WHY are we in Iraq? It is not, as some ranters claim, because George Bush is stupid and bloodthirsty and John Howard a spineless crawler. Nor is it because the US has regressed to Wilsonian imperialism. For those seriously interested in the question I recommend a seriously interesting new book, America's Secret War by George Friedman. Friedman is founder of Stratfor, a private, subscription-financed global intelligence service, which I find consistently well-informed. Friedman writes of the struggle in Iraq in relentlessly Realpolitik terms.
Although the US believed Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, the WMDs were ultimately "a cover for a much deeper game". The big game began with the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and the US enlisting the assistance of Saudi Arabia in backing the Afghan resistance. The Saudis provided financing and guerilla fighters. They influenced other Islamic countries to send guerillas. This international brigade included members of Islam's moneyed and educated elite (including Osama bin Laden) - the core of al-Qa'ida. When the Soviet Union retreated from Afghanistan, this elite had become knowledgeable veterans of guerilla warfare, full of swagger about defeating the world's second superpower.
The oil billionaires back home, impressed with themselves for "bailing the Americans out", financed the warrior elite and the fundamentalist Taliban regime in Afghanistan. From this fortress headquarters, Friedman writes, al-Qa'ida ("the Base" in English) pressed its grand design for an Islamist world federation, a new Caliphate, which would ultimately match, if not dominate, other superpowers. Global terrorism would be the means. Al-Qa'ida's opening moves - attacks on American embassies and other establishments abroad - were aimed, in Friedman's opinion, less at damaging the US than provoking it to a reckless assault on Islam. This, al-Qa'ida believed, would stir the "Islamic street" to a confrontational mood with the West and rebellion against non-fundamentalist Islamic regimes, establishing the foundations of the great federation. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, the US, confident of its hegemony, had concluded that "war was now optional", that no power existed that could force it into war.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Whether this was the explicit intent or not, I have always maintained that the campaign against Saddam was necessary to show the Muslim world that the US will not tolerate Muslim countries warring upon the US using their plausibly-deniable terrorist proxies. The non-discovery of WMD's has enhanced US credibility among Muslim countries - especially if they believe that the US was deliberately lying about WMD's - they now know that Uncle Sam will leave no stone unturned in its quest for revenge if another Muslim-sponsored terror attack occurs on US soil.
#2
Splendid analysis. The time, effort and expenses required to move the personnal, infrastructure and equipment to Iraq was daunting...but it is done (and maintaining the presence is much easier). Now the forces are IN Theater, and guaranteed to give serious pause to Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
I agree with Zhang Fei...whether is was deliberate or not, it has us perfectly positioned now.
#4
Good point re. gaining credibility--convince the jihadists of America's determination to wage battle on their turf, and take casualties-- but this analysis overlooks the fact that the driving force for war vs Iraq was Wolfowitz, who had for many years prior to 9/11 argued for taking out Saddam. Also note that this emphasis on "credibility" recalls the Nixon-Kissinger Vietnam strategy, a realpolitik approach that Wolfowitz and other neo-cons explicitly rejected as early as the 1970s. I think there were multiple objectives re the Iraq War, objectives that meld realpolitik with anti-Saddamist democratic goals.
#6
Politics in the service of cold hard interests defined as power. Rejection of politics in the service of transcendent ideals such as promoting democracy and human rights. Forexample a realpolitiker would support the Khmer Rouge against the VietCong regime, even though the KR had a few million skulls in their wake.
Kissinger was the uber-realist in recent US history, not merely for his actions but also for his calculations and motivation. He and Nixon sought arms control agreements with the soviets while attempting to counter soviet moves in the third world by means of all manner of tyrants and thugs, partly because Kissinger had concluded that US democracy was weak, its military-industrial-financial power inexorably declining.
It was the neo-cons who challenged both of these notions, the belief that we could defend US interests without seeking to promote democracy in the third world and also the belief that the US could not aggressively stand up to, and roll back, the Soviet Union. It's Wolfowitz and Perle who are the idealists today.
