OK, let's be clear here. You're saying the reason we are going after Iraq now (and not Iran or Syria or N. Korea), is not so much because we should, but because we can. That is, they get knocked off first, because they are the weakest on the "axis of evil" list, not because they are the worst.
Yes, but not exactly. It's where the possibility of greatest gains is - US both can and should. "Worst?" I dunno - it's a mighty evil regime, and you have to start somewhere.
N Korea is basically a threat to only one neighbour. It will take a lot of time and diplomatic effort to achieve something there. In the meantime, remove the first customer for its putative nukes: Iraq.
Iran looks like it may evolve to something more reasonable on its own, especially if democratic elements there are given practical and moral support. The leadership in Iran is not monolithic as it is in Iraq and the country is not in the type of stasis Iraq is in.
US has been involved in a war with Iraq, on behalf of itself and the UN, for 12 years. This has been a drain on its hard power and damaging to its soft power in the area. It's not good for the US or Iraq or the Middle East, and needs be ended. It seems reasonable it be ended in a way that favours US, Iraq, Western, and Middle East interests, generally. My belief is that the most satisfactory ending is with the Hussein family and the Baath party replaced by a non-tyrannical, non-totalitarian, non-expansionary government.
Some upsides:
The sanctions regime, unpopular with Iraqis and ME folk generally because of Hussein's exploitation of it which reflects badly on the US, will be ended. A plus for US soft power.
Hussein's regime, always a problem for his neighbours, will be gone.
Iraqi folk will no longer be subject to the terror reign.
The Iraq economy will improve.
Gives US a platform from which to pressure the Saudis to liberalize and pressure the Syrians to stop making proxy war on Israel and remove themselves from Lebanon. This will make the P-I peace process more manageable. It will give the US more leverage on the Israelis and Palestinians.
Will encourage democratic elements in Iran. (Downside is the mullahs might do something desperate as a result).
Will be a huge sign US policy for the area has changed: The US is no longer "always in favour of the dictators." It really does mean what it says about democracy, etc. The hypocrisy handicap can slowly be removed - this is terrificly important in the ME because the US has been the 900 pound gorilla in the neighborhood which everybody looks to, both in fear and hope. If you're a modern sort of person, knowing the super power is firmly in your corner will be encouraging to you. And if you're an unmodern sort it will be somewhat discouraging.
Is exactly what the islamofascists like bin Laden did not want. They expected the US to leave the area after 9/11.
Gives the US freedom from the constraints on policy caused by the Saudi association. I'm not talking about the 'oil thing' but the rather general effect the association has on social and aid policy.
Remove a customer for NK nukes.
Some downsides:
Very expensive. Requires long term commitment from the US and allies.
No guarantee of success in Iraq. The war might drag out, unlikely but possible.
The reforms might go badly or very slowly. Despite US best efforts, the country spirals into tribal or religious warfare. I think this is actually less likely if the US invades than if there is a coup, but the US will be blamed for it if it happens.
The Iranian mullahs in response might get organized like Hussein and really put the screws on. I think this unlikely since they're not united, but you never know.
Domino theory.
And, in addition to rehabilitating McCarthy, we are also ressurecting the Domino Theory. All the other "bad guys" will fall or reform, quickly and easily, after we start the dominoes falling in Iraq. All the discredited Cold War ideas are getting recycled, with only the targets changed.
McCarthy was a nasty bastard. He should remain in hell.
I've always thought the "Domino Theory" an over rated, dopey metaphor. Getting in close to your target with lots of face time and sensible aid, on the other hand, strikes me as practical. Stopping adversaries from doing so is sensible, also. This worked in Malysia, Thailand and Indonesia but not so well in VietNam.
I don't think the countries of the Middle East are going to change overnight into prosperous liberal democracies even if the US efforts in Iraq turn out hugely succesful. They have economic problems (food industry and tariffs especially), social problems (archaic family and tribal structures expanded beyond their original reach), religious problems (theocratic ideologies with violent followers).
There is very little political room and expanding it in relation to the other problems is tricky. But the attempt has to be made because the present circumstances are not supportable into the indefinite future - the present "stability" some are concerned about losing is illusory - the demographics say so.
On the other hand there is a centuries old tradition of commerce, trade, literature, and scholarship which has been curtailed but is not dead, which can be worked with. Large numbers of folk are sympathetic to modernity and the general population is as lively and intelligent as anywhere else.
A reasonably successful local model, be it Iraq or Israel-Palestine, would be very helpful to politicians and others especially if accompanied by sensible help and advice - something, by the way, the US State Dept and related organizations are quite good at, unlike the World Bank and IMF.
Domino Theory be damned. Hard work is what makes stuff happen.
Nukes/proliferation.
Certainly the big threat to countries in the ME is/was Iraq. The other Arab countries don't seem anxious to war with each other. I don't know if they really want nukes to defend themselves against Israel but a settlement of the I-P thing is certainly something which would redefine relations....
<The Rumanian model is far more relevant to the Iraq situation than Vietnam as is the Cambodian model.>
In both Romania and Cambodia, the locals decided what government they would have, after the foreign armies withdrew. I don't see any analogy to Iraq.
Internal Rumanian situation under the Soviets was a lot like Iraq's. When the coercive Soviet force guaranteeing the tyranny collapsed, the locals took care of the members of the regime in short order. The Iraq regime is under the same peril but in this case the liberation will come from an invasion force not interested in owning the place but very interested in the type of government that follows.
The dreadful Pol Pot tyranny was put down by the Viet Nam invasion. Interestingly, the Vietnamese actually had to threaten (to the Cambodians, Chinese and others) to leave before serious progress was made on reestablishing the government.
I think the Vietnamese intervention is remarkable. They had an obvious big interest but they were disinterested - they didn't do it for territory, resources or ideology [I'm not sure about this latter but it doesn't seem so]. There are parallels with the US and Iraq. I wouldn't play them up a whole lot but they are there. It wasn't a totally popular move by the Vietnamese.... |
