Posted on 11/06/2001 12:02:35 PM PST by Nineteen_Kilo
Iraq is an opportunity, not merely a problem.
The basic U.S. strategic goal in the Middle East is to disable the anti-Americanism that sustains dangerous terrorism. Sometimes, that anti-Americanism is popular outrage, which, over time, can be eroded by better propaganda, free markets, and reasonably democratic polities. But those hostile feelings don't much matter unless harnessed by terrorist groups and hostile states, and more importantly, they can't be soothed until we contain those anti-American terrorist groups and states.
Terrorist groups, by themselves and without the protection of states, can be crushed by old-fashioned police work, diplomatic pressure, economic tools, and military force. Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, the Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, and others like them will be suppressed over time, just as the Shining Path in Peru and the deep-rooted IRA in Ireland were slowly choked to death.
The greater source of anti-Americanism comes from failed and hostile Arab states. We're already going after the terrorist government of Afghanistan, which will be difficult, even if the local Pashtuns are cooperative. It will be much more difficult, and expensive in lives and cash, if the Pashtun tribes provide a haven for Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the longer he eludes us — even if he is stuck in a rat-infested cave with few offensive successes to advertise on al Jazeera — the stronger his cause becomes and the weaker ours becomes, both domestically and overseas. And when we do kill him, and metaphorically stick his head on a pike in downtown New York, he will still live on as a martyr, albeit a failed martyr.
Another dangerous state that fosters anti-Americanism is Saudi Arabia, which has funded Islamist ideology for its own purposes. Some argue this funding is done by rich Saudis for personal religious reasons, others say it is done with the connivance of various factions and clans within the ruling family trying to succeed the existing King. Whatever version is true, we can't stop that funding by military or diplomatic threats because such pressure would cause a severe breach with the oil-rich kingdom and the broader Muslim world. In turn, that breach might lead to greatly increased oil prices and a Saddam loosed upon his neighbors.
Then there's Saddam with his weapons, his large and rich Iraqi stronghold, his manipulation of Arab sympathies, and his hatred of us. He undermines our position in the Gulf region by forcing us to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia, by starving his people and them blaming us before a receptive Arab audience, by slowing Iran's move towards democracy, and by maintaining false hopes among Palestinians and their supporters that there is yet hope of a victory against Israel. In comparison to Saddam, Osama, the Saudis, and the Israeli-Palestinian death-grip are minor fronts in this evolving war against terrorism. Yet Saddam is also more vulnerable that Osama or the Saudis. He has little popular support, his country is a flat-desert ideal for U.S. Army's mechanized warfare and the U.S. Air Force's bombers, and his army is weakened by years of sanctions and defeat. The response suggests itself; destroy Saddam first, and the rest of the anti-American structure will collapse, regardless of bin Laden's whereabouts or Saudi politics.
This theme is becoming more prominent, and in recent weeks, Richard Perle has been arguing for a Saddam-first strategy, while Newt Gingrich says that a secular Iraq makes it a good prospect for democracy. Most recently, New York Times columnist William Safire floated the idea in his Monday column. Here are a few reasons why the Saddam-first approach is promising:
The removal of Saddam's dead hand from the Iraqi economy would allow it to be deregulated and reinvigorated. That will simultaneously reduce world oil prices and increase employment in the Middle East — especially of the young men who are needed for reconstruction jobs.
The economic sanctions that Saddam imposes on Iraqi's population — but that the Arab world bitterly blames on the United States — will be immediately replaced by foreign investment in the oil industry and in reconstruction. The painful images of starving Iraqi children will be replaced by alluring Baghdad city lights, smiling wages-earners and Palestinian job seekers.
Iraq's population of 23 million is not fertile ground for the radical Islam of its neighbors in Iran and Saudi Arabia. That's good for modern democracy, for women, education and economic growth, and it can help Iraq become a second secular success — after Turkey — in the heart of Arabia, forever reminding Arabs and immediate neighbors in restive Iran, that freedom and capitalism are far better for the average person than bin Laden's 11th-century Wahhabi theocracy.
