Pat Buchanan: Saddam was our ally against terrorism
By Donald Sensing
Pat Buchanan makes noise without wisdom.
Pat needs to heed the adage, "It's better for others to think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove it." Because prove it he does with his latest screed, claiming that the Iraq war and occupation were losing campaigns in the war on terror. Incredibly, PB says that Saddam was better for America in office than out:
Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Baath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. ...
What can Buchanan mean except that the United States would have been more secure, not less, with Saddam still in power, that somehow the US and Saddam were working independently toward the same end, defeating Islamofascism? If he does not mean that, what does he mean?
This is one of many errors PB makes. Saddam was never an "enemy" of Islamic fundamentalism, he just wasn't a philosophical ally. But it's so well documented now that Saddam and al Qaeda were cooperating on many levels that only willful blindness by PB can account for his omission.
Buchanan's piece is simply one of the most glaringly uninformed I have read on the topic. If Pat Buchanan is a strategist then I'm a research physicist.
PB bemoans the "destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror," except that reporting from Saudi Arabia shows the Saudi people are more repulsed, not less, by al Qaeda because of the terrorism al Qaeda has committed this year in the kingdom. A true strategist, James Dunnigan, wrote June 29,
Recent surveys have shown support for bin Laden and al Qaeda shrink dramatically in Saudi Arabia (from 96 percent in late 2001, to less than a quarter of that currently.) It's easy to admire terrorists from a distance, rather more difficult when they are terrorizing you.
As for destabilizing the monarchy, I've seen no evidence thereof.
"Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people."
And this is different from pre-Iraq War in what way? Note that PB thinks Arab "governments" have the support of the people. Does PB know that except for Iraq, every Arab country's "government" ranges from outright dictatorship (i.e., Syria) to hard authoritarianism (Egypt)? Even relatively pro-West Jordan is an inherited monarchy with a secret police; the people have no say in who rules them or how.
I recall that not long before the US-UK armies invaded Iraq, Saddam got 99.9 percent of the vote in a national "election." I guess Buchanan thinks Saddam had the support of the people, too.
"Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq."
Is this a bad thing? PB apparently thinks so, but he doesn't explain why. I think its real significance is less than self evident.
"There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred, and the Americans know it."
Hmm, President-for-life Mubarak, whom PB also characterized as America's "longtime friend," who receives billions annually in American aid, says there is hatred of Americans in the region. Says it to a French magazine. One thing is certain, there is certainly hatred of America by the corrupt rulers of the region, definitely including Hosni Mubarak. Why? Because the success of democracy in Iraq will germinate the seeds of democracy in, say, Egypt.
For Hosni Mubarak to claim there is hatred of Americans in the Arab world for bringing democracy to Iraq is like Al Capone saying there is hatred in Chicago of Elliot Ness for jailing gangsters.
President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq.
Uh, Pat, that's not a bug, it's a feature. As I wrote last October,
... the ongoing guerilla war in Iraq, is not a sign of failure in the anti-terror war, but of success. It forces al Qaeda and its allies to fight us there - and better there than again in New York or Washington or elsewhere on American soil.
Hence, the short-term objectives of the Iraq campaign: topple Saddam, then force al Qaeda et. al. to show themselves in Iraq. Then kill them. The enemy's infiltratration of foreign jihadis into Iraq also presents intelligence opportunities that can be exploited to determine who is directing al Qaeda, from where and by what means.
This is called the flypaper strategy, which Austin Bay also explained very well.
As James Dunnigan said, "Iraq is rapidly becoming al Qaeda's graveyard." Buchanan has more foolishness, but at bottom he is a hardcore isolationist ("... the United States needs to ... Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.") who is profoundly ignorant of the threat America faces from the combination of al Qaeda and its state allies, mainly Iran, Syria and, though proxy, North Korea. We might decide to leave the rest of the world alone, but it is manifestly clear that our Islamofascist enemies will not leave us alone.
In fact, Iraq offered an advantageous confluence of events and circumstances in fighting terrorism that no other Islamic country offered. Toppling Saddam was a key element in fighting al Qaeda. It placed American military forces on the ground in the center of the very key terrain of the entire Middle East. Retired Army officer William Hamilton wrote yesterday in USA Today of "the Heartland Theory put forth in 1904 by Sir Halford John Mackinder, one of the great military strategists of the 20th century."
Here's how the Heartland Theory would apply to Iraq: Get a globe and put your finger on Iraq. Notice how your finger is resting right in the middle, the "heartland," of the Middle East, halfway between Egypt and Pakistan. ...
The essential element in the Heartland Theory is simply "being there." Properly applied, being there means Iraqi oil revenue cannot go to al-Qaeda. Being there means the Iraqis can choose whatever government they want, as long as it does not support terrorism. Being there means interdicting the radical Islamists' lines of communication that run across the Middle East from Cairo to Islamabad, Pakistan.
If Mackinder's theory is correct, our mere presence there will have a major impact on how we fight, and whether we succeed, in the ongoing war on terrorism. ...
Iraq is strategically important both for its geographic location and its oil reserves. The casus belli against Saddam’s government was clear and unambiguous. The Iraqi people had suffered under Saddam so severely that they were willing even to accept American invasion and occupation as a preferable alternative to continuing their status quo, provided that their sovereignty was returned fairly soon. This was done this week.
Not least, of all the Arab countries, none is more amenable to democratization than Iraq, which has been organized as a secular (though totalitarian) state for decades. Of all countries that could be a pathfinder for Arabic democracy, Iraq is the foremost candidate.
The truly long-term objective in toppling Saddam and democratizing Iraq is what forms the fundamental rationale for doing so. That rationale is to attempt (there are no guarantees) to inculcate far-reaching reforms within Arab societies themselves that will depress the causes of radical, violent Islamism. This task shall take a generation, at least; President Bush has said on multiple occasions that the fight against terror will occupy more presidencies than his own.
President Bush made this case explicitly in his 6 Nov. 2003 speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, in which he said, "The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." But I don't expect Pat Buchanan to consider such goals. He just doesn't have the mind for it.
donaldsensing.com |
