As reported by the Brookfield Patch, 200 people packed into the Waukesha County Expo Center April 14 to listen to Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed terrorist-turned-Christian, speak on the inherent violence of the Islamic faith. The Islamic Society of Milwaukee has proposed building a mosque in Brookfield, Wis., where, coincidentally, I was born and raised.
At first when I read this story I was disappointed with the residents of my home town. Obviously it’s a very right-leaning city, but First Amendment rights are fundamentally endowed to all individuals. How could the party that proclaims such a love for our constitution and such an ardent patriotism be so bigoted and short-sighted? I seriously thought about this for a long time and, after reading some of the comments that individuals posted on the Patch article, I think I came up with an answer.
The Badger Herald ran a piece on the topic, but the author wrote about public fear in terms of the post-September 11 response, and asserts that assimilation of Shariah law could be of societal benefit. Ignoring the second argument as irrelevant on grounds of improbability of occurrence, I do believe it is necessary to dig deeper into the historical relationship between this country and the Middle East. I find this history is fundamental to dispelling the idea that the Islamic faith is one equated with violence and terrorism.
I guess the basic, fundamental question that needs to be addressed is, “Why do some Middle Eastern countries and the individuals in those countries want to do us harm?” Both political parties often give lip-service to this question, giving baseless and irrational assertions that we are hated for our “freedoms” and our “liberties.” This sort of rhetoric was prominent in most of the Republican debates, with each of the candidates, save Sen. Ron Paul, clinging to this bizarre assertion. A brief overview of the historical interactions between our country and the Middle East, including direct interactions between the CIA and terrorist organizers, such as Osama bin Laden himself, may answer the questions posed above.
In 1951, Iran nationalized its oil industry with near unanimous support from the Iranian Parliament. Prior, it had been controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which was British-owned. At the time, a large segment of Iranian citizens time saw the company as a remnant of English imperialism and thought that it was being exploitive of Iran’s national resources. Winston Churchill and President Eisenhower conspired to overthrow Iran’s government in order to protect this oil interest.
In 1953, democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was arrested by mobsters directly hired by the CIA. Rioting that followed killed over 800 people. We installed Fazlollah Zahedi as his replacement and the Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, transitioned from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one, who ruled as the United States’ puppet dictator for 26 years until the Iranian people overthrew him.
In 1979, the Iranian revolution ridded Iran of the Shah, and replaced him with the anti-Western Republic of Iran. This history should offend any honest American on either side of the political spectrum, and should give pause to those that believe in large-government interventionism.
The second history of relevance to this topic is CIA funding Operation Cyclone, which gave funding to the Afghan mujahedeen from 1979-1989. The Soviets during that time were funding the Marxist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan and the CIA thought it was necessary of fund Islamic guerrilla fighter extremists in hopes to overthrowing the Afghan government, which would ultimately result in the halting of Soviet influence in the area. One prominent member of the mujahedeen during that time was none other than Osama bin Laden, who received money and weapons from the United States.
Toward the end of this resistance effort, Osama bin Laden, with his newfound arms and guerrilla-warfare knowledge, founded al-Qaida to carry on jihad against the United States. According to Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA’s search for bin Ladin, the al-Qaida leader had come to the conclusion that the United States’ foreign policy was oppressive, murderous and harmful to Muslims in the Middle East. He concluded that bin Laden’s disgust was a result of United States’ foreign policy actions and not a result of our ideological love for freedom or liberty.
In absolutely no way can Osama bin Laden’s actions be justified. However, is it not reasonable that the freedom we cherish most may also be desired in nations such as Iran? Is it not reasonable that they too have a love for democracy? Is it not immoral to force our will upon a nation that differs in values from our own? Would we as a nation be tolerant of Chinese communism being forced upon us, our beloved Constitution destroyed and a puppet ruler thrust upon us?
In my opinion, the United States needs to stop with its foreign interventionism and needs to respect the sovereignty of other nations. When we attempt to muddle in the affairs of others, we create a bigger mess than we can handle. This is a concept called blowback, which the CIA acknowledges.
Perhaps if those individuals protesting in Waukesha knew of the historical crimes we have committed in Middle Eastern nations, they would not be protesting the free expression of religion, a value which they claim to hold most dear. Instead, they would be protesting a grotesque foreign policy, conducted immorally by our government for decades. Perhaps it is time to listen to the advice of John Adams, when in 1821 he said of America, “But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”
Steven is a sophomore majoring in biochemisty and political science. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
