Posted on 03/14/2003 9:24:53 PM PST by Pokey78
THE FOCUS for the past six months on obtaining United Nations approval for the invasion of Iraq has obscured a simple, logical American strategy based on a clear premise. The premise is that the mass civilian killings of 9/11 triggered a world war between the United States and a political wing of Islamic fundamentalism, sometimes called Islamism.
This world war would not be happening on the scale it is were it not the case that the rise of Islamism is part and parcel of a convulsive upheaval destabilizing the billion-member world of Islam as well as neighboring countries and--at least potentially--countries with Islamic minorities. In a war of such reach and magnitude, the invasion of Iraq, or the capture of top al Qaeda commanders, should be seen as tactical events in a series of moves and countermoves stretching well into the future.
If this premise is true, then just about everything the Bush administration is doing makes sense. So do the actions and announcements of our various adversaries and non-well-wishers in this far-flung war.
The most shocking thing about 9/11 was the willingness of Islamists to carry out indiscriminate mass killing of noncombatant Americans. The attacks that day laid bare the desire of our enemies to obtain weapons of mass destruction to inflict vastly greater destruction on our country and people.
The day after 9/11, there existed four deeply anti-American rogue states, clearly open to helping Islamists achieve the mass murder of Americans. They were Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The invasion of Afghanistan in late 2001 removed one of these four regimes. The coming invasion of Iraq will remove a second.
Is it any wonder that the two remaining anti-American rogue states are doing everything in their power to race toward clear-cut possession of nuclear weapons? Possession of nuclear weapons by these rogue states can serve two purposes. It can deter the United States from doing to them what we have done to the Taliban and are about to do to the Baath. And, if President Bush is as determined and implacable as they fear he is, it can keep the Islamist cause alive (Iran) and allow revenge (Iran and North Korea) in the face of the impending overthrow of their governments by military or other means. The vengeance they have in mind could be prospective and openly state-sponsored, or carried out later by Islamist terror networks in possession of weapons of mass murder as a last will and testament of the North Korean and/or Iranian regimes.
Not every U.S. adversary, not even every rogue state, is as clearly anti-American as Iran and North Korea. Libya and Syria, for example, have been repeatedly classified by the U.S. government as rogue states (or, in the term substituted by the Clinton administration, "states of concern"). Yet at least so far, it is unclear that they are inclined to collaborate with Islamists in the mass murder of Americans. As long as this continues to be the case, Syria, Libya, and other states so situated are unlikely to become U.S. targets in the world war.
Neither are Russia and China, both of whom face unrest from Islamic minorities. The biggest danger to Russia's neutrality is not the Chechen revolt but the continued existence of thousands of nuclear weapons that could find their way to foreign Islamists. Economic growth under President Putin has somewhat lessened the purely mercenary motives for Russian-origin proliferation.
Similarly, China's greatest danger of unwanted involvement is not from Uighur unrest but its desire to have it both ways in its relationship to North Korea. China's rather inscrutable new leadership will have some important decisions coming along much sooner than it would prefer, thanks to the North Korean regime's accurate perception that its own moment of truth is rapidly approaching.
Of all the countries in this war's gray area, Pakistan and Turkey are the most complex and important. Early on, with some coercive encouragement from Secretary of State Colin Powell, Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf opted for an alliance with the United States, leaving him in an exposed position at home, including with elements of his own military. The decision of the Turkish parliament to reject direct involvement in the invasion of Iraq reflected similar tensions.
How to deal with such tensions in Islamic countries with governments friendly to Washington is the biggest unanswered question of the Bush strategy. Post-invasion Iraq will put the issue on our plate in an unavoidable way. In a nutshell, the argument is between occupiers and democratizers.
At first glance, the core administration premise--that this is a world war involving a vast internal crisis of Islam--suggests the necessity of long-term American occupation. In Turkey, after all, democracy was part of the problem. The only longstanding democracy in the Islamic world recently voted in a fundamentalist majority, and the same is likely to happen elsewhere, assuming the United States begins to achieve its long-term goal of democratizing the world of Islam. This argues for going slowly, and relying for now on MacArthur-style proconsuls in the wake of favorable regime change.
The counterargument is a bit counterintuitive, but appears to be gaining ground. In this view, Islam is more than the leading rival religion to Christianity. As politicized by such figures as Osama bin Laden and Iranian strongman Hashemi Rafsanjani, it is also the world's leading political alternative to Western-style democracy. Instituting democracy might feel like a setback in the short run, especially in terms of political rhetoric. But elected fundamentalist governments ultimately will be judged, at least in part, by how well they collect the garbage. In and of itself, introduction of a democracy that respects free speech and freedom of religion will begin the process of separating religion from politics in Islamic culture.
The fear of what democratization will do to Islam is, in this view, a big source of the rage Islamists feel toward the United States, and not toward France or Germany. We are the only democracy that treats political equality not just as a side effect of modernization, but as a universal moral imperative--one that takes precedence over religious conformity, among other things.
When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Clinton-appointed Army chief of staff, recently told Congress that several hundred thousand American soldiers would be needed for the occupation of Iraq, he was quickly reprimanded by the White House and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It was the clearest sign to date that Islamic democratization is close to being adopted as the final remaining piece of the Bush war strategy.
Jeffrey Bell is a principal of Capital City Partners, a Washington consulting firm.
Perhaps it's not crystal clear, but I think it's a very good bet.
Yup....Saudi Arabia, our closest Islamic "friend and ally," also happens to the the home of the biggest Islamist nutballs of them all -- Wahabbis, who are in the overwhelming majority over there.
An immense problem.
Then we go back to this:
classified by the U.S. government as rogue states (or, in the term substituted by the Clinton administration, "states of concern")
Whigs
Democrats
Ancient Rome had the same problem with evnagelized Christians.
Winning the mind game over mysticism is the secret to winning this war on terrorism.
A widespread acceptance of rational philosophy has never been needed more.
Bush? What has HE got to do with all this? I thought it's the JEWS who are running the show! So says the Buchanan-Moran-Novak-Thomas cabal. So it must be true. The President is clearly a stooge of the JEWS. They control everything!
</ sarcasm> (for you dimwits who dont get it)
Bell....is that a Jewish name? Could be a pseudonym. Better look into it.
IMO, I think this is an obvious but key statement.
I do think the article presents an interesting theory, although I am not sure I agreee with it. Thanks for sharing it!
Yes. We talked about this immediately after 9111 here.
The Bush administrations biggest mistake was not to present this understanding and strategy publicly and onsistently right after 911 and during the anthrax incident.
Bush did this well in the Axis of Evil phrase. But focus seemed to fade over the last year.
If they had then, there would be even less opposition to the war on Iraq.
Needed on your part. Your comment was one of the most irrational I've ever read.
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.