In each case, the ambitions of Hitlerism, militarism, and communism were defeated by the will of free peoples, by the strength of great alliances, and by the might of the United States of America. Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again
"the ideology of power and domination has appeared again"
I'd like to know if those were Bush's thoughts or those of his speech writer. If this is Bush's basic premise then he and his cabinet can't go too wrong.
Nonetheless, they have made things more difficult than need be.
I've said for more than a year now that eliminating the Iraqi regime because of its totalitarian ideological nature is the far more important reason than its acquisition of WMDs. The WMDs are important, of course, but only because of the nature of Hussein and Baath.
This is a far better argument to place before allies than than that of the WMDs which is the wrong emphasis. If the allies don't want to participate in the regime removal, then they have to stare at what could be seen as their support - passive, but nonetheless their support - for tyranny, genocide, gulags.
Furthermore, given that right now the evil regime is being contained only by US and Britain at their own expense, and in support of myriad UN resolutions which neither allies nor UN actually seem willing to enforce, the US and Britain have both the practical and moral side of the argument.
It's argued that displacing the Iraq regime and perhaps replacing it with something more reasonable will be de-stabilizing of other Middle East regimes and is distracting from the campaign against the terrorists. This argument is flawed. The four tyrannical regimes in the Middle East which support terrorism against the West are Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The weakest in many respects are Iraq and Iran - they are internally "brittle". The Iranian regime looks like it may fall on its own as its terror mechanisms seem less and less likely to keep their hold on the citizens. Iraq has been weakened by unsuccessful wars, sanctions, and no fly zones, but the regime still has the terror hold on the citizens and could well remain in power for quite a while if outside force is not brought to it. The four regimes are enemies of US, and the West generally, as they fight a proxy war against us through terrorists both in Palestine-Israel and the wider world. It can't be emphasized enough that all four regimes are at war against us and have been making war against us for quite a while.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the means whereby our enemies try to separate western influence from their people - a means of stirring up anger against us. Thus, as some wits would have it, our enemies will fight to the last Palestinian and Israeli, and do whatever they can to ensure there is no settlement. This is unacceptable. The outside support for Hamas, Hezbollah, Fata, al Qaeda, Etc., must be terminated.
When fighting it is normally sensible to attack the enemy at his weak point. Another way of saying this: we attack the enemy where it is possible. Certainly that's what our enemies do. The decentralized nature of the terrorist forces may be attacked through intelligence, police work and special forces. This is not exactly sysiphian work and is tactically necessary, but is made vastly more difficult as those we eliminate are replaced by their national allies. However, we can strategically attack their national allies, also. The most vulnerable, right now, is Iraq.
What advantage is there in this? Al Qaeda is not, right now, as far as we know, being very actively supported by Iraq. This could change. Replacing Iraq's regime would eliminate this possibilty. Replacing Iraq's regime with a more reasonable one may well give us an ally in the proxy war with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. The biggest supporter of the terrorist ideology and terrorists themselves is Saudi Arabia. It isn't possible to attack it militarily, right now, but it is possible to take away its financial means of supporting the ideology. The Saudis persecute the people living in the oil producing area. If there is another country less repressive that they might join to escape the persecution then that is a lever against the Saudi regime. A reasonably governed Iraq would be such a lever. This is speculative but not unreasonable thinking. The point is to take away the money and make sure it does not go to someone equally vicious and archaic.
It's argued that removing the Iraq regime could destabilize Saudi Arabia and possibly lead to an Islamist regime there which would be fully supportive of al Qaeda. This could be advantageous: The West and the US would have a more focussed target in its campaign against a source and support of terrorist Islamist ideology. The alarm this raises in some quarters because S Arabia is the home of the most venerated Muslim sites is overblown. There have been wars over and around Mecca and Medina before. God didn't give Mecca to the Saudis - they took it. The Salafist ideology the Saudi family supports is an intellectually bankrupt, totalitarian, medieval, theological cat's breakfast which has only gained prominence because it has been promulgated by a totalitarian government with a lot of money. It's not very congenial to most muslims. As long as they can make the pilgrimage and the holy sites are maintained by muslims they don't care who has control of the desert there. It's time to take away the money.
