Posted on 06/01/2002 4:24:03 AM PDT by krodriguesdc
World War III?
Peter Schwartz
If it is true as many are arguing that World War III has begun then it is critical to understand what the war is about, and where it might take us. Is it really a war? What are its origins? Why is the U.S. the target? What is the short-term political and military situation? And what are the resulting long-term scenarios?
The Role of the Failed States
It is convenient and easy to blame one madman, Osama bin Laden, as the villain of the story. If we get him the struggle is over. Unfortunately it is not that simple. He can carry out his evil deeds because he is the expression of a much bigger problem. He exists because throughout the Islamic world, from Pakistan to the Middle East and North Africa, there are very few successful nation states. Most of them have failed to deliver good government, progress, and prosperity for their people and they need an enemy to justify their failure. The forms of failure vary, but all have to do with the internal struggle within the Islamic world that gets turned outward from time to time, as it has now. These leaders have only succeeded in convincing large numbers of their people that the source of their ills is the West, in general, and America, more particularly. America is hated both by those who envy what we have and by those who are repelled by it.
In most of the Islamic countries the key struggle is between some form of modernism and some form of fundamentalism. As GBN’s Jay Ogilvy has rightly observed, fundamentalism is not traditionalism but an extreme reaction to modernism. Even among the modernists there is a kind of love-hate relationship with the West. They like many of the benefits, such as modern medicine and material comfort, while often disliking Western values. In some of the more successful countries of the Islamic world, such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Morocco, the balance has favored the modernists. But even there they do not wish to become like Europe or America. They want their own brand of modernization. In this respect they have more in common with their Islamic brothers in Malaysia or Indonesia then with the others in the Arabic world.
The true fundamentalists are simply the most current expression of a long struggle between Islam and Christianity that reaches back to the Crusades and more recently, colonialism. For most of the last millennium it is fair to say that Europe has tried to dominate the Arabic world, with some success. Essentially all of North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia were part of a European colonial empire, with Britain being the most significant power. With the end of overt colonialism in the ‘50s and ‘60s the new villain became the Western economy, with all its temptations creating a new kind of colonialism.
For some of the fundamentalists and fanatics it would almost be enough if the West would simply leave the Islamic world alone to fight its civil wars. (Were it not for the issue of Israel many would see it this way.) Many Islamic countries simply want the right to control their societies without interference and to withdraw from the modern Western-dominated world. They rightly believe that the West has sided with the modernists. The modernists and we believe that their people will be better off enjoying the benefits of prosperity, tolerance, and democracy. The fundamentalists, however, believe that the virtues of simplicity, absolute truth, and the wisdom of authority are the path to a better life for their people. In their view, we have supported the modernists in their own societies, violated their taboos (e.g., our forces in Saudi Arabia), and corrupted their youth with our satanic temptations.
The U.S., of course, is the biggest and most successful example of Western economic values and has become the clearest symbol of the new oppression. For the fundamentalists it is our secular and materialist life style and values that are at issue, despite the fact that we claim to be a religious nation. They see our expressions of faith undermined by our lifestyle and economic behavior. For the true fundamentalists, faith supersedes all else and anything less than true belief is hypocrisy. The fanatics see us as the symbol of decadent, secular Western power. They want nothing from us, other than to demonstrate our moral inferiority. We are the source of their poverty and exclusion. We do not hear their voices, they rightly believe.
For the failed Islamic nations, identity has become bound up with the struggle against the West. They have been able to demonize the West and especially the U.S. as the source of all their problems. Furthermore because they have a long history of nomadic and warrior cultures, struggle as an identity has a strong historical resonance. They have become addicted to struggle and success in war is a powerful indicator of virtue: Allah must be on our side if we win. (In a similar vein it is worth noting the bizarre comments of our own religious crazies, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who said that the attacks on New York and Washington succeeded because God removed his protection from the overly secular U.S. Their hateful mentality is akin to those who make war on us.)
There are at least ten key countries, in three groups, that need to be dealt with in any broad campaign against terrorism, but they are all different. The first group of nations are those that today cannot be influenced and whose own legitimacy at home is open to challenge. We have nothing to offer these governments, which include Afghanistan, Sudan, and Yemen. The second, larger group comprises countries that actually want something from the U.S. and can potentially be moved. They include Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and just possibly Syria and the Palestinians. Iraq is in a category by itself. Our strategy needs to be different for each group of countries.
