All warfare is based on deception. -- Sun Tzu 430 BC
This is a very important principle to keep in mind when reading the news. The best protection against this active deception is to read the news from all sides and contrast them with the interests of each side to come to your own decision.
> no mass riots on the Arab street, no coup in Pakistan or Jordan
If you know people there, I suggest you call them and ask for the why? Especially since the public opinion there is a lot more negative of US than in the west. So rather than taking it for granted like the author is doing here, you should wonder if this is normal.
All the opposition leaders are either in jail, under house arrest, or have had visits from the police as a reminder of what not to do. That means an increase of pressure by the already repressive regimes of the region. Expect a delayed reaction. BTW, despite all efforts, there have been some demonstrations (10,000 in Cairo, others here and there). But for now the pressure is keeping a lid on it.
> "Brace yourself for a round of I-told-you-sos from Iraq hawks," Robert Wright writes in Slate.
Brace yourself for a much worse delayed reaction. All in all I'd rather see riots in Cairo as release for public discontent than underground movements.
> Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz might be proven right.
Wolfowitz has merits and given the right implementation and some moderation, he may be proven right. Rumsfeld cannot be proven right because there is no substance to him to begin with.
> feeling reassured, almost against their will, by the successful projection of American power
Such feelings are immaterial. The "power" has been "projected" towards the Iraqi regime. Terrorists do not ask permission from their governments. It doesn't matter who we put in power in those countries. The only solution is establishing mutual trust and mutual respect. That will diminish the support base for the terrorist groups.
Consider that despite having our own guys in Kabul and Islamabad, Osama remains at large. Given the relative purchasing power, we have put a $25,000,000,000 prize for just telling us where he is. Yet the people are not handing him over. I doubt Bush would have been around if the situation was reversed.
> Now, everybody seems to assume, it isn't enough just to beat the enemy; you have to beat them without becoming unpopular amongst them.
There is nothing new here. This has always been the case when the winning party has wanted to enjoy fruits of his victory. How else do you expect to deal with the post war Iraq, by waging another war every 20 years?
> we could be entering the age of decapitating wars, in which the United States can change evil regimes without widespread loss of life
When you can explain to me how Saddam's regime and not the broader issues was a significant clear and present danger to US, then I will agree that removing him solves our problems. Otherwise, we should note that majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from countries whose regimes are most obedient to US demands.
ST |