It's argued that that Pakistan is a more important source and support of the tyrannical islamist ideology and terrorism than Iraq and so we should be paying attention to it rather than Iraq. Pakistan is important in this respect and it has nuclear weapons but what, I ask, what can we do about Pakistan, right now? It's in the process of fighting its own internal struggle against Talibanization and it's not clear how that might turn out. Pakistan's leaders are still trying to turn way from their obsession with India and they might be successful. If they do, then it's possible they might well move to suppress their own Islamists. Pakistan is basically bankrupt and much of the financial support for islamism there comes from Saudi Arabia. So, again we see the Middle East, and particularly Saudi Arabia, as the problem. There must be a lever against Saudi Arabia.
Removing the Iraq regime would be vastly encouraging to the rebellious Iranians who want to dislodge the mullocracy. And having a base in a friendly Iraq would would certainly be helpful in giving freedom desiring Iranians assistance. A change in the Iranian government to a more democratic one would remove their support of Hezbollah.
Removing the Iraq regime and replacing it with a more reasonable one would put great pressure on Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah.
Given that the four countries are supporting an unending conflict in Israel-Palestine as means of proxy war against us it's to be hoped that when the US invades Iraq that the Israelis attack Hezbollah, Hamas, Arafat and his cronies,, etc., and as much as possible, eliminate them.
Objections to the above seem centered around:
1. General objection to war; 2. The "imperialism" of the US; 3. Increased hatred for the West caused by Iraq invasion thus leading to increased terrorist recruitment; 4. The US doesn't have the means or will to sustain a presence in Iraq. Some criticism of the objections follow.
General objection to war.
We are at war right now. Reactionary regimes are attacking us through proxies and are emboldened by our lack of vigorous response. The 9/11 attack is the most obvious result but a long list of other examples may be cited.
Also, Iraq has never abided by the surrender conditions of the Gulf War and the US has had to continue low level warfare with that country.
The proxy wars nations can wage against each other are much exacerbated in effect by acquisition of WMDs. For instance, Pakistan continuously sends terrorists into India. The last really serious incident was an attack on the Indian Parliament. The Pakistanis are uncontrite and because they have nuclear weapons, defy the Indians to do anything serious about it. The totalitarian ideology of the Pakistani proxies gives rise to mirror image development in India in the back rooms of the BJP party and the rise of Hindu fascism with its proposals for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and forced conversion of Muslims. (Sooner or later, in the course of one of these proxy wars the proxies will commit a crime using WMDs and some country will be glazed over in response).
The present Iraq regime in possesion of nuclear weapons will certainly undertake cross border provocation, will exterminate its own internal dissidents and probably give lesser WMDs to the occasional terrorist. In the end, the West, in concert with threatened neighbours will have to attack Iraq with much greater loss of lives on both sides compared with the invasion the US proposes right now.
The present Iraq regime does not intend to give up its police state, ethnic cleansing and gulags. The civilian loss of life from invasion will probably be less than the numbers murdered by the regime if it remains in power a few more years. Objecting to invading the country to displace such a criminal regime is the same ethically, as supporting its tyranny.
The "imperialism" of the US
The US is very powerful but it has not in the last fifty years been an imperialist nation in practice. It did support rotten regimes during the Cold War because they were anti-communist but such activities have been curbed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The US has few significant colonies and takes no booty from them.
It's argued that a US invasion and occupation of Iraq is the start of a new imperial venture. The US is not in a position to turn Iraq into a colony. US citizens would not allow it.
It's also impractical and undesirable to make Iraq part of the US.
It's argued this is a new kind of imperialism. Through force and threats the US will try to increase its already formidable hegemony. This is mistaken. What has happened is that the US has become more powerful for a while than any other nation. It's clear, however that eventually India, China and Russia will become as powerful (or close enough). Right now, however, the US is not only top dog but also the leading exemplar of modernity. At the same time the world has become smaller and modernity, not just the US, is bumping against all sorts of unmodern societies and countries. The most obvious of these are Muslim and the reaction has in some cases been the generation of reactionary ideology bent on destroying modernity. Both islamist and the secular Iraqi Baathist ideologies are expansionary. (This happened before with the rise of Soviet, German, Japanese and Italian reactionary ideology and the resulting WW2 and Cold War).