For the first group our goal ought to be to oust the illegitimate regimes. In the case of Afghanistan it ought not to be to conquer the nation but rather to remove the Taliban and place a new group in power. This cannot be accomplished by a massive bombing campaign. The Russians already did that; destruction was the only the outcome. We need to send in ground forces to fight alongside willing Afghanis and capture or kill all the Taliban leaders. Furthermore, we must define and accept only good behavior on the part of the new leaders we install so that we don’t simply replace one dreadful government with another. The message to Sudan and Yemen should be clear: if they do not change their ways we will come for them, too. Indeed there are already signs that the Sudanese are getting the message.
All of the nations amenable to influence are important. In the short run Pakistan is most important, but Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran all bear responsibility for the terror network. Each is torn by conflict between the modernists and the fundamentalists and each has its share of true fanatics like Osama bin Laden. The more progressive elements in these countries need to find a way to be part of the West without enraging their more conservative populations to the degree that an uprising brings them down. Domestically, all of these countries need to act against the radical extremes, both homegrown and visitors. Syria and the Palestinians have much to gain from stronger ties to the West. Obviously Israel is critical to any progress with respect to these two nations.
When it comes to Iraq, the possibilities are much more ambiguous. That they have been engaged in supporting the terror network is clear, but what to do about it is less so. We were not prepared to take out Saddam before and it does not appear that we are today. We may want to postpone action on Iraq until we are in a stronger position.
War Aims
Most of all, this is a moral war. The radical fundamentalists believe they are fighting for the soul of the world and that America is the arm of Satan; therefore, to hurt America is to hurt Satan. While broad responses across military, political, and social fronts are important it is the moral dimension that is most central to the war aims. The U.S. and the West, more broadly, must demonstrate our moral superiority to the current and prospective followers of bin Laden and his compatriots. We cannot engage those who have made hate their identity, but we can win adherents from the larger population to our side, based on how we deal with this crisis.
For Osama bin Laden, triggering a war between the West and the Islamic world would be the biggest possible success. His hope is to provoke us into an indiscriminate and excessive response. His attack on the United States was intended to demonstrate to his followers that Allah is on his side and supports his aims. He also believes that he can terrify the American people whom he views as weak, decadent, and afraid to fight.
Thus, the U.S. must also pursue a moral victory. Our response must be precise, measured, and supported by a wide community of nations. Best of all it would be carried out by that community in concert with America. Not only must it bear the moral dimension; it actually should destroy the capacity of the terror network to do more harm. Our targets must be both the terror network and the governments that support it. We must punish the evil doers by eradicating them to demonstrate that such behavior will result not in victory but in the end for their cause. We cannot fail in these aims; if we do it will only invite more attacks.
A Multidimensional Strategy
Swords then plowshares must be the essence of the West’s strategy. The military response will come first but then we must act boldly and generously to address the causes which create such fertile soil for fanatics. We must win a military-intelligence victory and then help build successful nations out the collection of failed societies and lead in building a more legitimate international order.
Any strategy we pursue is best done in concert with a broad anti-terrorist alliance that includes Europe, Russia, China, and as many Islamic nations as we can get to join. Unilateral action needs to be the last resort if collective will fails. This is an opportunity to reinforce and reinvigorate old and creaky alliances. It is also an opportunity for Russia and China to join the West. And for some of the Islamic nations that have tried to play both sides of the fence it is an opportunity to cast their lot with the West. It may even be possible to win over former enemies such as Iran and Syria. It appears that Colin Powell is devoting himself to this task, which bodes well for success.
Military victory not only involves coalition building but also finding the right military strategy. While high-tech weapons such as cruise missiles almost certainly will play a role, the main action will be fought on the ground—in some cases, literally hand-to-hand. It will be fought by Special Forces and covert operatives and in the end by conventional soldiers. The objective is not conquest but the elimination of regimes that support and enable terror and the destruction of as much of the terror network as possible. Because we are dealing with a tangled network rather than a hierarchical army, victory will necessarily involve many small battles over a long time rather than a huge battle that ends swiftly. John Arquilla and David Ronfelt described this new conflict well in their study The Advent of Netwar, in which networks of highly capable small teams rather than massed armies, are the key fighting units. In his Washington Post article "Disconnecting the Dots" Joel Garreau identified what it takes to successfully challenge a well-prepared network.
There is also an economic dimension to victory. We have to be able to sustain our own war effort in the short run. This means effective economic management in a near-war setting. It is not implausible that more attacks will come and that the economic damage could be much higher. Imagine if more airliners are brought down or the Western power grid seriously disrupted. Can we imagine a well functioning economy without airlines and reliable electricity? Policies like tax cuts, infrastructure spending, and government R&D all take on new meanings in this context. Our economic strategy ought to aim to hurt our enemies in the short run and rebuild and develop them in the long run. We may need a "Marshall" Plan for the poor and disenfranchised of the world.
