Choosing Who Leads

In our own country, the ability to choose a leader has become a sham but this does not stop our illigitmate leadership from trying to impose it's will on who leads other countries.

The latest example of this is that the Bush Administration in cahoots with Israel have decided to undermine the chosen leadership of the Palestinians. They of course have other ideas.

Aside from the irony of the situation and the illegality of interference in the internal affairs of other nations, history demonstrates the stategic wrongheadedness of this strategy. When you seek to undermine the will of another nation, it creates anger, resentment and a strengthening of that which you oppose. Rather than friendly overtures and diplomacy, we have sought to overthrow Cuba's leadership for 50 years. Our attempt to undermine the Chavez administration was equally successful and our attitude toward Iran undermined the moderate leadership of Mohammad Khatami and strengthened the more redical one it has now. For that matter, our overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh administration of Iran in 1953 and our imposition and support of the bloody dictatorship of the Shah led ultimately to the rise of the Ayatollahs.

Our intereference in the internal affairs of other nations has bolstered despotic regimes and death squad satrapies resulting in hatred and mistrust of our country, in fact, it has resulted in attacks against us by groups like al queda whose primary agenda is to get us to cease that intererance. Is "staying the course" really wise? Were we capable, much more can be achieved with diplomacy which starts out by finding what the legitimate will of a poeple is, that is, what do they want. Ususally it is justice and self-determination.

We need to wrest back the ability to choose our own leadership; one that responds to what we really want and is capable of acting within civilized norms.