Monday, March 30, 2009

Luke

"Little, pp. 193-228

1 comment:

  1. Little pp 193-228

    This sections chronicles the results of the United States’ commitment to modernization in the Middle East as a counteragent to “Nasserism” and/or communism. Such efforts often lead to great civil unrest as traditional social structures crumbled and educated, politically conscious middle class emerged. Coupled with military modernization, this often led to military coups. These modernization efforts were an extension of the Containment policies the US employed on a global scale during the Cold War. By combining aid and trade, traditionally liberal thinkers in Washington sought to let the world remake itself in America’s image. By encouraging evolution, rather than revolution, US policymakers sought to build allies America would be proud to have.

    Iraq:
    Washington encouraged development of the nation’s oil fields in hopes that the revenues would fund social programs. The Hashemite dynasty that controlled Iraq brutally suppressed communism and Arab nationalist sentiments. The social programs were slow in materializing and the regime became increasingly unpopular. The Eisenhower administration publicly supported Nuri’s autocratic rule, while quietly exploring options for a “peaceful transition.” Abdel Qassim lead a quick and bloody military coup that quickly toppled the oligarchic system that had held Nuri in power. Qassim quickly distanced himself from both Egypt and the Western powers and legalized the Communist Party. He also drove the Ba’ath (pan-Arabist anticommunists with socialist leanings and strong ties to Egypt) out of the country after a bloody revolt in Mosul. Qassim soon began to chafe under the pressure from Moscow for more pro-communist reforms. The Ba’ath Party made a surprising comeback, staging a coup and killing Qassim in the process.

    Libya:
    Following WWII, Libya’s main export was scrap metal from the remains of Nazi tanks. King Idris cleverly negotiated for increasing aid from Washington, but was unable to deliver on his promises of social reform. As oil revenues began to boom and pro-Nasser forces began to more vocally call for reform, Idris responded by strengthening his military. His regime quickly became one of the most politically corrupt in the world. The rapid influx of wealth sparked financial upheaval, as well. Qaddafi seized power via military coup, imposing a government with strong Pan-Arab socialist leanings. Rather than aligning himself with Naser and Moscow, Qaddafi cast himself as the new champion of Arab Nationalism.

    Iran:
    Likewise, soaring oil revenues lead to growing social unrest. The Shah spent so much money on creating a modern military that inflation skyrocketed, making wages almost worthless. Washington continually pressured the Shah to enact reforms and create beneficial social programs. The Shah’s attempts at reform were largely unsuccessful and he found himself the head of an unpopular government, so he launched a so-called “White Revolution,” remaking the government from the top down. He continued to brutally suppress insurrection and exiled the Ayatollah Khomeini, an outspoken critic who labeled his White Revolution as an act of submission to Washington. The Shah was increasingly viewed as an American stooge at home, while being applauded abroad. A popular revolution forced the Shah to abdicate. Khomeini returned and seized the moment. His anti-American rhetoric made him extremely popular and he was soon in control of a new Islamic Republic.

    ReplyDelete