Does Neo-Imperialism Drive U.S. Goals for the Mideast?

In “Beyond Regime Change” (Opinion, Dec. 1) Sandy Tolan brilliantly argues that U.S. goals in the Mideast include not only overthrowing Saddam Hussein but ending OPEC’s stranglehold, improving our ally Israel’s security and defanging the hostile states of Syria and Iran, with the hope of liberating their people from tyranny. Oddly, Tolan seems to be against all of these laudable goals. Am I missing something?

Ben David Orlanski

Los Angeles

*

Tolan’s article is riddled with assertions of insidious links between members of the Bush administration and various actors promoting the “neo-imperial” vision of the Middle East. For example, he quotes at length Patrick Clawson, a scholar advocating occupation of Iraq for the potential benefits that would accrue to the U.S. oil industry. And what is the connection between this damning statement, proving Tolan’s speculations, and the Bush camp? Clawson’s Washington Institute for Near East Policy “enjoys close ties to the Bush administration.”

Tolan is pushing the trendy, ultra-leftist theory that oil and Israel drive all U.S. foreign policy. For example, he declares “ensuring Israel’s continued regional military superiority” to be a U.S. foreign policy objective, implying that Israel, like the United States, is motivated by purely aggressive intentions and possesses no legitimate security interests. Tolan’s assertions should be taken with a grain of salt. Insinuation and distorted facts, because they are so compelling, can be more dangerous than lies.

Scott Radnitz

La Habra

*

The historical failure of imperialism is not a fluke. How sad that the U.S. has an administration naive enough to give neo-imperialism another chance, at the behest of Israeli hard-line supporters and short-term oil interests. How sad that American lives will be wasted in another futile attempt to take up the “white man’s burden” to force “backward” people to do what’s in our interest but not necessarily what’s in their interest.

Terrorism will not be defeated by imperialism. Imperialism is far more likely to inspire terrorism. The moral ambiguity of imperialism almost inevitably breeds resistance from those populations whose support is necessary to defeat terrorism. Morally empowered populations have usually prevailed in their own territory against even overwhelming power. Just ask the former imperialists or anyone old enough to remember Vietnam.

Charles Finch

Huntington Beach

*

How about legislation that says that should there be war in Iraq, and should the American forces win, no American oil company may be allowed to gain new oil or new oil facilities? The oil should be the property of the Iraqi people, with income controlled to go for the education and health of the Iraqi people.

Edward Handman

Laguna Woods