On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, Max Sawicky wrote:
> If you look at it from one end, there was little to recommend Israel as
> a client state, in and of itself, relative to other states. Why not make
> Egypt a military collossus on behalf of the U.S.?
Because Egypt was taken. You're forgetting the mutually exclusive logic of the cold war, within which this choice was originally made. When Nasser first took power we could see he was uppity. We tried to bring him into line and he shocked us by jumping to the Soviets and getting them to fund the Aswan Dam. During the cold war, that was that, he was tainted goods, he needed to be replaced. We didn't usually think of wooing people back; we backed their enemy. We were actually slow to think Israel would fit the bill for all the reasons you mention. Then Israel kicked their ass in the 1967 war and the choice seemed obvious: a ready-made way to punch the soviets in the nose: our client can beat your client.
The reason the choice doesn't seem to make sense now is (1) the cold war is over and (2) cold war logic is often an oxymoron that doesn't bear close scrutiny.
> Similarly, the interests of any would-be imperialism would logically be
> to enlist as many clients as possible in strategic locations.
Which is exactly what we did. Who is the country we give the second most money to in the world? Egypt. And we used to have big pals in Iran and Saudi Arabia as well. Which covered most of the oil and most of the firepower in the region.
Michael