American expansionism

Perkins was celebrating "American expansionism" on the grounds that it was an important component of US foreign policy on its way to become an empire. LaFeber, on the other hand, approaches American interventionism as a source of disorder and instability in affected lands. How would you evaluate American interventionism in the Middle East in general, and in the context of the recent revolutionary movements in Egytp and Tunisia in particular? LaFeber thinks the US was a determinative force in helping to trigger 19th century revolutions in Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Do you think that the US, through its policies in the region, has played a similar role in the Middle East too throughout the 20th century?


In my view, the United States has used the same Interventionist policies applied to the Middle East in the 20th century as it did to Mexico, China, Cuba, Panama and elsewhere else.
In regards to foreign policy, American politicians prioritized national interest (strategic, security and economic) over fundamental ideals we stand for as order, democracy and liberty. The US continues to support regimes that are tyrannical, corrupt and unpopular, closing their eyes to the oppression of millions of people as long as those governments are pro-American cooperating with US demands. These policies send a very hypocritical image to the world especially when the US claims to be the most important advocate of human rights in the international arena. This double standard just helps to increase anti American sentiments throughout the Middle East.
The US continues to create foreign policies which reflect the Cold War years. These policies were created with the idea that the “ends” justifies the “means”. The best example I can think of is Saddam Hussein, who was first an important ally to the US when he was engaged in war with Iran. Saddam helped to keep the Islamist revolutionaries occupied avoiding the revolution model to be spread throughout the Muslim world (including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). It all changed when Saddam decided to invade Kuwait, which was not a country that posed any treat to US interests. Suddenly Saddam became the villain and after the US got him out of Kuwait, the US did not do much to overthrow him from power. Then, when the W.G. Bush come to power, he found “reasons” to take Saddam out of power and generated a war that depleted our economy, lost many innocents lives and destroyed Iraq infrastructure.
In my view the US is indirectly responsible for the latest uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and throughout the Arab world because of its continuous support for oppressive corrupt regimes in the name of region stability. Murabak, named one of the most important US ally in the region in the war against terrorism, led an oppressive regime. Ironically, the Egyptians triumphant revolution demanded to obtain the dreamed democracy preached by the Americans. The US, in the beginning of the uprisings, decided to practice omission and only after the clashes escalated that the Obama Administration voiced that Egyptian government should hear the requests of its people. I think these events in Tunisia and Egypt teach us that we should respect and appreciate movements within countries and we should stay away from wanting to impose changes from outside. These movements started from within against pro-western leaders without any anti-westerner or anti-imperialist characteristics.