Finally there is a social dimension to our strategy. Most of all we need to take the cultures of these antagonistic countries seriously and recognize their grievances. We must convince them that we are listening to them at last. We must help them find their place in the modern world. We have argued that they are undemocratic regimes, but democracy and its handmaiden, transparency, are almost absent in the global arena. We need to make global institutions such as the IMF and the WTO more transparent and democratic. In addition we need to create new kinds of global regulatory mechanisms to serve our individual nations such as in the areas of environment and finance. But all of this depends upon them wanting to join.
The Short-term Military Situation
Terrorism has moved from the criminal to the military arena and from the FBI to DoD and the clandestine services. This was a military act by a non-state actor. They have been playing war while we were playing cops and robbers. We’ve talked about this possibility for a long time, but didn’t really take it seriously until now.
It is highly likely that the attacks on New York and Washington were not the last on our soil. With a few weeks or months there may be another equally deadly attack on other highly visible and symbolic targets. Imagine, for example, the release of poison gas at the World Series. Such an incident would only demonstrate further that there is no meaningful defense against such attacks. There is only coping after the fact and going on the offense—hitting them so hard that they cannot hurt us any longer and then helping to reduce the causes that underlie their grievances.
The war itself could be quick and limited, but that seems unlikely. More plausible is a lengthy and deep war along many fronts. Damaging a network is hard. We can be fairly confident that Osama bin Laden did not act alone and that even if we get him others will rise to challenge us. Indeed, if he really trained over 10,000 men in his camps in Afghanistan and then scattered them around the world then there are many hundreds of cells still waiting to attack. Like the war on drugs, this war could drag on for a long time. Even so, the risk of a Vietnam-like quagmire appears to be low. The NLF did not attack the U.S. and popular support for war in America is much higher today than it was in the Vietnam era.
There also appears to be little risk of using oil as a weapon. OPEC has already announced that it will increase production if necessary to keep prices from soaring in the face of conflict. However, if this conflict destabilizes the pro-American Saudi regime then the price of oil could soar, because almost all the marginal supply is in their oil fields.
The Long-term Geopolitical Situation
This crisis is an opportunity for the Bush administration to repair the damage it has done to our alliances and strategic relationships in the first months of its rule. If it leads effectively in building a new anti-terror coalition and helps initiate a new Marshall plan for the Islamic world then this horror could yet have a positive outcome. If Russia and China choose to join the West, if India and Pakistan find an accommodation, and if former foes like Iran and Syria cooperate, then this crisis could lead to a positive geopolitical scenario.
On the other hand, if Kevin Kelly is right, radical Islam may be the "new" communism, which gives hope to the oppressed and challenges the West. In this case we could be in for a darker future—a long, very violent, and highly disruptive future. Imagine a world like Robert Kaplan’s "Coming Anarchy." This is a scenario of a disintegrating world economy, characterized by environmental decay and perpetual and ubiquitous violence. The net warriors persist in disrupting the world for years to come.
Finally the U.S. could fail in its leadership role and end up as the "rogue superpower." We would be confronted by coalitions of denial, all aiming to constrain U.S. power and action. Fortunately, the signs so far lean toward a future based on collaboration rather than unilateral power. If this really is a war then heroic efforts are called for both in the inevitable military necessities and in addressing the underlying causes of this war.
The implications of these developments for business are likely to be significant. In the near term, economic recovery has been pushed further into the future and the downturn is likely to be deeper. It is also not clear that the historical war economy effects will come into play. This is not a war that is likely to consume vast numbers of tanks, bombers, and ships. If the world response produces more effective integration, governance, and even a rise in the standard of living for the poorest among us then the long-run economic potential will continue to grow. If, however, the forces of disintegration and chaos predominate then business could be in for hard times for years to come.
Geez, did this come from Madeline Albright's press office?
Look, the author stated it way back in the first paragraphs of the article. These people come from a nomadic culture that respects strength and victory, and sees anything else as evidence of decadence, vacillation, and weakness. So instead of sending the Secretary of State running around the globe like the world's nervous nanny every time something ugly happens, we should retaliate instantly and squash them like bugs. In time, they will learn not to risk hurting us.
Coupled with this, of course, we should also make like a good shepherd and keep the flock out of their wretched and pestilential little countries.
