Goatseye said:
"Naivite" are your assumptions. United States has been in the business of installing ruthless regimes and destabilizing governments in countries where they have business interests since the beggining of the last century. In late 1940s and early 50s, US sponsored a coup in Syria with the intent of making them sign treaties with Israel, ratify Trans-Arabian Pipeline (oil) and ban communism. US directly funded regimes that fundamentally opressed nationalistic views of their lands and were against Western loot of their property. That's how US got behind the Saudi's ambition to squash moderate Islam and get the whole Middle-East on their hand, through religious fundamentalism (Wahhabism). |
However, you also made your fair share of assumptions. You showed that the US had interests that did not include spreading Islamization. However, in trying to achieve those interests, it led to a bunch of nasty side effects. The US's involvement in the Middle East was a series of short-term minded actions with little regard of the long-term consequences.
You also made a mistake of assuming that this is a black-and-white situation. I do not completely dismiss the notion that the US had the intent to spreading Islamization, but the problem is that addressing US collectively is a wide assumption. There might have been certain people in the US government who want to spread extreme radical Islam in the Middle East, but they might not be representative of the general sentiment. Most likely and logically, it's somewhere in the middle. To conclude that the US had nothing, but malicious intent is a rather naive one.