#7
I don't think there's such a thing as a pure national interest- or ideals-driven foreign policy analyst out there. Some of the ideals-driven language is a cloak for a national interest-driven policy. Policies driven by ideals always sound a lot better than policies driven by national interests. But the reality is that just as the WWII's Crusade for Democracy wasn't actually fought solely for that purpose, Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't fought to liberate the Iraqis. Wolfowitz saw an opening in the Middle East to establish a beach head for permanent regional influence in the same way Uncle Sam did in Japan and Germany. Iraq was that beach head.
#9
My point is this - how do you get coalition allies to sign on for a war to advance American interests in the Middle East? You don't, which is why you name the invasion plan Operation Iraqi Freedom and talk about WMD's (until finding them turned out to be problematic). Ideals-based is wonderful, but national interest-based is how you justify sacrificing young American lives, not because we don't like the Iraqis, but because only national interests justify this scale of sacrifice. To save Muslim lives, Mogadishu was an excessive price to pay. To save America from a nuclear 9/11, a dozen Iraqs wouldn't be too high a price.
#10
how do you get coalition allies to sign on for a war to advance American interests in the Middle East?
Through the application of power, the same way the head of the House Ways and Means Committee gets the bill he wants. You tell them, this is really important to us, and if you support us, we won't forget you. And if you oppose us, we won't forget it either.
#11
lex: Through the application of power, the same way the head of the House Ways and Means Committee gets the bill he wants. You tell them, this is really important to us, and if you support us, we won't forget you. And if you oppose us, we won't forget it either.
This only partially works when many of the countries you want in the coalition have leaders who are elected by the people, many of whom are mildly anti-American because of the local media and local politicians who see America-bashing as a way to score points for courage without any personal consequences. This is why you need an overarching theme to rope 'em in. In Iraq, those theme were freedom and WMD's.
#12
I see your point. Agree that was essential for Blair's support-- after all, he's a liberal Christian idealist-- but not with Schroeder/Fischer. I'd guess that Aznar was more keen on continuing to elevate Spain's stature than about freedom or WMDs. Ditto for the Poles.
#14
Especially with Bush's reelection, the smaller coalition members -- and I don't denigrate them by saying this-- have gotten themselves the deal of the century. Send 500 troops to Iraq, have ten carrier battle groups at your disposal, plus the 82nd Airborne and the US Marines. Spain and Turkey, on the other hand, have screwed themselves right into the ground. "Mr. President, we urgently need (click)"
Posted by: Matt ||
11/29/2004 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#15
An invasion of Saudi Arabia presented the tactical problem of waging war against a country of vast area and the strategic one of disrupting the world's oil supplies.
Um? Perhaps I've not been paying attention, but surely it's strange to be talking of "invading" Saudi Arabia, a country in which we had a huge airbase, a country we could take over in an afternoon and still be in time for happy hour (now legal in the 40km strip along the coast, which would be the only part we'd bother with--who needs the "vast area" of sand?). The main problem with invading Saudi Arabia would be the global PR. Perhaps we could have gotten away with it, if only we'd been sufficiently bloodthirsty.
#16
I think there's actually basic agreement here, and that the ideals/pragmatic interests dichotomy is false in most real-world cases. Often there's a blend of pragmatic interests and idealistic objectives at work.
In Iraq I think there's such a blend of the pragmatic and idealistic that there's actually no distinction. Democratic ideas, rule of law, and a decent civil society are WEAPONS in the the context of the MidEast. They both enhance the chances of promoting non-hostile regimes and directly and materially imperil our enemies (of all kinds) there. But you can break down the case into several parts to make it more clear.
