We've shown zero patience over the last 20 years. During that time we've consistently supported Israel in their continuing slow moving ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and we've also starved Iraq in a matter brutally reminiscent of the starvation in Germany that ended in mid 1919.
1. What were the numbers of palestininans in Palestine 20 years ago and what are the numbers today? What were the numbers of Iraeleis in Palestine 20 years ago and today? Is this evidence of ethnic cleansing?
2. What were the numbers of Israelis and Palestinians in in Israel 20 years ago and today?
3. What were the numbers of Christians in Israel and Palestine 20 years ago and today?
Question: Who, actually, is being ethnically cleansed from where and by whom?
With regard to Iraq. I hate economic sanctions because they don't work, but nonetheless,
Who, actually denied the Iraqi citizens food?
Remebering when you answer the question that the Iraq government never acquiesced to the surrender terms of the UN and that is why the sanctions arose.
Also, given that Iraq is a totally news managed place, do you think it's wise to believe all their stories about starvation holus bolus?
What Vietnam has taught us is that war against a determined enemy on his own territory is doomed to failure unless fought with complete and ruthless determination. Since our enemy, in this case, is more or less evenly dispersed among a billion more or less innocent civilians, a military solution would involve the conquering and occupation that is way beyond our military abilities, and diplomatically, would result in the rest of the world forming an alliance against us.
Re: "Radical Islam is a foe who has definitely spoken openly what and why they believe they should do to the US and its citizens."
Yeah, they don't like us. Your point? Let's hear your solution.
The terminology for dealing with Islamist terrorists is awful, no question. Calling it a war is stupid.
There's lots of things the US can do against these people and against the environment they thrive in.
Big things -
Deny them ownership of a country for a base is a good thing. That sometimes requires military operations. But mostly it doesn't.
Assist countries that are being attacked by islamists (eg) Indonesia and Malaya. The attack in Bali is an absurdity - it's mostly Hindu and Buddhist folk there.
Assist the smaller Muslim regimes that are trying to modernize.
Finance al Jazira on QT. It's not making much money since the Saudis started an advertising boycott.
Finance that Iranian TV station in LA which is so popular in Iran - don't be too anal with the money and don't change a thing they're doing.
Get really serious about denying terrorists funding.
Drop tariffs against 3rd world countries and do away with subsidies that harm them. Very important.
Be serious about Aghanistan. Persevere in building up the national army. Make sure it has no ethnic brigades. Have it protect the main highways and assist in delivering agricultural aid, health services, disaster relief and so on. Make sure Kabul is a safe place. Etc. Be modest there but be really ruthless if you have to be. Catch Paki ISI types there, zap them, by definition they're terrorists. As much as possible deny the warlord types money from foreign countries.
DON'T BE TOO AGGRESSIVE IN MODERNIZING THE COUNTRYSIDE - THAT'S WHAT GOT THE RUSSIANS IN TROUBLE. Be persistant in promoting a modern government.
Lots of little things. Sometimes details are really important:
In the US, prosecute wahhabists them for advocating violation of religious freedom and for promoting hate crimes. They delight in attacking your constitution. On any reasonable pretext, deport wahabbist mullahs from the US. Deny religious status to mosques of those mullahs on the basis that they are political and not religious.
This seems picayune but it's necessary to broadcast that the US is extremely serious about religious freedom. Don't be too worried aboout what they might say about you in the ME - most places islamists are not very popular - they are very noisy, often threatening and dangerous to fellow muslims, and they are against singing, dancing and fornication. The message will be heard in the right quarters - the islamists will lose face and US will gain popularity. Trust me on this.
Get allies to do the same.
Broadcast good radio in local languages and dialects with populau ME music and straight info about the US, unbiased news and useful educational programs (eg english lessons, arid farming techniques, public health technique, etc).
Broadcast CNN warts and all with voice over and subtitles in local languages.
Now, I know you don't like it but this is the reality: The US is not going to retract from it's commitments overseas. Given that, what is reasonable policy then?
