AN AXIS TO GRIND: The War Won't End in Baghdad

I would guess that your premise is that in order for freedom to spread to all these countries, they would have to be militarily conquered and then administered, in some Neo-Empire "white man's burden" type of scenario? Is there any room in your world for the idea that when a corrupt and terrorist regime falls, that it changes the equation in ways that are not possibly straight line? That repressive regimes face internal pressures that can be tweaked and enhanced by our support but not neccessarily by military intervention has not occured to you? In addition, you seem to see US support of regimes that are non democratic but non-the-less manipulable renders all discussion of this subject academic and hypocritical. I am profoundly amazed and in awe of the demonstrations in Iran. That is courage. But it reminds me of the "Persians" I knew in University. Never underestimate the human desire for freedom.

regards

Yes. there is quite a bit of room in "my world" for that type of action. However- what is being discussed and proffered in this article is so much more than that. We are debating whether or not to wage war and invade a country- not "tweak" it through other more discreet means.

Ledeen: But the prudent strategy is actually more dangerous and thoroughly unrealistic. Moving step by step gives the surviving terror masters time to mount a counterattack--time they would use to develop the weapons of mass destruction that rightly concern us, and give urgency to our cause.

Sound like a lot more than "tweaking" to me.

There are four such regimes: in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

You are of course right in your comments. Bush has been ne using a divide and conquer approach to the middle east ever since 9/11. Such a strategy has the greatest chance of success.

Unite our enemies so lots of us can die fighting them is not too bright... unless the suggester gets to watch while others fight and die. Covering fighting and dying is a good career move. Divide them and then overthrow them one at a time is a good political move for a leader... and that is the Bush policy. We have in effect subverted Pakistan and Afghanistan. That is 2 of the 10 Muslim nations. If we can do Iraq we will have made a major dent in problems we created.

We need to remember that both England and France wanted to retain the middle east as colonies after WWII. I submit the world would be a safer place if they had. It was the combined idealism of Truman and Eisenhower that allowed the rise of these rogue states. They had visions of middle eastern Deomocracy and other silly ideas. It was Jimmy Carter who helped in the resurection of Muslim exrtremists in Iran. That silly Jimmy carter act so applauded by our media, in many ways started us down this tragic and costly path we find ourselves on. We have a history of idealistically shooting ourselves in the foot.

But we can't undo the past. It seems to me the solution that works best is divide and conquer. Anyone who studied the rise of the Soviet Union will understand how client nations can be won by force that was expended to subdue othernations. Do it two or three times and rogue nations get the message.

Dictators don't like to be ex dictators. If get right with the USA or be an ex dictator is the choice, get right with the USA will win the day.

We need to take down one of the 4 bad nations. Then take down the second. That can likely effect the desired changes in the 3 and 4th nations without much effort on our part.

A sad fact that complecates the matter is the USA will not drill for its own oil. And if we took on all the Arabs and they cut off the oil, we would have to propel our fighter aircraft with rubber bands and row our supply ships to the middle east.

The only path that makes sense is divide and conquer. No one could truly believe that we could win a frontal attack war without middle eastern oil. Those who think we can are just not thinking.

As I used to tell my staff. Journalists don't get paid to think. They get paid to create thought provoking discussions and to elect Democrats.

"Sounds a lot more than "tweaking" to me."

Indeed it is, but is does not neccessarily require massive intervention thru conventional warfare. A clear demonstration of force and will, will send a clear message. Those who are in power understand the message and may or may not respond as we would like. Hussein is a megalomaniac. The extent to which his oil will purchase support remains to be seen. But a conquered Iraq will give a very strong message to our "allies" and enemies alike. What they do with the information will not be clear for some time. It's not a game for the faint hearted to be sure. The fact remains. A regime that sits upon oil reserves has decided to force the world to its knees. Some bow willingly and get what they want for a time. Some resist and earn the "World's" enmity. That means of course that most of the world would prefer to let a radical and vicious world view prevail in hopes that it will focus elsewhere. Ok. It will be us for a while, and then who is next? And if we don't deal with it, is there any hope at all?

regards

A war against Iraq would unite the entire Arab world. Even the governments in the region that we prop up don't support it because they know it and it would threaten their existence and may even cause collapse to radical islamic forces. Ten years ago correspondents allowed into Iraq talked of the western appearence of the women in contrast to other Muslem nations. Now they mention the amazing increase of shrouded women in the streets and the rise in attendence to mosques and the observance of daily prayer. This is a form of protest against Sadaam and his secular regime to be sure- but it is an anti western radical islamic protest. They don't look to the West to deliver them from oppression. They look within their own culture and what they see as a deliverer is Al Queda and radical fascistic Islam.

Sadaam's oil has nothing to do with "purchasing support". What the Arab in the street will see from Indonesia to Morrocco is that "Islam" is being attacked by the west and that their corrupt rulers who are on the payroll and that oppress them will do nothing about it and let it happen.

To be honest this is so obvious that I seriously doubt that any of this war talk against Iraq is for real and it is all one big ruse on the part of Bush designed to lull Osama into the open and his true supporters. I would not be surprised if Iraq and Hussein are in on it with us.

Ezekiel chapters 37 and 38 describe the rebirth of the nation of Israel [1948?] and a great war which begins when Russia [Hebrew = rosh -] and the now middle easter countries [using their ancient names] attack Israel. Togarmah is Turkey and Gomer is Germany. 15 years ago the reference to Germany didn't make sense - but with its rabid anti-semitism growing and its support for Iraq and dissing of the U.S. it doesn't look so implausible. Will what happened to Iran [the Shah's overthrow by Islamists] happen to Turkey? Also, the southern republics of the old Soviet Union are all Islamic or border Islamic states, and anti-semitism is growing in Russia [and Europe] at an alarming rate. And there is certainly enough difficulty in interpreting prophecy to always allow for plenty of alternate views. But world events certainly more closely resemble Ezekiel's prophecies than ever, and Zechariah 14 sounds like something out of todays news headlines:

(Zec 12:2 KJV) Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. (Zec 12:3 KJV) And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Does Ledeen have a TV? Has he seen the reacitons of the common man in the street to 9/11?

And basing one's opinion on what you see on TV is, of course, scholarly. If you want to go that route, how about including the information-starved Afghanis who didn't even know about 9/11, until newsmen told them about it? Or those who celebrated liberation from the Taliban in the streets of Kabul? Or the anti-regime demonstrations by the Iranians that have been verified by several different news sources? Of course, the latter weren't televised (something to do with government-controlled media, I believe), so, of course, in your well-wrapped reasoning, those events don't exist.

As for Huntington, there are a few things he did not take into account in his diagnosis: chiefly, the violence of Miltant Islamists against Muslims. The oppression and brutality that characterizes the Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian and Saudi Arabian regimes may make for apparent solidarity, but only because the alternative -- dissent -- is punishable by death, or worse. Maybe these people aren't ready for democracy, but it's a safe assumption that the very humanity of the common man cries out for an existence with some semblance of freedom and dignity, in whatever form that might take. Look to the secular government of Turkey for a model; it isn't exactly utopia, but it's a damn sight better than the living hell endured by the common man in Iraq.

There's no quick cure-all, but it's better to fight trying to change things, albeit slowly and with difficulty, then simply waiting for the cancer of militant Islam to spread and engulf the world. It's exactly that failed policy of appeasement that brought us 9/11, and that will bring us even darker days in the years ahead if we do nothing to change these regimes.

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.