Israel is interested in self-preservation, the United States is interested in imperialism. This is the root difference in the strategies; we stay in Iraq or Afghanistan because our leaders want to establish friendly governments there. If we left, the people would reject the sham governments we've installed and resort back to something that provides their needs, fundamentally, stability and security.
It's a privilege and a responsibility to live under what's considered a "free" government, and not everyone can handle that. You can't just waltz in and apply it universally across the globe and expect it to work, especially if the people of these other countries feel it was forced upon them. In these cases, there is too much contention and tribalism among the groups in the constituted nations to allow for a peaceful, useful democratic co-existence, which is one of the main reasons these governments do not form spontaneously in the area. The people there just can't handle that kind of system as it is, whatever your opinion on that system is, either for unwillingness, resentment, or inability, and forcing it only makes the problem worse.
You can't take a newborn and try to force it to walk. All that will do is harm the baby physically and harm your relationship psychologically. The capacity just isn't there. Even if you spend lots of money on harnesses and things that keep the baby in a bipedal stance, and cuffs and strings to lift his legs, it's not the same thing, and doing this only stands to worsen the situation overall. If you allow the child to develop these capacities naturally in his own time, everything is good and happy.
We have to allow the natural growth of these things. Our puppet governments don't work because the people don't accept them, and they especially will resent anyone who invades their territory to impose a "better way" on them. How would the US feel if China invaded and said, "This is for your own good, so that you can learn the glories of Communism, so that you are free from your oppressive corporatist leaders."?
Do you think, even if China is right there, any American will accept that? We would vow ourselves to destroy the invaders. Those in the Middle East do likewise.
The only alternative to 'sham' governments imposed from outside are 'strong men', Saddam, for all his shortcomings functioned remarkably well in that role as did for instance Tito in former Yugoslavia.
Tribal friction needs an equally strong force to overcome it if a country is not to explode into its constituent parts.
So if you remove the strong man once he's established terrible stuff can happen, sometimes worse than what the strong man himself did. (Again, for instance Yugoslavia was definitely not the best country in the world to live in under Tito, but it was a lot better than living in a civil war).
> The only alternative to 'sham' governments imposed from outside are 'strong men'
Please be careful with that. In my country (brazil) we had a US-sponsored military dictatorship in the sixties-eighties that was both "strong men" and a "sham government", and it crushed a lot of the intellectual and cultural development happening in brazil at the time, all the while only preventing a very small risk that the country would turn communist. And today one of our most US-friendly presidents (Lula) is an ex revolutionary (and many people in his government were politically persecuted, exiled and tortured during the dictatorship).
It's really awful to think that this is still happening in other places around the world, and that fundamentally the american people do not see any major problem with the idea of interfering militarly in a government across the globe.
It's a privilege and a responsibility to live under what's considered a "free" government, and not everyone can handle that. You can't just waltz in and apply it universally across the globe and expect it to work, especially if the people of these other countries feel it was forced upon them. In these cases, there is too much contention and tribalism among the groups in the constituted nations to allow for a peaceful, useful democratic co-existence, which is one of the main reasons these governments do not form spontaneously in the area. The people there just can't handle that kind of system as it is, whatever your opinion on that system is, either for unwillingness, resentment, or inability, and forcing it only makes the problem worse.
You can't take a newborn and try to force it to walk. All that will do is harm the baby physically and harm your relationship psychologically. The capacity just isn't there. Even if you spend lots of money on harnesses and things that keep the baby in a bipedal stance, and cuffs and strings to lift his legs, it's not the same thing, and doing this only stands to worsen the situation overall. If you allow the child to develop these capacities naturally in his own time, everything is good and happy.
We have to allow the natural growth of these things. Our puppet governments don't work because the people don't accept them, and they especially will resent anyone who invades their territory to impose a "better way" on them. How would the US feel if China invaded and said, "This is for your own good, so that you can learn the glories of Communism, so that you are free from your oppressive corporatist leaders."?
Do you think, even if China is right there, any American will accept that? We would vow ourselves to destroy the invaders. Those in the Middle East do likewise.