FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 09/30/2002 2:17:49 PM PDT by Beenliedto
After the War
'Though the object of being a Great Power is to be able to fight a Great War, the only way of remaining a Great Power is not to fight one.' So wrote British historian A.J.P. Taylor in 1961.
All the 20th century empires forgot the lesson and all perished of wounds suffered in Great Wars: the Ottoman, Russian Austro-Hungarian, and German empires in World War I, the Japanese in World War II, the French and British the morning after.
Comes now the turn of the Americans. Guided through the Cold War by conservative statesmen like Eisenhower and Reagan, America rejected Churchillian romanticism and, even in the face of horrors like the butchery in Budapest in 1956, refused to risk the Great War. But now a triumphalist America has begun to behave like all the rest.
If Providence does not intrude, we will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the “On-to-Berlin!" bravado with which French poilus and British Tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict. More likely, it will be the 'bloody mess" of which Tony Cordesman warns.
Yet America will not be defeated by an Arab pariah state with an obsolete air force, a dozen 400-mile missiles, a population a tenth of ours, an economy 1% of ours, and neither satellites nor smart bombs.
Indeed, all 22 Arab nations have a total GDP smaller than Spain's. None can defeat us, and any that resorts to a weapon of mass destruction invites annihilation. And before any hostile Arab or Islamic regime can acquire an atomic weapon, the War Party wants to exploit this window of opportunity to smash them all.
But what comes after the celebratory gunfire when wicked Saddam is dead? Initially, the President and War Party will be seen as vindicated by victory and exhilarated by their new opportunity. For Iraq is key to the Middle East. With Iraq occupied, Syria will be hemmed in by Israeli, American, and Turkish power. Assad will have to pull his army out of Lebanon, so Sharon can go back in and settle scores with Hezbollah. Iran will be surrounded by U.S. power in Turkey, Iraq, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Central Asia, and the Arabian Sea.
This is the vision that intoxicates the neoconservatives who pine for a 'World War IV"-a cakewalk conquest of Iraq followed by short sharp wars on Syria and Iran. Already Israel is tugging at our sleeve, reminding us not to forget Libya.
What is wrong with this vision? Only this: Just as Israel's invasion of Lebanon ignited a guerrilla war that drove her bloodied army out after 18 years, a U.S. army in Baghdad will ignite calls for jihad from Morocco to Malaysia.
Pro-American regimes will be seen as impotent to prevent U.S. hegemony over the Islamic world. And just as monarchs who collaborated with Europe's colonial powers were dethroned by nationalists in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Teheran and Addis Ababa, pro-American autocrats will be targeted by assassins.
A burst of gunfire could convert Jordan, Afghanistan, or nuclear-armed Pakistan into an enemy overnight. 6 The American Conservative October 7, 2002 And with Israelis generals blabbing about pre-positioned U.S. weapons and Bibi Netanyahu listing for Congressional committees all the Arab nations we must attack, Al Jazeera does not need shoe-leather reporting to let Islam know on whose behalf America has come to crush their armies and occupy their capitals.
Once in Baghdad, how do we get out? If the Kurds rebel to create a nation, will U.S. troops help Turks crush them? If the House of Saud falls, will it be succeeded by social democrats or Bin Laden's fanatics?
To destroy Saddam's weapons, to democratize, defend, and hold Iraq together, U.S. troops will be tied down for decades. Yet, terrorist attacks in liberated Iraq seem as certain as in liberated Afghanistan. For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world.
With our MacArthur Regency in Baghdad, Pax Americana will reach apogee. But then the tide recedes, for the one endeavor at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon.
Twelve years ago, this writer predicted that George Bush's Gulf War would be 'the first Arab-American War." The coming war will not be the last. We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before. The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.
Copyright 2002 TAC. For discussion only.
Which means, I suppose, that the quote attributed to him has no merit, right?
Much is made about the civilization threat of the Islamic nations to the West. Overlooked is that Bush, 41, assembled a coalition including the Islamic world. Now something happened in the last dozen years to fracture this relationship. Was the Clinton-Bush bombing, the rise of Sharon, or an awakening of the Arab world?
War could not be any long term aim of the Arabs because they are the last one at the crowded table with a 'weapon of mass destruction'. Not too great planning if they were planning to have such a weapon in building for some 'war of civilizations'.
The war will be a cakewalk. How can it be otherwise with the world's lone superpower vs a clown who couldn't knock a plane out of the sky in 12 years of bombing? However, what comes next? As Israel knows, it is human 'weapons of local destuction' that greet occupiers. Then as we 'Sharonize' them, the Arab world will awake.
Perhaps....
Perhaps not.
If Saddam has learned the lessons of the Gulf War, where he was suckered into riding right into our strengths, yes.
If, however, we have to try to take Bagdad house by house, we have another story on our hands.
BTW, Saddam once again proves himself to be very shrewd. Bush made the mistake of going before the UN, and SH answered with a very slick chess move. Bush now has to wait for the UN to decide, or go it alone, which would be a very difficult call.
It's all in the "New World Order," doncha' know?
And I want to hear the neocons say that putting the decision for the US to go to war in the hands of the UN was the right thing to do.
The question then is do we sit back and have terrorism agaist the US and Europe become the norm as Islamist take over the Arab world, or do we intervene and create a better Muslim world?
I believe that we must intervene and create a stable Middle East. (This will cost Israel since it will probably entail the creation of a second Palestinian country in most of the West Bank and Gaza. my goal is to help the US.)We must destroy the terrorist suporting regime sin Iraq, Iran and Syria and replace them with more stable republics. Doing so will piss off the Arab street, but they are already angry. The cost has been paid in that regard. We should reap the eventual benefit by enforcing some stability. Otherwise the battlefield will be the US and Europe. Pulling out will only encourage teh terrorist and prove them successful to the Arab street.
The 9/11 terrorists came from the "stable" part of the Middle East, funded by people in the stable part of the Middle East. I don't disagree that stability is a good goal, that's why we supported Saddam during his ruthless purges and rise to power.
I don't believe American occupation of Iraq will be stable. It could easily dissolve into civil war that we can't control. Any semblance of democracy will probably quickly turn into Algerian-style authoritarianism and guerilla war.
>> Which means, I suppose, that the quote attributed to him has no merit, right?
I don't know. What would the reaction here be if I quoted Huey P. Newton to bolster a point of mine, other than to destroy a socialist argument? Bobby Seale? H. Rap Brown? Malcolm X?
I hate playing the "if" game, but humor me for a moment, please.
If I, as a conservative, have to quote a socialist to back up a point of mine that has nothing to do with Leftist/socialism...
100% on point.
How about Martin Luther King?
"I have a dream..."
Not a bad quote.
Well! I can put away my flame-retardant suit. I had the notion that I'd need it.
Seriously, I'm glad you understood what I was saying, Old Soldier. Sometimes this not-so-Old Soldier is read the wrong way.
But this was before King was overtaken by the commies. They had been working on him, but this speech was early in this process.
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.