This is mostly BS. These states were mostly "front-line" states during the Cold War. The modernists tended to be aligned with the Soviet Union (or at least that was our perception -- e.g. Mossedegh, Nasser, Asad, Quaddafi), and the US backed the fundamentalists (e.g. Shah of Iran, King of Jordan, King of Saudi Arabia, Pakistani ISI, Emirs, King of Morrocco).
A consequence of winning the Cold War is that the fundamentalists win in the Middle East.
For most of the last millennium it is fair to say that Europe has tried to dominate the Arabic world, with some success.
No, for most of the past 1,500 years the Muslims have tried to dominate the world, including Europe. Europeans reacted, mostly defensively. Only in the last couple of hundred years were the tables turned, when Europe gained technological ascendancy.
It's also extremely naive to think that, at this point, Saudi Arabia is our friend. To the contrary, they are among our most dangerous enemies. They are the cesspool right at the bottom of the worst Islamic terrorism, and they are still working against us. They do so covertly, because they know they are vulnerable, despite all their oil wealth and religious leverage through control of the Islamic holy places.
No, a new Marshal Plan wouldn't work. The original Marshal Plan put civilized Europe back on its feet again. With the Arabs, there is no similar cultural or civilizational basis to work with. We have already pumped more than a hundred billion dollars into the region--despite all their oil wealth and supposed religious brotherhood, these people have proved incapable of helping themselves--and the money has only served to make matters worse, funding explosing population growth and sick education systems.
About the only thing he gets right is that this will be a long, difficult, and dangerous war. Where it is going, and whether America still has the nerve and courage to fight it to the end, remains to be seen. There are still plenty of courageous men and women left in this country, but there are also plenty of moral morons without honor. We are going to be tested, I think.
First we are to be the worlds policemen, but now we must also be the worlds therapist?
Nonsense. Islamic countries will never succeed because their religion embraces primitivism. Picture, if you will, nations filled with militant Amish. Could any amount of help we offered them make the slightest bit of difference?
Exactly the wrong approach. Such Western interference is exactly the type of thing which has bred more hatred, not less.
As proven by the billions of petro-dollars that have flowed into Saudi Arabia.
The richer they become, the more they are tempted by the Western pleasures. The more they partake of Western pleasures, the guiltier they feel. The guiltier they feel, the more they blame America for "currupting" them. The more they blame America, the more they hate America. The more they hate America, the harder they try to destroy us.
Radical Islam is the root cause. As long as Radical Islam lives, the horror will continue.
It should be pointed out that while no European nation currently rules any Muslim lands in the Middle East, a Muslim nation still rules the European section of the ancient city of Constantinople.
I think the same could have been said about Shintoism and militant German nationalism. We successfully therapized Japan and Germany through military conquest and then occupation.
Perhaps, but I am not sure we have the means to occupy and convert countries containing 1.4 billion people -- which is the current count on Islamics.
Well, the thing is, many Arabs have a similar view of the West...
If the WTO/One World/Globalist types just stayed in "the West" then, probably, normal interactions, normal dynamics of international trade could take place. But the whole philosophy of the WTO/One World/Globalist types is built around expansion and growth. Without the CONSTANT growth, stagnation -- market saturation, resource depletion, other MBA type things -- makes the whole consumerist hierarchy/Ponzi scheme start to get shaky, shaky, shaky...
The WTO/One World/Globalist types have been "attacking" and "infiltrating" the Arab world through Arab quislings for generations. It seems to have come to a head over Lebanon.
Lebanon occupied a very special place in America's "New World Order System" in the Middle East. The utility of Lebanon lay in the fact that it was a "CHRISTIAN" enclave in the midst of a sea of Muslims (a place where "things" could be "accomplished" in the Middle East in ways that otherwise would be impossible were Muslims in charge); but the influx of all these refugees began to seriously erode the "Christian" character of the state, and in the process threaten the continued rule of America's lackey in that country, the Gemayel family and their Christian Phalange Party.
The Phalange Party had been set up by the Maronite Christian Gemayel family in the 1930s. The Maronite Christian community in Lebanon is an ancient community that - like the Coptic Christian community in Egypt and the Armenians in Jerusalem - has existed in the Middle East since the establishment of Christianity in the area in Roman and Byzantine times. After the collapse of Christian power in the Middle East in the latter half of the First Millennium, the Maronite community became important as a business "go-between" between the Muslim world and the Christian world.