WMD was the essential triggering factor, in the context of 9/11. No 9/11, no proven Iraqi WMD capacity and vast $$ and technical resources and pattern of reckless malevolence against the US, no terror connections including AQ -- no Op Iraqi freedom. But a practical need to pre-empt an intolerable and uncontainable proliferation/terror-support source leads to an unavoidable task of shaping a post-war political situation. Here the ideals of self-rule and rule of law coincide with the pragmatic consideration that simply installing a new autocracy would be less likely to serve our interests than some sort of democratic arrangement. As the costs of promoting a more democratic outcome are likely no different than those of simply installing "our SOB" (Sunni hold-outs would fight an American client strongman just as strongly, and for basically the same reason, as they are fighting a democratic path), the choice was clear.
I don't disagree with any of lex's or ZF's points on the larger diplomatic picture, and the varying motivations of different countries WRT Iraq. It's just that there is no neccessary conflict or even distinction between our practical and moral objectives, in many cases. Though it is partially attenuated by the strategic dementia, moral confusion, and free-rider pathologies afflicting both w. Europe and select US elites, this confluence of moral and practical interests is one factor accounting for the awesome power the US now brings to the table.
#17
Bush is too polite to hang up on a foreign head of state. I suspect the response would probably be, "I'm sure you meant to call President Chiraq. B and C are next to eachother in the alphabet and I can see how you might have called this number in error. Please hold while I transfer your call to Jacques now."
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/29/2004 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#18
"strategic dementia, moral confusion, and free-rider pathologies"
Great turn of phrase. Angie, I think the point is threat value and the "strong horse" factor.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/29/2004 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Verlaine: It's just that there is no neccessary conflict or even distinction between our practical and moral objectives, in many cases.
We are diplomatically engaged everywhere in service of our ideals, but only national interests will bring about large scale American military engagement.
#20
Verlaine: It's just that there is no neccessary conflict or even distinction between our practical and moral objectives, in many cases.
We are diplomatically engaged everywhere in service of our ideals, but only national interests will bring about large scale American military engagement.
"Thanks for callin', Zap-man. Let me transfer you to the administrative assistant of the Second Assistant Undersecretary of State for Chickenshit Affairs. She'll take a message. If I were you, I'd talk real slow."
Posted by: Matt ||
11/29/2004 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I think there's actually basic agreement here, and that the ideals/pragmatic interests dichotomy is false in most real-world cases. Often there's a blend of pragmatic interests and idealistic objectives at work.
Seems that way in retrospect but while events are happening there are often very stark choices to be made. Do we support Yushchenko and tell Putin to keep his hands off of Ukraine?
Flash back to 1996: Do we give arms to the muslim terror organization called the Kosovar Liberation Army?
Flash back to 1986: Do we force Ferdinand Marcos to step down in the Philippines?
In all these cases, we are forced at any given point in time to lean more toward realpolitik-- allowing Marcos to ignore the election results; arming the KLA; signalling to Putin that we won't challenge him over Ukraine-- or toward promoting our ideals.
In each case there are very real trade-offs to be made, and there are often bitter disagreements between top admin officials who are seen to be ideological soulmates. George Schultz and Wolfowitz, for ex., pushed and pushed, finally persuading-- after shouting matches and much bad blood-- a reluctant Pres. Reagan to call on Marcos to step down. My point is that there will always be tension between ideals and hard interests, and always choices to make, not least about the tempo of change we seek as regards revolutionary or conflict situations.
Posted by: Stratfor Analysts For A Buck ||
11/29/2004 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Very good discussion. I think Verlaine makes a good point that there is not currently a big split between our ideals and interests.
I offer a few followup points for further thought:
1. We should be very careful that we continue to honor our ideals so that this split between our ideals and interests remains small. Maintaining this alignment gives us power by marshalling domestic support, enabling us to use idealistic rhetoric in support of our policies and inspiring those overseas (as Bush puts it 'exporting democracy'). If we stick it out in Iraq we will see the power of this alignment as a force multiplier.
