Posted on 12/28/2003 8:09:30 AM PST by UnklGene
Message received: 'America wins'
December 28, 2003
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Two weeks ago, George W. Bush's Christmas present to the world (if not to Democratic presidential candidates) prompted a wide array of interpretations. But, to simplify things, most of them fell between two extremes.
The one end is neatly distilled by the headline on John Podhoretz's column on Saddam Hussein's capture from the New York Post: ''Message: America wins.''
The other end is encapsulated by our old friend Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's No. 2: ''America has been defeated by our fighters despite all its military might,'' he said in an audiotape broadcast on al-Jazeera last weekend. ''With God's help we are still chasing Americans and their allies everywhere, including their homeland.''
He didn't mention Saddam's arrest, as this is a minor event irrelevant to al-Qaida's dazzling array of recent triumphs.
You won't be surprised to hear I incline broadly to the ''Message: America wins'' end of the spectrum. What's slightly more perplexing is the number of hitherto sane people who take the al-Zawahri line. For example, the distinguished British historian Professor Correlli Barnett, whose piece in the current issue of the Spectator is headlined ''Why Al-Qaida is winning.''
If I were Osama, I'd tuck that one away in the cuttings file. Except, of course, that these days what's left of poor old Osama can itself be tucked away in the cuttings file.
Here, in a nutshell, is why recent trends seem to be going Bush's way rather than al-Zawahri's: In the little more than two years since 9/11, two vile dictatorships have fallen in Kabul and Baghdad, and only the other day a third, in Tripoli, has suddenly announced that it's dismantling its nukes program and the Brits and Yanks are welcome to take a look over anything they fancy. A plus for Bush's side? Or al-Zawahri's? You make the call.
But in between these two poles are various other points on the spectrum. At Point A, you'll find those wise old foreign policy birds who get everything wrong but never seem to notice. That would include all those fellows who tut-tutted that the Pentagon's announcement that France, Germany and Russia would be excluded from bidding for Iraqi reconstruction contracts was an appallingly amateurish screw-up given that Washington was about to go cap in hand to Paris, Berlin and Moscow asking them to forgive Iraq's Saddam-accumulated debts. ''Democrats seized on the episode as further evidence of Bush diplomatic blundering,'' reported London's Independent.
''Further'' evidence: lovely touch that. But you get the gist: The Europeans would now be certain to reject any moves to forgive Iraqi debt. Chris Patten, the EU's external relations commissioner, called Washington's move ''politically maladroit."
"It's a triumph for Pentagon diplomacy,'' said ''a sarcastic Mr. Patten,'' as the Guardian put it. Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief, pronounced: ''It is not the wisest decision. You are saying that countries cannot participate in tenders and at the same time you are asking those same countries to cooperate on debt.''
But, lo and behold, a couple of days later Bush emissary James Baker touched down in the capitals of Europe and, in defiance of the Guardian et al., France and Germany caved and Russia semi-caved. Perhaps they took the Pentagon frost-out as a sign that the administration was serious. Or perhaps they were worried that their old pal Saddam might get too talkative while in U.S. custody. But either way, in a non-sarcastic un-Chris-Pattenesque way, it does appear to be ''a triumph for Pentagon diplomacy.'' If this is politically maladroit blundering, blunder on; crank the maladroitness meter up another notch.
Not that the administration will get any credit for it. For among the two other international groupings of Bush-disparagers are those in Group B, who argue yes, there's good news, but no thanks to Bush; and those in Group C, who say yes, it's all thanks to Bush, but it's bound to turn out disastrously: The good news will prove to be bad news, if we just wait long enough.
There was an interesting example of Group B-think at the end of the week that began with Saddam's lice inspection. Colonel Mohammar Gadhafi threw in the towel on his WMD program -- chemical, biological, nuclear, the works. Why was this? Well, according to the chaps at Reuters, it was because ''segments of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] have become very concerned about Libya.'' Hmm. When the IAEA starts showing ''concern,'' you know you've only got another two or three decades to fall into line or they'll report you to the Security Council. But make no mistake: Gadhafi's surrender definitely isn't anything to do with Bush, Blair, the toppling of Saddam, stuff like that -- no sir, don't you believe it.
Here's an intriguing tidbit from an interview the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi gave to the Spectator in September:
''I cannot say which country he was from, but someone telephoned me the other day and said, 'I will do whatever the Americans want, because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid.'''
Interesting. Who on Earth could Berlusconi be talking about?
Gadhafi is merely the latest example of what one might call trickledown destabilization. As I wrote in early May, ''You don't invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don't have to invade everywhere else.''
