How about Muslim intentions?
Reader comment on item: In 1796, U.S. Vowed Friendliness With Islam
in response to reader comment: America's intentions

Submitted by Pat (United States), Nov 8, 2006 at 11:44

Safraz,

As a Muslim, do you have any idea how many non-Wahhabist Sunni Muslims there are? Everything I read on Islamic websites points to the Wahhabist view of things. (The West is evil and must be destroyed, etc.) I keep reading that the Saudis are building most of the new mosques, not only in America, but around the world. I am forced to conclude that Wahhabist Islam and mainstream Islam are now one and the same, since anything that is practiced by the large majority of people is considered mainstream.

Moderate Muslims really believe that the US is after oil and colonial power? Does our record in the last fifteen years mean nothing? Kuwait was not taken over by oil concerns. Neither was Iraq. For that matter, neither was Saudi Arabia, even though we had bases there to do the work of the international community. I would be thrilled if our government pulled out of the Middle East and never went back. Would that satisfy you?

America's primary Cold War strategy was to defend itself and its allies from Soviet aggression. Like it or not, Muslims sided with Hitler during World War II and most Middle Eastern countries, Iraq included, were Soviet allies during the Cold War. The much-maligned 1953 coup in Iran has two sides to it. Iran was our counterweight to Soviet influence in the Middle East. The Mossadegh government was in danger of being taken over by Communist elements and the coup enjoyed considerable support, even among Iran's clerics. The line about how we supported brutal dictators is propaganda. Africa was taken over largely by Soviet-sponsored coups during the 1960s and 1970s. Syria and Iraq and Egypt were Soviet clients, even though the US came to the aid of the Egyptians in 1956. You distrust American intentions? If we work with established goverments, we support brutal dictators. If we overthrow the same established government, then we are the aggressor. Which do you prefer? You can't have it both ways.

America rebuilt Germany and Japan only after they were totally destroyed by war and their people accepted the Allied occupation after a total surrender. None of that has occurred in Iraq. Iraqis are busy destroying their own country today. The price of oil is up. Iraqis can rebuild their own country with their own wealth if they would just stop bombing it. WIth one breath they complain about the American presence and the next they say we can't leave. They want to be independent but they won't take any responsibility for the killers in their midst. Something has got to give.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.