Finally, after the disintegration of Turkish (Ottoman) power in the Near East and the Levant in 1919, the Maronite community (which by then constituted roughly one-half of the population in Lebanon) seized power in that country in conjunction with its French patrons and reduced the Muslim population to a kind of indentured servitude in the employ of their Christian masters. The consequence of all this served to heighten Lebanon's status as a "CIVILIZED" "Christian" enclave in the Middle East, a playground for rich Christians doing business there. By the late 1930s, Beirut was being touted as the "Paris of the Middle East."
After the Second World War, the Americans took over from the French as the Maronite community's patron, and hoards of Americans descended on Beirut and made it their playground, just as the French had done before them. Soon the American University in Beirut became a place where rich American students on leave from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and other elite colleges and universities in the United States could spend a year or so as dilettantes and dabblers in "Arabic Study Programs." And not only that, countless numbers of "academics" queued up to teach there. The American University in Beirut became a place where "pretend" academics - professors as well as students - could retreat to and fake the pursuit of their studies or professions while all the while enjoying the Paris-like atmosphere of Beirut - a "Paris" that offered the pleasures of the Mediterranean Ocean and a climate to "die for." In addition to all this, Beirut also became the "city of choice" where America's oil elites could "dump" their families while they ventured on into the more "inhospitable" areas of the Middle East in quest of oil - places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Libya, Bahrain, Iran, Quatar, etc. - regions where no Western women and spoiled American teenagers would dare to go.
[...]
It was in Lebanon that the contagion of Islamic fundamentalism first took hold on the Palestinians and TURNED THE WAR BETWEEN THEM AND THE ISRAELIS INTO A HOLY WAR; and because of that, it was in Lebanon that SUICIDE BOMBERS (which religious fanaticism ALONE produces) were first introduced into the scheme of things in the Middle East - blowing up the Marine Barracks and the U.S. Embassy there, and ultimately driving the U.S. out of Beirut like a dog with its tail between its legs. But the key thing to remember here is that the concept of "SUICIDE IN THE NAME OF GOD" originated in Iran, not in Palestine, where it was practiced on a MASSIVE scale by the Iranians against the Iraqis during the Iran/Iraq Border War in the early to mid 1980s.
[...]
But not so with the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This was absolute RELIGIOUS fanaticism of the purest kind, and it was not - in the first instance - directed against Israel at all. It was directed against what the Mullah's of Iran perceived to be the world's "GREAT SATAN," the United States!! IT WAS, AFTER ALL, THE UNITED STATES THAT HAD SUSTAINED THE SHAH IN POWER; it was U.S. oil companies that had been robbing the people of Iran blind of their oil wealth; it was the CIA-trained SAVAK that had run the Shah's torture chambers - and not only did the Mullah's know all this, the people knew it as well. All this to say, that IT ISN'T ISRAEL THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALIST "FRANKENSTEIN," IT IS THE UNITED STATES, and specifically, the greedy, self-serving economic policies the oil companies the U.S. sponsors in the Middle East pursue.
[very short excerpt from "THE COMING WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST," published September 4, 2001, by: S.R. Shearer ]
When cultures and civilizations are allowed to remain autonomous, then, within reason, peace seems to be possible.
But when a relatively small number of businessmen are allowed to place THEIR "good" in the position of the "good of the nation" then hell is set loose on Earth.
China did not send warships to Britain. And Britain didn't send warships to China because Britain wanted land. And Britain was not afraid China was about to send warships. Britain sent warships to China because a tiny number of British businessmen managed to position THEIR GOOD as the "good of the nation" and then use the national assets of Britain -- the British military might -- to, so to speak, beat the crap out of China, knock her to the ground, and then hold her down while they injected her with drugs and got her hooked...
That was more than a hundred years ago, but it established the theme of the modern era. Nation-states are now just pawns used by the WTO/One World/Globalist types to inject their poison into anyone who won't actually beg them to do it themselves.
Mostly everone in America who has 1) thought about the situation; and 2) not gotten directly involved in profitting from it; hates the WTO/One World/Globalist types almost as much as the Arab.
Look at the way American values have been screwed with over the last few generations. Look at the way American culture has been corrupted and spit on over the last few generations.
The only difference is that Americans -- by and large Christians or people shaped by Christian values -- simply don't have the option of waging psycho war against WTO/One World/Globalist types the way the Arabs do.
-- KotS
Unfortunately, they will carry it beyond their borders. There's about a millenium's worht of precedent to establish that fact. Containment didn't work for the Germanic tribes, it hasn't worked for Communism, and it will not work for the Muslims. They are pushing us to a point where they will need to be exterminated.
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.