First. Jimmy Carter was really and ghastly wrong when he talked about moral foreign policy. It all came out wrong. Foreign policy with soviets now gone should absolutely reflect US values (personally I'd like to see them reflect libertarian values but that might be too much to hope for). So democracies, especially struggling ones should gets lots of help, not necessiraly lots of money, Lots of technical aid, educational, and public health. Defence pacts if they're being threatened by neighbours.
Like I said, get rid of tariffs and subsidies harming 3rd world countries. That's better than foreign aid. It would help the non-islamists in Karachi.
This is where we might part company. Iraq. The regime there is going down. Hard or easy, it's going down. If it goes down without the US actually invading, Iranians, Saudis, Saudi islamists, and Turks will all be there like flies on a corpse. Turks will want to steal the oil fields around Mosul and cowe the Kurds, Iranians will want to carve out the Shia South (and whack the Kurds on their border because they've always done that), the islamists will want to tip a wallover on Raed, etc.
If it goes down without US invasion and if some part of the army does it, and that's most likely, it's also likely the citizens will kill the secret police and the big time Baathists and raid the files and lots of folk will be strung up. That will happen within 24 hours to a week. But if the replacement is like Saddam, not a lot is gained. It would be too bad because the Iraqis still won't have a modern government and they have a better chance of making one work than any other big Arab nation because there's lots of modernity there already.
What might the US do? It could persuade the Turks not to steal Mosul, it could persuade the official Saudis not to mess around, but the Iranians and Saudi islamists will be there with lots of money and ill intentions.
And there's still the WMDs, and yes, they're there. Simple thing to do is offer to buy them from the new regime. They'd probably go for it if they're not Baathist because keeping those things around is a huge pain in the ass - Russia and US are stil trying to get rid of their own stockpiles.
The US is a fine friend to have if you're secularist especially if you're in the ME and aren't running a stalinist thing. If he's friendly in a business like way and is willing to have some really high prestige person like Powell hang out there for a good while, Bush might yet get his store front in the ME.
If the increasing pressures don't depose Saddam or he's replaced by a clone, then the US might invade. If it does, it better go in like Pollack prescribes. It could be made easier by making sure there's lots of toing and froing of Iraqi and US citizens as soon as possible, dumping the sanctions instantly, Putting out the messge widely that 'Saddam's gone. So waddya wanna do. It'd be nice if you're democratic but it's up to to you', and getting UN nation building experts in as fast as possible. And follow a prescription like the one above.
It's unavoidable that sooner or later the Israelis are going to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah and remove Arafat's "government." Unlike a lot of folk I don't think it really matters when they do it but it would probably make it easier for the US if it were done after Saddam goes down. When Arafat is removed and Hezbollah diminished the Palestinians could move very quickily to elect themselves some negotiators; if they felt the need they could hire a gunslinger technical advisor like one of those Englishmen who negotiate with the Irish and the US could insist they aren't Bantusanned. I don't suppose they like Sharon but he does keep his word and he is a known quantity.
If the US were lucky and playe its cards reasonably and is dedicated it could see two or three democracies in the ME fairly soon.
Democracy storefronts where folk could come and kick the tires. I'm absolutely sure if the Israelis and Palestinians could get a reasonable arrangement working they'd be an absolute powerhouse in the area. Seeing Iraq, a serious country in the area, on some sort of positive track thanks to US help, would be a long term benefit.
None of this would go smoothly but the US would be back on message and gain a lot of respect. The absolutely worst aspect of the present situation for the US in the ME is being seen as a hypocrite. It would also be seen, as bin Laden says, "As a strong horse and people like a strong horse."
Saudis and Egyptians would have to play catch up.
What effect would all this have on the islamist terorist activity and recruitment? Short term, probably increase it. Long term cut down the ME activity and leave Pakistan and possibly Nigeria as the final serious islamist terrorist base. It's a given they are going to attack the West, particularly the US, anyway, so why not do something constructive?
Why do I think the West, especially the US, should be so activist? Because like you, I read history and I see examples of modernity of different eras and areas going down from internal and external archaic pressures. Modernist China, Greece, Muslims a thousand years ago, got off message or became complacent.
Any way, Carl, you asked. |