With Saddam gone and oil prices assured, who needs Saudi Arabia? Their airbases will be pointless, their oil will be partly offset by Iraqi supplies, and their opaque succession battles of no great concern. Moreover, with the main pillar of anti-Americanism fed to the Iraqi geese, the Saudis' anti-American faction would likely lose credibility, clout and power, perhaps helping the somewhat pro-American faction in Saudi Arabia keep power. With or without that faction in charge, the demise of Saddam would allow us pressure the Saudis to cut off further financial, strategic, and theological aid to bin Laden in the Mountains.
The victory in Iraq would allow us to push hard for democratization of the Arab world. That effort is now stalled by the vital need to contain Islamic political parties, Saddam, and oil prices. Once those factors are removed by Saddam's demise, and our power is enhanced by our remaking of Iraq and the simultaneous ruination of Islamic moral-clout, we can give history a nudge by cheerfully supporting democracy in Syria, the Gulf, and Egypt, perhaps with a new pro-American al Jazeera TV-broadcast.
Bin Laden, even if still evading us in the mountains, would automatically become a sideshow once the Iraqi campaign began. He has chosen to ally himself with Saddam, and once Saddam falls, Saudi Arabia becomes manageable and his prestige is ruined by American democracy's victory in Baghdad, then bin Laden will fall into our power all the faster. Moreover, his memory will soon be swamped by regional economic growth, just as the memory of that Cuban egomaniac — Che something or other, who slipped on a bar of U.S. Army soap after his capture in Bolivia in 1967 — has been drowned by Latin American prosperity.
Even the Palestinians might learn something from the destruction of Iraq. They're still refusing to make peace — albeit a bitter peace of the defeated — -because they're still hoping to push Israel into the sea. This forlorn hope has survived repeated debacles, disasters, and defeats, so there can only be a modest prospect that the destruction of their terrorist and Iraqi allies will reconcile them to peace. Maybe all those construction jobs in Iraq will serve as compensation.
In all of this, I don't mean to be blasé or belligerent, just optimistic. Destroying Iraq would be difficult, especially if the Saudis object, even more so if the Kuwaitis and the admirable Turks balk. The mechanized combat that it would require is an American strength — vice infantry battles in Afghanistan's caves — so the battle should be quick, yet it could be bloody, especially if we cannot contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction or if we choose not to the stop the post-victory slaughter of Saddam's brutal apparatchiks and their families by vengeful Iraqi population. Rebuilding the government would be expensive and lengthy, especially because the U.S. would have to create a government structure amenable to Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias. There are also risks, including the possible emergence of Islamicist regimes in other states, but there does seems little reason to fear military defeat given the rottenness of Saddam's political system as illustrated by the failed rebellions in 1991. But, just as importantly, there is also risk in doing little; terrorist plagues will kill around the world regardless of color, Iraqi nukes will kill Muslims and Jews alike, Islamist conquests will drive women and truth from the street together, and autocracies will continue to murder advocates of democracy.
In 1942, FDR, Churchill, and the G.I.s did not paralyze themselves with worry about the inevitable problems of post-war Europe, about German saboteurs, Luftwaffe raids, "Nordic supermen," Japanese Kamikazes, and secret V-weapons. They confidently pushed ahead, solved each problem as it appeared — for example, the creation of a post-war German government amenable to the French, British, Russians, and Germans. Indeed, by pushing for unconditional surrender and subsequent reconstruction of Germany and Japan, they also showed that they had learned from their immediate predecessors who had mistakenly rushed to end World War I before devising an acceptable, permanent solution to Germany's grand ambitions.
Our great and good grandparents helped Europeans and Asians remake their lands, and so created a far better world for all of us. Why can't we help Arabs remake Arabia and again make a better and safer world? Are the Arabs somehow not good enough for democracy?
Berlin '45. Tokyo '45. Baghdad '02.
The victory in Iraq would allow us to push hard for democratization of the Arab world. That effort is now stalled by the vital need to contain Islamic political parties, Saddam, and oil prices. Once those factors are removed by Saddam's demise, and our power is enhanced by our remaking of Iraq and the simultaneous ruination of Islamic moral-clout, we can give history a nudge by cheerfully supporting democracy in Syria, the Gulf, and Egypt, perhaps with a new pro-American al Jazeera TV-broadcast.
