US grand strategy and Iraq

The Hindustan Times ^ | 31 Dec 2002 | Pramit Pal Choudhuri

[JohnHuang2]

Welcome =^)

[JohnHuang2]

More than welcome, friend -- And Happy New Year to you and yours!

[JohnHuang2]

Welcome, and good morningbackatya

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent ant thought provocating article!

Bush Doctrine Unfolds :

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below:
	click here >>>	Bush Doctrine Unfold	<<< click here
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

[MJY1288]

I own a busines just outside of Washington D.C. and I have three customers who once lived in Iran and have family there now, They tell me that the current movement in Iran is very very strong and the only reason why the Mullahs havn't been thrown out is because of their fear of Saddam Hussain. They believe that once Saddam is out of the picture, they're free of serious threats. The Mullah's were able to hold off Iraq in the 80's and they watched what happened after we drove Saddam out of Kuwait, (We didn't occupy Kuwait)

Even Ray Charles could see who is the agressor and who is Liberator. I believe once Saddam and his underlings are dismantled, The Iranian people will stand up and take control from the Mullah's. This is when we need to rally the world to support them

[MJY1288]

Happy New Year to you and yours also my friend.

MJY

[Paul Ross]

This analysis could be an accurate guage of what the Administration is really thinking. But it does not change the likelihood that they are dead wrong about installing mob-democracy in this pan-arabic region. It will not change a thing. They will still adhere to the Koran. They will still oppress all other religions, and women. They will still harbor nothing but hatred for and warfare againt, the West. The basics of the vilifications against Western values have been inculcated too deep. I am not convinced that GWB's theory that the genie of democracy is able to turn these states into modern peaceful republics. Keep in mind, that Hitler came to power in a democratic Weimar Republic. I am, up to a point, willing for GWB to go ahead and try it. But we should be preparing our own people for the possibility of the failure of the scheme....and readying for the worst case scenarios...educating them as to what we really are fighting.

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

bump

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for indexing this article!

[Jumper]

Democracy in Iraq, three possible democratic states, with US and Westren Civilization support. This is the crux of opposition to America's war on terror in the Middle East. Approximately a two-thirds majority of countries "representated" at the United Nations do not allow their citizens any democracy and are either communist or run by dictators like the Arab Shieks. All tryants fear freedom and it's spread.

[Balata]

I think you are exactly right.

At this point the US can't be seen as the instigators in Iran. However, once the Iranian people stand up and take control of their own country then we'll see a strong democratic country. This will not only have the affect of regional political stabilization, but it will also decrease terrorism in the world and help to secure world energy stability.

[okie01]

You guys will want in on this.

Great article. Confirming what most FReepers figured out months ago, of course...

[akash]

Here's another view of the war on terror .....

http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/dec/31spec.htm

The Rediff Special/ Colonel Anil Athale (retd)

Terror 2002: Storing up trouble for the future

The dying moments of 2001 saw pyrrhic American victory in Afghanistan. Yet after one full year, the entire Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership and their families, numbering in their thousands, have eluded the American grasp.

As mentioned in these columns last October, the crucial delay in initial air attacks gave the Islamists ample opportunity to re-organise and disperse. 2002 saw the first stage of classic insurgency, small level hit and run attacks and some assassinations. The Islamists have established bases in eastern Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the first stage of insurgency. But such is the American dread of this form of warfare (the 'V' for Vietnam word can still cause a chill at an American gathering), that no analyst or media has dared to utter the word ?counterinsurgency,' when in reality that is what the Americans are already fighting in Afghanistan.

The Americans, who have otherwise an impressive record of military victories, are at sea when it comes to fighting insurgency. The reasons are many, but at the risk of oversimplification, it can be said to be American impatience and lack of colonial experience. The signs are there for any one to see -- a puppet government, no ideology to rival 'Islam' -- Americanism cannot be a substitute to jihadi Islam.

The gates of Kabul may yet notch up another name of another defeated aggressor. The Americans may well join such illustrious losers as Alexander, Great Britain and the Soviet Union. The signs of that happening in the future were all visible except to the Americans who want to wish away a counterinsurgency in the 21st century.

When the US suddenly turned on Iraq, it was an indirect admission that even a Hyper Power cannot alter the geo-political environment!

