Posted on 04/19/2002 9:20:34 PM PDT by Pokey78
Especially in the Middle East.
IT HAS RAPIDLY BECOME accepted wisdom in Washington that the United States is in ever-worsening trouble in the Arab Middle East. The collapse of the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians has, according to this zeitgeist, left America bereft of friendly Muslims in the region, thereby jeopardizing both the Bush administration's global campaign against terrorism and its inchoate plans to topple Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. In particular, Ariel Sharon's military incursion into the West Bank, which has reinvigorated in the Arab mind all the awful imagery of General Sharon's drive to Beirut in 1982, has crippled Secretary of State Colin Powell's quest for "an integrated strategy" for the Middle East and humiliated the president, who'd urged an Israeli withdrawal "without delay." American credibility among the Arabs, so the theory goes, is in tatters.
Fortunately, this depiction of the United States in the Arab world makes no sense. The reverse is probably closer to the truth: that America is actually now in a far stronger position to prosecute a war against the Baathist regime in Iraq than it was before the Israeli Defense Forces reoccupied the West Bank. Its standing in the Arab world, that is, its ability to achieve its strategic goals, has gone up, not down, because of Israel's recent military operations. Israel's house-to-house combat in Jenin will undoubtedly reinforce Arab awe at Israeli prowess. This can only aid President Bush's larger war against terrorism rooted in Islamic militancy. Jenin, like the battle of Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut in '82, may make a real peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza someday possible. One look at Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat today--hyperventilating, shaking, stuttering in both English and Arabic, pathetically appealing to memories of "my brother" Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin (as if that seasoned general wouldn't have pulverized the Palestinian Authority for its holy-warrior kamikaze attacks on Israeli civilians)--should tell us that we are probably at the dawn of a post-Arafat era in Palestinian politics. That would be very good, for only when Arafat is gone will there be a real chance for an adequate settlement of the differences among the denizens of the Holy Land.
This continuing misapprehension of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its impact on the U.S. position in the Middle East is distressing, though not surprising, 52 years after Israel survived its first Arab war. Wrapped up in the peace process are bureaucratic equities--primarily those of the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency--and analyses that span several generations. But the reality is that Israel's repeated victories over the frontline Arab states have enormously increased Washington's coin from Morocco to Iran. The American-Israeli nexus has been for many, if not most, Arabs an inextricable part of the American mystique, the recurring reminder that Western power could not be overcome. The Egyptian leader Anwar Sadat understood this well, which is why he decided to move away from the pro-Soviet, anti-American, and anti-Israeli camp. Sadat's successor, Hosni Mubarak, who has played a two-faced game with America, supporting Washington in VIP meetings while encouraging vicious anti-American propaganda in his controlled popular press, still understands the reality of American power and the unchallengeable ties between Washington and Jerusalem.
Muslim militants and fundamentalists, who see culture and religion in crystal clear terms, have never had any difficulty discerning this indissoluble power nexus. The fundamentalists understand that the United States will not become "evenhanded" toward the Arab Muslim world since liberal democracies align naturally with each other. And Arab Muslim states (so fundamentalists fervently pray) can never become liberal democracies. For the militants and fundamentalists in Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and no doubt in many of the security and paramilitary organizations of the Palestinian Authority, Israel is the cutting edge of liberal Western civilization. It's America's base camp in the Muslim umma, the social, religious, and geographic sphere of Muslim sovereignty, where non-Muslims must be subordinated to a Muslim-controlled political system.
And when you look at militant Islamic literature--the statements of Osama bin Laden and his holy-warrior organization al Qaeda are illuminating examples--you of course don't find Sharon's crushing military victories over Egypt in 1973 and the PLO in 1982 as evidence of the promise that Israel can be destroyed. Sharon is the Devil's right-hand man, the warlord who makes the battle between Good and Evil in the fundamentalist mind such a close, precarious struggle. American and European liberals may loathe Sharon, who is a rampaging, politically incorrect expression of realpolitik, but his antagonists in the Middle East fear him. What they do not fear, and what has been the font of the militants' hopes, is the Israel under Prime Minister Ehud Barak that precipitously withdrew from Lebanon in the summer of 2000 and attempted through concessions to grasp permanent peace treaties with Syria and Arafat. What they do not fear is the America that ran from Beirut truck-bombs in 1983 and from rocket-propelled grenades in Mogadishu in 1993.
