Our Ally Kuwait, Printing Money and Bribery

Didn't we sent troops over to the Mideast? Didn't we build staging areas in Saudi Arabia? Didn't we amass a force and attack the feeble Iraqi army occupying Kuwait and in essence, return rule back to the Kuwaiti monarchy? Didn't we do that stuff and aren't they our "ally" because of those actions?

Well, it appears not. To bolster it's own economy, the Kuwaiti Dinar was "unpegged" from the greenback in 2007. The reason they did it was that because of American debt, which was miniscule at the time compare to today, was costing the Kuwaitis too much when conducting currency exchanges.

This begs a question: Should a country remain an American ally and operate with American interests economically if America sends troops and pays to free them from an oppressor? The Kuwaitis may ally with the west because it make financial interest for a time but in fact, the average Kuwaiti has contempt for America on a par with the average Saudi. We come and help them keep the status quo then as soon as it's convenient they work against American interest. So why are we in such a hurry to repeat similar military actions around the world? What great advantage do we get by propping up corrupt governments with American cash, equipment and lives if the general core of the country has contempt for America.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not against humanitarian aid when disasters hit. I'm not against sending military advisors to help train troops and I'm not against supporting an opposing force in a land that oppresses its people. But I am against the deployment of American troops to support regimes to try to gain favor in ruling groups who have nothing but contempt for America and things American.

For as long as I can remember, American foreign policy has rested on the fact that we don't want to fight battles here. It means becoming involved with less than savory characters and governments because it is easier than dealing with a democracy that doesn't happen to agree with the American way. I still think that battles should be fought on foreign soil. I have seen war on three continents and can say with some authority that we don't want that here.

It seems to me, however, that a promising policy has become one based on bribery and payoffs to ensure the illusion of stability when, in fact, it is only illusion. Oh, a strong leader can rule with an iron fist as is the case with many of our allies, but there is limited upward potential in this kind of arrangement. We can support the tyrant with bribes, foreign aid and military aid so he/she can stay in power but what is the long-term benefit? The more I see the outcome of these matters, the more I think we are taking the wrong path. If one looks closely enough, the path we are taking really costs far more than benefits we get from the relationship. The country that stands for freedom and individual rights is often caught in the position of supporting a country extolling exactly the opposite. As an interesting exercise, take a survey of American allies in the Mideast and you will find that more often than not, we aren't support the people but a tyrant. Is this a practical, long-term program that will bring us the benefits we think it will? Does supporting a tyrannical system because that system allows us to station troops on its shores really harm Americans and American interest?

Years ago, I would have thought the payoff worth the trade. After all, it's American first, right? But as I look closely at the ramifications of our actions, I have to think that Machiavellian policies are too short sighted. While they give one a momentary breather, they do nothing when trying to build a lasting policy based on American ideals. We have, in a sense, become what we hate to be what we think we are.

FB