So America, in returning to Iraq 12 years on, is embarking on its boldest gamble in decades--a new Middle Eastern domino theory that says the liberation of Iraq is the best way to reform Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and beyond. Yes, it's a long shot, but in this discussion it's the fellows who insist you can never implant Western concepts like the rule of law and economic activity who are being the simpletons. The modern ''Middle East'' is an Anglo-French invention that they never had time to complete: They're like Baron von Frankenstein interrupted in his lab while he's still fine-tuning the formula and chased off by the excitable burghers, leaving the monster to break free of his shackles and stagger off down the hill to terrorize the village. But, even as a failed and prematurely abandoned experiment, certain distinctions can be observed: A rough rule of thumb is that the least worst countries in the region are those which were most Britannicized. The continuing ''moderation'' (comparatively) of Jordan and the Gulf emirates is essentially the enduring legacy of the Colonial Office. Were Iraq to be restored to its 1950s condition as a ramshackle Hashemite backwater, that in itself would constitute an almighty improvement in a part of the world that could certainly use some. Writing about last year's Arab League summit, Jonathan Kay of Canada's National Post noted that if Zimbabwe's election-fixing strongman Robert Mugabe had shown up, he's have been the most democratically legitimate leader in the room.
No one knows what regional ''reform'' will look like down the road. The odds are not good. But they're better than the certainty of disaster that another couple of decades of Baathism, Wahhabism, Hamas and the Ayatollahs will bring. When the most prominent Saudi trust-fund baby is Osama bin Laden and the most famous middle-class Egyptian is Mohammed Atta and the only example of Arab pluralism is a Christian deputy prime minister of Iraq who enjoys gassing Kurds and lobbing Scuds at Israel as much as his Muslim masters do, one thing is sure: The status quo is not an option.
No one knows what regional ''reform'' will look like down the road. The odds are not good. But they're better than the certainty of disaster . . .
. . . one thing is sure: The status quo is not an option.
"domino theory". An apt phrase, that!Thomas Friedman of The NY Times said on C-Span that although he thought that the US had botched the prewar diplomacy (and I make no doubt that Colin Powell has said/done some things he would like to have back), he felt that the Administration will do what must be done in the war and the development of peace in Iraq. He noted, correctly IMHO, that there really is no choice but to clean things up properly.
In that context, Bush has said that the petroleum resource "belongs to the Iraqi people." I for one believe that the sensible way to realize that is not for the US to give a new Iraqi government that huge resource, but to immediately begin paying royalties to individual checking accounts established in the name of each citizen of that country.
We must present the new government an accomplished fact of the Iraqi people feeling entitled to huge royalties from that production, rather than feeling dependent on the government for largess. And I would prefer that the development of Iraqi reserves should be done competitively and independent of OPEC.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so painfully true.
Half the time I can't tell which one I dispise more, Hussain or Chirac.