Why did Bush destabilize the Middle East?

Question

Ok.....Why did Bush "further" destabilize the Middle East?....happy now?

Answer 1

because he is stupid. idk.

Answer 2

First of all, its not like the Middle East was a fortress of stability pre-Bush 43.

But to answer your question, its simple: He thought it was the best course of action at the time.

Let's look back a few years ago, shortly after 9/11. During that time, people were saying "Awaiting your orders, Mr. President." He rallies the nation, declares war on the Taliban in Afghanistan, and wins it quickly and decisively."

During that time, his approval rating was one of the highest in history. That war had gone well. The economy seemed to be coming out of a slight recession. People were happy that taxes were lower than in the Clinton years. He could have basically taken a 2 year nap, and he would have won in a landslide in 2004.

So the question is, "Why didn't he?". His predecessor, Clinton, just lobbed in some occasional missles, enforced a no-fly zone, gave a few bucks to Iraqi opposition parties, and stated that he would like to see regime change, but he did nothing to actively pursue it. People didn't seem to mind that position. In previous campaign speeches pre 9/11, Bush stated that he did not want to engage in nation building.

The simple answer must that he thought it was the right thing to do. He risked his political future, his previous beliefs, the nation's resources, etc., to remove Saddam Hussein. Why else would he risk so much unless he thought that it was the best policy at the time?

You can question the decision. Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, we can now see what it has cost us so far, and can only speculate what it will cost us in the future. You can also question the implementation. But I don't think the motive is in question. It's not like he woke up one morning and said, "Hmm..what am I going to do after the morning coffee? Oh, I know. I think I'll destablize the Middle East"

Answer 3

Iraq was in a war with Iran for 8 years. Afganistan was in a war with Russia for 8 or 9 years. It broke all those countries and nothing was gained. Now Iraq is still at war and USA is involved.
It is difficult for me to believe that Iran would help Iraq. There is so much bitter hardred between the two countries from the 8 year war. As much as everyone would like to blame Bush there has not been peace in the middle east since 1400 years.
Syria fights with Isreal. they fight with Lebannon.
Turkey fights with all of them.
Egypt has been devasted by war with all of them.
Then the gulf war where Iraq invaded Kuwait.
You have Hamas who fights with Fatah
Lebannon who fights with Isreal
Hesbollah, al quaida and then a few fights with the Kurds and the Druze. Bush isn't in Africa where Islamic terriorists have done the worst genocide the world has ever seen in durfur.
The have a list of things from ships in the gulf to the African embassy bombing to the trade towers to a few Katuza rockets blowing up each others schools and hospitals.
Not that I am defending Bush and now we know why Sadam hussian was so mean. To keep those groups from killing each other he made them fear him worse than the hate for the other groups. no one is going to stop the fighting in the middle east.
It was never stabilized. Never has been never will be.
What place over there isn't fighting? Afganistan, pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebannon, Isreal.
Lebannon couldn't believe that Isreal got mad, a quote: We have really cut down on the amount of Katuza rockets we were sending in there." what would US do if Canada sent Katuza rockets into the states. Shot back I am sure. They want to kill and destroy but don't get mad and take it personal.
they have 2000 sucide bombers ready to go this summer and their only fear. Not enough targets. How do you fight people like that?

Answer 4

Obama says that EVERYTHING IS GOING GREAT and the government is keeping us safe and the economy is going well as expected; just cruising along like a well oiled machine Hmmm! There seems to be something wrong with this statement????????????????? Especially that the stimulus package of 787 billion dollars, if passed in a hurry, the unemployment rate will NEVER, NEVER, EVER, go over 8%. Last I heard, the unemployment rate was over 10% and that the rate of those who have given up looking for the work was hovering around 17%. THEN his Cap and tax bill crashed and burned THEN he lost elections in Virginia and New Jersey after numerous personal appearances to the cheering of adoring throngs shouting Messiah, Messiah, Messiah. THEN Ted Kennedy's seat turned into THE PEOPLE'S SEAT on that horrible, horrible rainy, snowy, Wednesday. Oh, the horror of it all. What do you think?