The ruling elite in Islamic states have been quick to seize this opportunity to demand economic aid on the plea that they need it for their exploding populations which otherwise would turn 'jihadi.' The rulers have then been clever to keep the jihadis on the right side by carrying out sham attempts to crush them. All Muslim majority countries are playing this game, but none so well as Pakistan.

Pakistan has one additional card: its nuclear capability. The fear of these falling into jihadi hands is being used to browbeat the Americans.

There has been much satisfaction in 'peace at any cost' lobbies as well as in the West that a open conflict was avoided in the subcontinent. When jihadis in a neighbouring country attack Parliament, slaughter women and children in army barracks and kill pilgrims, and the victim country exercises 'restraint,' the terrorists have succeeded in further raising the 'bar of tolerance.'

India's non action in 2002 has made it absolutely certain that an even more audacious attack will be mounted in the coming year. As the recent election in Gujarat showed, this is leading slowly but surely to a situation where a major conflagration will be inevitable.

There are two reasons for this pessimistic assessment. One is the fact that the real problem is not the jihadi element in Pakistan, they are subhuman and need to be liquidated, but the so-called moderate and modern element that connives at this. They have calculated, and so far correctly, that when push comes to shove, India will always back down. They have a 800-year history to back them up.

The second problem is the Indian establishment that is yet to absorb the nuances of nuclear 'poker.' All and sundry keep repeating the 'mantra' of deterrence when the need is for 'compellence.' Deterrence works to prevent war. But when an opponent is already at war and using force (the ongoing proxy war) mere words, threats, deployment and sabre rattling will not work. To stop the ongoing war, escalatory 'action' is absolutely necessary. It is only then a condition of parity is created and a stable equilibrium can be achieved.

US intervention has been the 'key' to peace in the subcontinent, and not fear of nuclear weapons. This belief, while it has meant temporary peace, has surely sowed the seeds of future conflict.

Indians and the Americans have failed to realise that by avoiding a limited conflict they have made sure that a major and all out conflict will take place in the future.

History is more often made by the unrelenting forces that have an independent momentum of their own. When two large ships approach each other, there comes a point beyond which a head on collusion is inevitable. The only course open then is to prepare for damage limitation. At a global and subcontinental level, in 2002, we appear to have crossed that point.

[Grampa Dave]

Excellent article and thanks for posting it.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the ping. It is an excellent article.

[Grampa Dave]

Absolutely, once the Islamofacist mass killer Uncle Soddomite is out of the picture, the Mullah thugs's heads in Iran will be decorating pikes all over Iran within a week.

Once Uncle Soddomite and the Mullahs are gone, the power of the Opecker Princes to finance terrorism and Wahhabism around the world will be gone! Israel will whack the Islamofascists in Syria, that country will be able come around too.

[185JHP]

The world will be much safer for Americans and American interests when we establish that those who threaten us, or attack us, can expect three things on a grand scale: pain death impoverishment.

[Balata]

Akash, I liked your first article better.

It seems to me the author of the second article has a very narrow and perhaps clouded perspective of the global picture. US intervention has been the 'key' to peace in the subcontinent, and not fear of nuclear weapons and it will continue to be the 'key' to peace in the area until both India and Pakistan obtain a healthy fear of each others nuclear weapons. Hopefully it won't take a nuclear event for them to gain that respect and fear.

[tsomer]

"... I am not convinced that GWB's theory that the genie of democracy is able to turn these states into modern peaceful republics ..."

You are absolutely right. This was a helluva good article, and a joy to read, but he leaves some questions unanswered:
What about Turkey's recent election of a hardliner? What about the population growth in Arab countries? How can he dismiss Iraq's relations with Al Qaeda? Why should we expect Saudi cooperation in this, when they come up short?

I still don't think democracy is the object because I don't think it is desirable for those societies, for the reasons you point out. I think we need to balance antagonists; that is the only dependable route to stability.

[Lion's Cub]

This analysis could be an accurate guage of what the Administration is really thinking. But it does not change the likelihood that they are dead wrong about installing mob-democracy in this pan-arabic region. It will not change a thing

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Jordon, Turkey, and Egypt come to mind at the moment. These were the most moderate Islamic countries, which all looked promising over past decades. Now I'm not so sure about their ability to withstand the fundamentalist trends.