4 ms·
The US backed militant jihadists when a movement usually known as "arab nationalism" was thriving in the region and had vast popular support. Arab nationalism w
by pvarangot 14y ago
The US backed militant jihadists when a movement usually known as "arab nationalism" was thriving in the region and had vast popular support. Arab nationalism was against current foreign policy of Saudi Arabia and was in fact pretty secular and very progressive for its time. The US didn't want them because "it waz teh commiez".
I thought that was a widely known fact... that was the time when the US backed the Taliban/Bin Laden, they actually made Rambo III about it.
So, actually, yes, I think there would most certainly be less oppression of woman if the US had backed out from middle east in the 70s. I think almost every serious historian/sociologist or layperson who knows about politics in that region would agree with me, I've actually spoke to many who do, even sociologists that study Islam and Middle East with CIA grants. What they definitely don't agree with me is basically how much what they call "political stability" in that region is worth.
TL, DR; Yes, I think if the US had backed out in the past there would be less oppression of woman. I think "the US" also thinks it, but they just don't care and want a stable regime so that oil prices don't fluctuate chaotically due to heavy speculation.
EDIT: Got four e-mails about this... If someone wants references, I was just compiling some but realized that Chapter 2 of Perilous Power by Chomsky/Achcar is most likely the best place to start. So sorry, no Wikipedia or newspaper article that accurately portrays what I'm trying to explain as an undisputed fact... get used to reading and debating a lot if you want to get into Middle East politics.
- afterburner 14y agoArab nationalism didn't take off as much in Saudi Arabia as it did in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. The religious and conservative nature of Saudi's traditional nomadic tribes, the location of Mecca and Medina, these have more to do with the traditional low status of women in the region.
- natural219 14y agoThis is a very solid and informative post. If you're interested about this period of history, I recommend reading "Thicker than Oil" by Rachel Bronson, a book which documents the U.S. - Saudi relationship during the 20th century. It covers all of these events and more. Edit -- to clarify further, the OP was referring to the split in the Islamic world in the 60s-70s between traditional Saudi leadership (favoring strong religious fundamentalism) and a new, mostly secular movement termed Pan-Arabism or Arab Nationalism. Since the Pan-Arabists were usually more favorable to Soviet influence, we naturally supported the Saudis and actually fostered several initiatives to increase religious fervor & fundamentalism.
- pooriaazimi 14y agoThe sad story of modern Afghanistan (late 70's through 2001) might be also of interest to those who want to know more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978–present) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(1978–presen... If it wasn't for the damn Cold War, probably today Afghanistan would probably be more developed than Iran... :(
- krakensden 14y ago"Charlie Wilson's War" is one of the more readable and entertaining introductions to US sponsorship of unsavory jihadists.