Answer 5

Because in the interest of national security he felt is was the best thing to do. You may not agree with him but I do. The Middle East was going to war with each other sooner rather than later regardless of US intervention, Israel, or Oil for that matter. This region of the world has not seen the benefits of a Capitalistic society because they have been suppressed in the name of religion. The Middle East is in much of a pre-enlightenment state in regards religious profession. After the 300 years war, Europe sat down and decided they had enough with religion running a region. The Middle East is in that same time period in the evolution of their religion. Eventually they will get tired of war and begin to look at the governments for leadership as opposed to their Mosques.

If the radical mobs of people in the Middle East looked at us and liked us as opposed to hating us, they would beckon for a Liberal Capitalistic society, one with out war. With the exception of 9/11, when was the last time a Democratic society saw war on their own soil? WWII, and because of that European nations that have evolved into Social-Deomcracies are some of the biggest pacifist on the planet.

The Radical Muslim leaders are well aware of the condition the average Muslim lives in. If they can convince their people that their condition is a result of a nation on the other side of the globe rather than the fanatic Islamic regimist, they will be able to get armies of men to attempt suicide missions in the name of a religon. These suicide bombers present the possibily to destabilize the United States of America, with a major act of terrorism committed in the name of Islam. The vulnerabilty of such an attack is so great that we must go confront this as opposed to sitting back and waiting for it, because no matter what, Iraq war or no Iraq war, it is coming. Radical Islam is in the midst of a world wide war. We have not even seen how bad its going to get. If we can get Democracy to take hold in the Middle East, we can eliminate the threat of radical Islam. History has shown us that Democracies do not attack other Democracies. A Democratic Middle East is in the best interest of National Security which is why Bush destabilized it.

Answer 6

Bang ON... and you shouldn't have added the further clarification.

The Middle East prior to Bush's 'democracy' was just as unstable as anywhere else in the world, including America. Ask the 22 million kids without homes.

Bush's actions in the ME has not only been counter productive, The most important country in that region now being Iran, it has left dead nearly 700,000 peoples, created more terrorists, created more anti-American feeling, brought world confusion and distrust and just as importantly has cost several trillion dollars that could have been spent for the betterment of the citizens of America.

I also predict that those bases that he wants to build will not be longstanding and we will still not have their oil.

Answer 7

??? You are aware that the Middle East has not been stable since before World War I, right? So how in the world can anyone possibly even remotely try and say Bush is at fault for destabilizing the Middle East?

Answer 8

The Middle East has never been real stable and has been particularly unstable for the past 55 or 60 years since Israel became a recognized nation. I think you need to read your history of the Middle East and consider that Mr Bush was too young to have been the major destabalizing force in the middle east.

Answer 9

He didn't do it on purpose, he's just incompetent. Rumsfeld was incompetent, Condoleezza Rice is incompetent. Cheney and Karl Rove are corrupt.

By any measure, we are being led by individuals with no concept of reality, who base their decisions on wishful thinking in place of an actual strategy.

What's worse is that Bush himself, despite the best efforts by those far more qualified to evaluate the situation to offer advise, refuses to accept that the country is far worse off than before the Iraq invasion, and that we will be far worse off for his inability to think on behalf of the better interests of the armed forces and the country.

A single misstep with Iran, now that he has persistently and deliberately escalated his stance against the country with no tactical purpose, and we will be dragged into a conflict that will make Iraq look like a quiet Sunday playing mini-golf.

Answer 10

How do you figure that Bush has destabilized the Middle East?

Most of the arab nations having been fighting with some one for centuries. The have fought constantly with Israel since 1948. Iraq has attacked its own people. It has attacked Iran and it has attacked Kuwait. Terrorist cells have been operating in almost every Middle Eastern nation either in attacking or in training. You should study your history .

Answer 11

if you look at the history of the middle east they have had hundreds of wars in that part of the world.I believe it has to do with the religion that glorifies people killing themselves for there God.Most have nothing to live for and death sounds better when your taught from being a young boy that its glorious to die and get all them virgins.Don't blame Bush for backward countries that teach there people these things or let this crap be taught.