmer Rouge. (Sihoanouk regularly traveled to China before and after 
that time, BTW, and was moderately friendly with Jong Nan Hai.) In addition, 
the notion of having to hide Chinese industry from the Americans could never 
have been used as a credible reason for lauching the Cultural Revolution.

In the end, our policies in SE Asia likely caused millions to be killed, and 
in the end were self-defeating. A complete fiasco. And the same thing is 
happening in the Middle East.

So even if one agrees that your goals are 'admirable' (and I question that), 
your methods would also be a complete, unmitigated disaster.

-TD

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/