The attacks on the US and other modern countries, and on non Salafist/Wahabbist/Deobandist people generally, will continue throughout the world until the reactionary regimes are destroyed and the ideological adherents are killed or take up a more modern outlook. The invasion of Iraq is the second strategic counter attack by the modern world. The accusation of US imperialism arises from the correct intuitive conclusion that a non ideological and modern regime must replace the present one, and that will require an occupation while it happens. The US will not stay permanently in Iraq and doesn't want it for a colony.
It's argued also the US wants to make the other countries of the world clones of itself and is practising a kind of cultural imperialism at the end of a gun. I don't think this is true. The US exports an incredible amount of cultural junk but it doesn't oblige the rest of the world to watch its movies and TV or read its books. For the sake of its own security the US would like to see the rest of the world modern - that is democratic, rational and prosperous. For the sake of their own security other members of the modern world should take a similar position.
The US is just too powerful. An absurd objection. The US can't make itself an un-super power and its hegemony will continue until the potential rivals have grown up. In the meantime there is a war going on and it must be fought or lost.
Iraq invasion will increase terrorist recruitment and activity
It makes no difference if it does, or not. The war will continue to be carried to us regardless. However, it's not clear the Afghanistan war increased terrorist recruitment. It's distinctly possible it discouraged recruitment. Afghanistan was not a success for the terrorists or the islamist regime there.
Along similar lines it's objected the Iraq invasion will increase civic unrest in Muslim countries. Possibly imperilling their governments. That's not clear either. There did not seem to be a vast increase in unrest during the Afghan invasion and war. There might be unrest depending on US activity consequent to the invasion.
There will possibly be an increase in terrorist activity. This a war and those behind the reactionary aggression will attempt to counter attack. Are we going to fight or not?
Lack of means or will to sustain presence in Iraq. Hubris, lack of allies, etc.
US certainly has the means. Does it have the will? It depends on how the administration presents its case to the people. If its presented as a struggle against totalitarianism and a defense of democracy and modern values, which are what made the modern world possible, and which through modern men and women created the United States, and which are the things Americans have sacrificed themselves for, then Americans will dedicate themselves to the project.
Hubris, triumphalism. The example of the various actors marching off to WW1 expecting it to be over in a few months is brought out to show how badly wrong things can go. It seems unlikely the actual war in Iraq will go badly wrong even if Hussein brings out the gas and bugs. The US is well equipped and extremely mobile and can decline to directly attack fortified positions. The spectre of house to house fighting in Baghdad is brought up but it's not clear attacking the city directly is necessary - bypass it and take the rest of the country - the city is majority Shiite and won't be that friendly to Hussein's personal army. It's likely he will be betrayed. Too many families have lost members to him.
In the same category it's said the US is being hubristic in a stated ambition to bring democracy to the country. The Iraqis aren't capable enough to make a democracy work - had no experience of it, family and tribal affiliation will destroy any democratic government US trys to implant or encourages to grow from the nation itself. Perhaps this may be so but it can't be discovered until the attempt is made. It's notable, however, the Kurds don't find democracy uncongenial even though they were killing each other until very recently, and the Shiites indicate they don't want an Iranian style mullocracy. It's very clear they don't want more of Saddam or a 'Saddam lite'. Since the Sunnis are a minority, they might find democracy a possible protection from the majority.
Lack of allies. There is objection to Iraq invasion from some of the countries the US might usually count on as allies, notably Germany and France. This is partly due to internal struggle for influence in the EU and some fear of unrest in their muslim populations. But it is also due to an effort to direct US power to their own ends and unwillingness to see themselves under attack: as long as they see the terror attacks and the totalitarian ideologies as a US problem only they don't have to deal with their own problems. Finally, some European nations mistakenly seem to think that a stalinist regime such as Iraq can be negotiated to a reasonable position.
The US hasn't been very tactful in dealing with these countries. It's never a good idea to formalize a doctrine of preemption even if that's what you do from time to time. Nevertheless, Germany and France have picked the wrong issue in Iraq to focus on the matter. They are in peril of having one of their major cities catastrophically attacked and have declined, so far, to behave strategically.
Not every European nation sees things this way and some will join the US in attacking Iraq.
Turkey, which could be very helpful with an invasion of Iraq is dithering over whether to support the US or expand its borders Southward. It has a new, inexperienced government and so things are going slowly. In the end though, it will support the US and not try to confront it in Mosul.
_______________________
The longterm success of the US invasion of Iraq depends on it acting on the things it says it stands for. |