Osama bin Laden and other Muslim militants, like the leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and in his own profound way Arafat, are quite sensible strategists: They inspire the young with hope, not depression; with victories, not defeat. They do not promise that Israel or the United States will be like ancient Rome at its height--that legion will follow legion until its enemies are crushed or scattered in an endless exile. Their promises are not millenarian. They are in the near future. As the Palestinian Authority was fond of broadcasting before Sharon decided to reverse the decade-old habit of Israeli restraint, the "final struggle" was at hand.
With his decisive victory on the West Bank--and it is decisive just because Sharon did it and everyone in Israel and the Arab world knows that he will do it again--Sharon is in the process of pushing the Arab idea of coercing and dominating Israel into the distant future, beyond the immediate passions of young Palestinian men and women, who live for the present. Probably far sooner than most people imagine possible--a few years, not decades--the defeat of Israel through terrorism will become for most Palestinians what the conquest of Constantinople was for the medieval Arab world, an appealing image that no longer sufficiently inspires. When that happens, some kind of peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza will become possible. Assuming of course the United States can neutralize the increasing interference of Iraq and Iran. The Camp David discussions of July 2000 will look then to the Palestinians like a mythical promised land.
WASHINGTON NEEDS to look back at Lebanon in 1982--the cerebral cortex of those who despise Sharon in the Middle East, Europe, and America--to see how the Palestinians' worst defeat failed to damage the United States's position in the Middle East. Relations with the Arab states continued as before, which was not necessarily a good thing, since our tolerance of such regimes as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria--the perpetrators of enormous anti-American mischief--has harmed the United States for decades in the region. With accusations of "blitzkrieg" and slaughter in the print media and on both Arab and Western television (remember NBC's John Chancellor), the mythical Arab street did not rise. Furthermore, oil boycotts never developed. If one recalls the relative supply-and-demand price stability in the energy markets throughout the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, it is very hard to take seriously all the talk on both sides of the Atlantic about the regional or international impact of the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation.
In 1982, American diplomats and case officers abroad may have had a few unpleasant dinners and meetings with their Arab counterparts, but U.S. power and influence wasn't belittled in the region. On the contrary, the war, which the Arabs uniformly believed Washington had sanctioned, as they now believe it has sanctioned Sharon's incursions, demonstrated convincingly to all America's reach and power. Israel made mincemeat of the PLO and Syria, which under Hafez al-Assad learned painfully and definitively the costs of war with America's closest Middle Eastern ally. (The Lebanon war between the Israelis and the Syrians also demonstrated to the Soviet Union that its goose was cooked in both armor and aerial combat. Not an insignificant achievement in the third-world conflicts that greatly determined the outcome of the Cold War.)
Only the Bush administration has the capacity to undo America's eminence in the Middle East. The Arabs can't and most won't really even try. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot diminish the United States unless President Bush pivots from an ahistorical understanding of the Arab Middle East.
Fortunately, President Bush has not been schooled in Washington's foreign-affairs establishment. His instincts, which produced in the Axis of Evil speech the clearest and most intellectually potent foreign policy since Ronald Reagan's, don't please the diplomats and intelligence professionals, who remain acutely uncomfortable with good-versus-evil as a roadmap for American action abroad. The president's instincts may propel him to pop the myth that America must solicit an Arab coalition to defeat Saddam Hussein. Untutored, the president may just ask: Why would America need Muslim or Arab cover for military action against Iraq? What moral sanction can dictatorial regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia possibly give us? What real aid can they give to the war on terrorism if they cannot call suicide bombers terrorists? Is the average Arab who hates us, for whatever reasons, going to hate us less because his rulers tell him to?
In World War I, the British had to confront an Ottoman sultan who declared a holy war against them. Recognized by millions of Muslims as both sultan and caliph, "the commander of the faithful," the Ottoman monarch and his warlords hoped they could rouse the faithful of the British Raj, where thousands of Muslims served as soldiers under the Union Jack. Some in the Foreign Office were deeply concerned. Faithful Arabs, of course, never arose en masse, though most stayed quietly loyal to the Sublime Porte. The Hashemites from Arabia--soon to be the guardians of Islam's holy cities of Mecca and Medina--however, put their fingers in the air and determined that the British Empire was going to crush the Ottoman. Being allied with a victorious infidel seemed far better than being the brother of a loser.