Agreed.
There is no substitute for victory. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, et al must be either put to the sword, or overthrown from within, and replaced with representative governments that have free markets, the rule of law, civil liberties, and respect for the individual. A tall order ... but so was defeating Japan and Germany simultaneously.
A Notable Quotable.
It is abundantly clear that the "sanction and inspect, except when they tell us not to inspect" approach was horribly flawed. In that respect, our foreign policy was indeed misguided. Our media and State Department have done a poor job, too, of pointing out that the 500,000 or 5 million or 50 million dead starved Iraqi babies could well have been fed had Saddam directed his governments' efforts to providing for the needs of the governed, rather than providing shiny palaces for Saddam and his family, and concocting toxins to use on Israel and America.
However, I think that to fret about the "whole world" sympathizing with Iraq is a facile dodge. The whole world does not sympathize with Iraq. The sanctions are United Nations sanctions, for what that's worth. As for fearing that taking out Iraq now might "explode the seething mass of arab anti-western hate", it seems to me that it already exploded on September 11th. Therefore, it is no counter-argument to taking on Iraq's Ba'ath party and deposing them.
2. If Iraq is the source of Anthrax attack, get ready for a terrorist counter attack involving millions of pieces of mail. In short, Iraq has the capacity to destroy the entire American mail and courier service. This will catastrophically cripple the US ecomony.
I respectfully disagree. If they had the capacity to do so, they would have done so already. They are not playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules here, waiting for the ref to count while we stagger back to our feet. If they could have done a one-two punch, they already would have. I respect our enemies, but let's not give them more credit than they deserve. Remember the "battle-hardened" army that Iraq fielded in 1991? We should not be impressed by any Iraqi threats of vengance.
3. Turkey and Iran are not going to happily stand by as we dismember Iraq and open the possibility of a greater Kurdistan. The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally, and there is no planning for how things will look afterwards.
Iran spent most of the 1980's trying to dismember Iraq, as I recall. The Turks would likely welcome a chance to remove a threatening presence to their south, and, as a member state of NATO, have already cast their lot with us. A democratic (swiss canton, british parliament, whatever) Iraq does not pose a threat of 'greater kurdistan' ... and even if it does, that's a question for afterwards, akin to "But what about Austro-Hungary? What about the Ottoman Empire?" and so forth. Planning for things afterwards can wait until afterwards. We didn't shirk from the Cold War just because the State Department had no master plan for what to do in the event the Soviet Union collapsed. I, for one, am not afraid of victory. The victor gets to set the terms. First we attain Iraq's unconditional surrender. Then we can sort out what to do next.
As for "The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally" ... you say that like it's a bad thing. The whole point of the article, it seems to me, is that taking down Iraq will redraw the map, to our advantage. Don't discount the persuasive power of a victorious American army encamped around the Tigris and Euphrates. That would, indeed, cause Iran, Arabia (with or without the House of Saud), and Syria to become far more interested in seeing the American point of view. I, for one, think that's exactly what we want from this war. The example of Iraq, it's nation occupied, it's tyrannical rulers slain or in chains, would cause every tyrant in the neighborhood to re-examine their priorities.
4. The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war. Clinton cut the machinery in half, the Saudis will not give us the staging ground, and airpower alone will only trigger more waves of fanatical Arab hate. Picture of dead babies and that sort of thing. Plus, the new chinese and czech radar and SAMs have yet to be unsheathed. Remember we lost a F-117 to the Serbs, and they are Saddam's friends.
The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war ... TODAY. Our martial history has been routine:
We will TAKE the Saudi staging grounds, if need be. The House of Saud is in a very precarious position. Fretting about new military hardware seems to miss the point. We've got new weapons, too, and our old one's aren't too shabby.
Honestly, your post (well, responding to it) has if anything moved me even further towards thinking we need to take out Iraq, sooner rather than later. We could come up with many arguments for not taking on Iraq now ... but as time passes, the Iraqis will only become more dangerous to us.
If Jordan were now to provide good intel and clear support for the 'solution' in Iraq, King Abdallah could be given Medina and Mecca and the House of Saud and Wahabbism would be done for.
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.