Posted on 09/11/2002 3:32:38 PM PDT by traditionalist
The fires had not yet gone out at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a year ago, before the War Party had introduced its revised plans for American empire. What many saw as a horrific atrocity and tragedy, they saw instantly as an opportunity to achieve U.S. hegemony over an alienated Islamic world.
President Bush initially directed America's righteous wrath and military power at al-Qaida. But in his "axis-of-evil" address, he signed on to the War Party's agenda.
What lies ahead? When America invades Iraq, it will have to destroy Saddam and all his weapons of mass destruction. Else, the war will have been a failure. And to ensure destruction of those weapons, we must occupy Iraq. If you would see what follows, pull out a map.
With Americans controlling Iraq, Syria is virtually surrounded by hostile powers: Israel on the Golan, Turks and Kurds to the north, U.S. power to the west in Iraq and south in Jordan. Syrian President Assad will be forced to pull his army out of Lebanon, leaving Israel free to reinvade Lebanon to settle accounts with Hezbollah.
Now look to Iran. With Americans occupying Iraq, Iran is completely surrounded: Americans and Turks to the west, U.S. power in the Gulf and Arabian Sea to the south, in Afghanistan to the east and in the old Soviet republics to the north. U.S. warplanes will be positioned to interdict any flights to Lebanon to support Hezbollah.
Iraq is the key to the Middle East. As long as we occupy Iraq, we are the hegemonic power in the region. And after we occupy it, a window of opportunity will open – to attack Syria and Iran before they acquire weapons of mass destruction.
This is the vision that enthralls the War Party – "World War IV," as they call it – a series of "cakewalks," short sharp wars on Iraq, Syria and Iran to eliminate the Islamic terrorist threat to us and Israel for generations.
No wonder Ariel Sharon and his Amen Corner are exhilarated. They see America's war on Iraq as killing off one enemy and giving Israel freedom to deal summarily with two more: Hezbollah and the Palestinians. Two jumps ahead of us, the Israelis are already talking up the need for us to deal with Libya, as well.
Anyone who believes America can finish Saddam and go home deceives himself. With Iraq's military crushed, the country will come apart. Kurds in the north and Shi'ites in the south will try to break away, and Iraq will be at the mercy of its mortal enemy, Iran. U.S. troops will have to remain to hold Iraq together, to find and destroy those weapons, to democratize the regime, and to deter Iran from biting off a chunk and dominating the Gulf.
Recall: After we crushed Germany and Japan in World War II, both were powerless to reassume their historic roles of containing Russia and China. So, America, at a cost of 100,000 dead in Vietnam and Korea, had to assume those roles. With Iraq in ruins, America will have to assume the permanent role of Policeman of the Persian Gulf.
But is this not a splendid vision, asks the War Party. After all, is this not America's day in the sun, her moment in history? And is not the crushing of Islamism and the modernization of the Arab world a cause worthy of a superpower's investment of considerable treasure and blood?
What is wrong with the War Party's vision?
Just this: Pro-American regimes in Cairo, Amman and Riyadh will be shaken to their foundations by the cataclysm unleashed as Americans smash Iraq, while Israelis crush Palestinians. Nor is Iran likely to passively await encirclement. Terror attacks seem certain. Nor is a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of believers from Morocco to Indonesia likely to welcome infidel America and Israel dictating the destiny of the Muslim world.
As for the pro-American regimes in Kabul and Pakistan, they are but one bullet away from becoming anti-American. And should the Royal House of Saud come crashing down, as the War Party ardently hopes, do they seriously believe a Vermont-style democracy will arise?
Since Desert Storm, America has chopped its fleets, air wings and ground troops by near 50 percent, while adding military commitments in the Balkans, Afghanistan, the Gulf and Central Asia. Invading and occupying Iraq will require hundreds of thousands of more troops.
We are running out of army. And while Americans have shown they will back wars fought with no conscripts and few casualties, the day is not far off when they will be asked to draft their sons to fight for empire, and many of those sons will not be coming home. That day, Americans will tell us whether they really wish to pay the blood tax that is the price of policing the War Party's empire.
I'm ashamed that I actually voted for this lunatic once. His anti-semitism now consumes him.
Gurn
Opposition to a war on Iraq equals anti-semitism.
A tacit admission by you that one of the real purposes of the US defeating Iraq is is protecting Israel.
Regards
J.R.
Nevermind whether or not we need that many dudes or that much money?
YOU - Nevermind whether or not we need that many dudes or that much money?
Hey the kiddies' social security lock box is empty and they will be needed as the mission creeps.
I guessed wrong.
No laughing matter. Buke and Taki will soon launch The American Conservative magazine. Justina's absence at FR may be explained by groundwork for that venture.
Mr. Buchanan's lamentation for the fall of pre-WWII Germany is getting very old.
What factual basis do you have to doubt that Saddam would ever use WMD? Based on his historical behavior and thirst for revenge, I think there's a good chance he would use nukes against America and Britain. A nuclear attack on one of our cities would be catastrophic. It would be 100 times worse than the 9/11/01 attack. That scenario is unacceptable to the Bush administration, therefore the option of leaving Saddam in power is also unacceptable. That's why we're going to attack, not for oil or empire. Nuclear weapons are not that difficult to build and they're easy to smuggle into a port city. Wake up and smell the coffee before it's too late.
I think there are some other scenarios to consider: what if Saddam implements a covert operation and smuggles a nuke into one of our cities...then his agents leave the country and detonate the bomb remotely from overseas. We might not ever be able to determine conclusively who nuked us. All the physical evidence would be destroyed and if it was a very tight operation there might be no trail of evidence to follow anywhere. At that point, we can't just vaporize Baghdad with a nuke when we're not sure they did it. Then there's the scenario of Saddam invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, this time with nukes. How do we kick him out when he's armed with nuclear weapons? The possibilites for invasion, blackmail, and revenge are endless and extremely serious. Kim Jun-il may be crazier, but so far he hasn't shown the kind of agressive, brutal behavior that Saddam has demonstrated in invading Kuwait, gassing 5000 Kurds, etc. I agree that Pakistan is also a major concern. A radical Islamic revolution over there could turn Pakistan into a nuclear-armed menace to the world...(which is probably why Russia just joined NATO.) It's a dangerous world these days, but that's the way it is.
What has Pat said that makes him a Jew hater? I love the Jewish people, and yet I like Pat Buchanan's viewpoints on most issues. I do, however, support Israel if another nation attacked. Yet, I agree with him that war right now, unprovoked, is a bad idea.
Can you provide an example of "hating the Jews", because if you have it, I'd like to see it.
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.