US Foreign Policy? What policy.............?

The concept of US foreign policy is a fallacy. We have no foreign policy as such, but rather foreign policies and the immediate problem with them is they are often contradictory. For every applied example of our policies, we can easily find examples of similar circumstances in which they were not applied. I find it all a bit confusing at first blush, but given a bit of study and retrospection there are threads of sanity; self interest being a major one.

Even worse, are the critics of our policies and chief among them is the political opposition at any given time.

The sitting government is condemned for efforts to be the world's policeman on the one hand and for not intervening in a crisis on the other. We do nothing in Zim, but intervene in Iraq. But yes, Iraq has oil and are our policies not all about oil as so many pundits claim? Yes, of course, but then again Afghanistan is not all about oil, nor is Cuba, but Venezuela certainly is and we have chosen to tolerate their slings and arrows. So forget oil, our policies also include retribution, especially for the likes of al Qaeda.

That is why we are in Afghanistan. Yet al Qaeda is no longer there and has not been for some time. Did we not know that? I guess not, but never mind, since al Qaeda has moved over to Pakistan and has spread to other snake pits of jihad, we can go home, n'est pas? Wrong again, we can't go home. After all there is the Taliban to contend with and everyone knows they don't educate their women, they stone female fornicators and they sever the left hands of common thieves.

Reminiscent of America's hang up with the need to civilize the Japanese, we are again shouldering the white man’s burden as filtered through our particular brand of ethics, morality and values. Plus, as everyone knows, if we leave Afghanistan, al Qaeda will move right back in there.

In essence, we have bribed Egypt to the tune of a billion odd dollars a year to behave as a defender of America's pro Israel stance in the Middle East. At least, this is what I have consistently read ever since I began studying world affairs some umpteen decades ago. So we added Mubarak's name to a long list of dictators we supported for reasons of self interest.

This has been part of our foreign policies beginning in Latin America and eventually extending throughout the world. We are even getting accustomed to the dictators we support abusing our hospitality and pocketing the lion's share of our foreign aid. We even live with the rage generated by the knowledge that we throw billions into dictators’ Swiss bank accounts and endure an expanding poverty problem here at home.

The Egyptian hens have come home to roost and we are worried whether or not Mubarak's successor will be so cheaply influenced. It would help if we could identify a successor, but to date, no name has come into focus other than that of our old tormentor, Mohamed el Baradei, of IAEC fame, the one who said some years ago when he was the IAEC Director, there was no hard evidence that Iran is upgrading uranium for weapons use. We had a hissy fit over that statement, although I believe him and I also believe that he was correct in his assessment.

The hard liners under Bush wanted al Baradei to condemn Iran's nuclear program and thereby provide credible evidence for Iran's crucifixion. What's more, al Baradei is supported by the Muslim Brotherhood which, to Americans, is like a cross between the Gestapo and al Qaeda. Never mind he espouses a secular state; he sinned by telling what he considered the truth to power and the power became incensed. We could not bend al Baradei to our wishes and that makes him a loose cannon.

This may all be academic as Mubarak is clinging to power like a mussel sticks to a rock. I have no illusion that he will keep his word about leaving in September as he has claimed. More important, nor do the Egyptian protesters. Mubarak is history and I believe history will not wait until September to manifest itself.