Meanwhile, in Group C are all those who acknowledge that America has won swift victories in Afghanistan and Iraq but that they're meddling with ancient, complex cultural forces that will come back to bite them in the butt. Whatever gets you through the night, boys. One can't help noticing that, despite innumerable warnings from these Western defeatists about the folly of provoking the incendiary ''Arab street,'' the Arab street is now in the third year of its deep slumber. It may be that Osama is just very cunningly ''lying low,'' but, with each passing month, the reason he's lying low is more and more likely to be due to an inability to get up again.
Taliban gone, Saddam gone, Gadhafi retired, Osama ''resting.'' ''Message: America wins'' is as accurate a summation of the last two years as any. Whether or not you think American victory is a good thing is another matter. But a smart anti-American ought to recognize that generally things are going America's way, and the only argument worth having is about the speed at which they're doing so.
Next month, the distinguished Professor Barnett will have another piece entitled - "Why the Irish Republican Army is winning."
It has to be heart stopping galling to be a Democrat and hear good news like this, but pretend it is something else that convinced Khadaffy Duck to throw in the towel. He saw what happened to Yosemite Saddam and knew that President Bush meant business! BTW, has there been any scientific studies made yet which correlate the rise in heart attacks and strokes in Democrats each time there is tremendous good news favoring President Bush?
From your link (thanks for posting it).
I'm familiar with Corelli Barnett's work. But it seems so obvious that, in this case, he is seeing what he wants to see. And not what is.
The ouster of Saddam, the liberation of Iraq and Bush's vision of the Middle East's future has totally changed the equation. al-Qaeda cannot afford for the Iraqis to succeed -- so they must expend their jidadist juices in reaction to this fact on the ground. Where, it seems evident, we have gained the upper hand and are intent on keeping it.
Barnett cannot seem to see this larger picture.
The War on Terrorists (and their enablers) is far from over. Its successful prosecution will take at least a generation. But I don't believe any outcome other than a victory for the West (and the Arab people) is now in store.
I'm very disappointed in Barnett's lackluster analysis.
On this issue I think Barnett is full of s**t.
Our strongpoints are our military and our wealth. We should continue to use them as we have been using them. Smash the crap out of those who resist us. Cut off their monies. Deport them from our country and our allies countries. Forget about infiltrating Al Qa'eda - that would be extremely hard to do under current circumstances.
I don't think Barnett's measures are worth anything. As you say we've destroyed two Muslim regimes and cowed a third. Is Al Qa'eda supposed to sit back and just watch?
You're right that this conflict will last a long time. Stratfor - before our invasion of Iraq - predicted 5-10 years. That may have been optimistic.
First comes humiliation, followed by denial, then fear, accompanied by respect, then resignation, accompanied by realignment of allegiances, then capitulation, followed by peace.
OTOH, may be it has been a banner year for PresBush.
I absolutely LOVE this line.
If you want proof the media is stupid, the belief that the French, Germans and French would not forgive a lot of the debt because we cut off their ability to get rebuilding dollars is absolute proof.
What do you think Jim Baker told the French, Germans, and Russians? I think he said, "You can take half of what is owed you or we will support the new Iraqi governments decision to pay you nothing." "The US and the new Iraqi Government will take the position that all of the debt owed to you is owed by Saddam. You are free to visit him in his cell for any collection efforts you may wish to make. However bowing to your humanitarian wishes, you may not touch him or raise your voice. Whey you ask Saddam for the money you must say "Pretty Please". We did take the 750 grand he had on him so that is not available for you to collect."
With those options the French, and Germans were happy to take a portion of the debt. When the options are a portion or nothing they would naturally opt for a portion.
To settle a debt lenders can repossess the items they have sold and for which they were not paid. Perhaps Baker offered the French, Germans, and Russians the right to help look for the weapons of mass destruction they sold Saddam. Once the WMD were found and returned that would also would settle the debt.
The French, Germans, and Russians have no viable options but to take whatever the new Iraqi Government wants to offer them. What could they do... declare war on the new Iraq for failure to pay?
The options offered the French Germans and Russians were. "Some of the debt will be paid." or "None of the Debt will be paid".... They chose some pay over no pay.... as Baker, and Bush were certain they would do.
The media does not understand what is going on. They rarely do.
LOL! So true, yet another triumph of unilateralist institutions.
The media does not understand what is going on. They rarely do.
Leftist/progressive (whatever) media blinded by their socialist/anti-American agenda, no doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.