The Bush administration ought to reflect on the Hashemite example when voices from within and critics from without suggest that America--vastly stronger than the British Empire in 1914--somehow requires the spiritual or logistical assistance of Arabian princes for a war against the ruler of Baghdad or a war against terror. They ought to seriously question the intentions of "moderate" Arab dictators who suggest that their regimes might be in danger because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. No pro-American dictator went down in the Arab world in 1982. Broadcasting against the Israeli forces in the West Bank, and perhaps soon against American forces in Iraq, the Al Jazeera satellite television channel, which some say has completely reworked the popular dynamics and politics of the Middle East, will likely in the long term do the opposite of what its producers and reporters intend, by showing the hopelessness of opposing American power.
As Al Jazeera unintentionally served America's interests in the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, it will do so again if the Bush administration remains firm in its resolve. President Bush's moral clarity on terrorism, tyranny, and weapons of mass destruction is the best hope the Arab world has for rescuing itself from the moral abyss of suicide bombers and public sympathy for a totalitarian regime that rules through rape. The president, more so than any since Reagan, has become the prime mover of history. In the next few months, we'll all see where he leads us. In the meantime, Ariel Sharon, bellicose brute that he may be, has done America a significant favor by having the guts to send the IDF back to the West Bank, where neither he nor his army wanted to go.
Israelis who go around attacking individual Arabs are routinely prosecuted. As far as the actions of Israel are concerned, governments have an absolute monopoly on the legitimate use of deadly force. No government, or individual, has the right, for any reason whatsoever, to initiate deadly violence which is directed against noncombatants. Collateral damage is another, and a seperate issue.
Well, then! There you have it!
But, you know, this sounds like personal problems that Arabs have. It most certainly ain't on us, you knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal of a paleocon idiot!
You got that right! Praise God and pass the ammo.
Actually, according to Suetonius, in his section on Caligula in his Vitae Caesarum, what Caligula said was: 'Oderint, dum metuant.', which is translated: 'May they hate me, if only they fear me.' In any case Feenian has misrepresented both the source and the meaning of the quote on which the thread is based, out of his ignorance, or malevolence.
Once. Not presently. Perhaps long term exposure to islam is destructive? Or, maybe it would be more apt to say such exposure transforms a people into a malignant, cancerous excrescence?
There's a way to deal with them, and it has nothing to do with gentle diplomacy. Think Willie Pete - for those hard to treat infections!
Fast forward to the Clinton administration who believed the best way to foreign policy was to be loved. Since the administration had no core beliefs, they resorted to bribary and blackmail as their foreign policy.
Especially in the Arab world, to be loved is irrelevent. To be strong, by being a country that means what they say and does what they threaten makes the Arab world fear us, but respect us. Love = weakness and manipulation. Hate = respect and fear. A country that allows 10 year old boys to blow themselves up in the name of ALLa really has no concept of love.
Reagan so far has been the Only American President that has been able to gain the respect (press called it hate) of it's enemies while maintaining the love of his own people. I pray daily that God will allow Bush to achieve this very special status in American History.
So you say, but then you ended up demonstrating that it is easier to be hated than loved -- which is what I said.
All the terrorist organizations of the '70s are gone. The Red Brigades, Baader Meinhof, the Japanese Red Army, the Tupamaros, Montoneros. All save two. The IRA and the PLO. Maybe this is because both the Irish and the Arabs share a common culture of rage and resentment, and resentful losers tend to identify with other resentful losers. Both cultures like to run their mouths a lot, never forget a slight, and are hopeless prisoners of the past.
History has no greater success story than the English speaking world, a world to which you relate like the envious neer do well in a rich family. You, like the Arabs, seethe with humiliation at your weakness and failure vis a vis the modern world. Your identification with the Palestinians is therefore completely understandable.
The term " neo-con " is now like " racist ", in its misuse. It no longer means anything at all, and is used as a derogatory term , by people who lack the vocabulary and intellect to say what they actually mean. Such " code words " only muddy the waters and defeat your argument.
Power beats " respect " , every time, amongst nations .
No matter what some may claim, the USA isn't engaged in empire building . The president isn't a " Caesar " . The Roman Republic, wasn't " respected " and there wasn't a Pax Romana " until that republic folded.
The old USSR was feared and only respected by idiots. The fear of mutual destruction kept us from stepping in and stopping them from many of the horrors, that they perpitrated. Respect had nothing to do with that. Respect didn't keep the British Empire going either. Fanatical Muslims are mired in Middle Ages think . Even a " Cold War " mindset, is far too " modern " / European for them.
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.