2. Realism is not necessarily amoral (think France). It can also be viewed as our fall back position when survival is in the balance and we do not have the luxury of defining our national interest more broadly or think several moves ahead. This can be done without abandoning all morality. In a sense idealism is just taking a longer term view. In all cases furthering the national interest while dealing with immediate threats is the objective of any geopolitical strategy.
3. Many opponents of our current policy vs. Islamist terror also opposed both the Realist and idealistic versions of our Cold War policy. They did so for ideological reasons. We should not pay them the compliment of calling them 'realists.' They do not believe in pursuing the national interest because they believe that the US is a corrupt, avaracious, bully that does more harm than any other force on earth. They are simply on the other side.
4. My pet theory is that our current policy of the unpopular attempt to install democracy as an alternative to Islamism is essentially moral due diligence. Regardless of what we found in Iraq, WMD will inevitably fall into the hands of Islamic governments and/or the groups they harbor. We are making our best effort to change their culture and retard proliferation just enough to ensure that they will be responsible with WMD when they finally obtain it. If we fail, we'll have to kill them all, which we can do but would prefer not to on moral grounds. In this basic sense we are living up to our ideals (point #1 above). The morality of these ideals makes us unique in human history. Past hegemonic powers would simply seize the oil fields and kill every Arab Muslim who looked at them funny if presented with the same combination of opportunities and threats that we currently face. As noted, France would pursue this exact policy if it could.
5. There is no doubt that our geopolitical strategy in Iraq is primarily to project power into the region. This was 100% intentional. Eliminating Iraqi WMD was a secondary (though important) objective that was used to obtain support domestically and from the allies we needed to maximize the perceived (and sincere) idealism of our actions. We have developed a ring of bases in the Middle East and are refocusing our military capabilities in the region from which our primary threat emanates. No wonder Syria and Iran are trying to bog us down in Iraq. Even if they develop nukes, supporting terrorism led to Uncle Sam camping out in their front yards. He's not leaving anytime soon, is inspiring some people in these countries to desire democracy and still has a strategic nuclear triad as a backup.
#25
If you're going to talk realpolitik, then the issue is rarely what exists now, it is what you want to exist. A current war is just a stepping stone to the next war, and even the one after that. For example, take for granted that the US established Iraq as a separate Command for a reason. Iraq dominates the Middle East, *and* Central Asia, *and* Africa. It makes a superb staging area for *what*? In realpolitik, this would be the three great surviving powers of the region: Iran, China and India, or a combination of the three. And no matter how things might appear right now, the assumption must be that war is soon to happen between them and us.
#26
Future wars? Iran probably. China perhaps in the future, but the people are getting hooked on the drug of consumerism, and political self-direction follows on the growth of the educated bourgiousie (sp??) class. India doesn't seem likely -- they are more likely to have problems with Pakistan/Bangladesh and/or China than with us. And if they do have problems with China, India threatens China with bringing the US into the situation, as Taiwan does now on the other side.
#27
Excellent points being made all around with special kudos to Verlaine.
"Democratic ideas, rule of law, and a decent civil society are WEAPONS in the the context of the MidEast."
This one sentence is right on the money. Barring nuclear weapons, democracy is the most potent weapon of mass destruction against the anachronistic Islamic regimes. They know this and fight it desperately, even to the point of attacking America.
Given a foothold, enlightenment and liberty will forever displace autocracy and the theocrats damn well know it. Witness China's febrile attempts to call their burgeoning free-market economy anything but capitalism. So it is in the Middle East. Tyranny upon tyranny are being forced to hedge their bets as the information age (driven by American technology) exposes their brutal grasp on power for the totalitarian elitism (e.g., the Soviet Union) it really is.
"It's just that there is no neccessary conflict or even distinction between our practical and moral objectives, in many cases."
However idealistic I might sound, this is something I will believe to the bitter end. So long as America does not lose sight of its pluralistic and secular constitutional roots, there need not be any significant divergence between its practical and moral objectives.
I firmly believe that this philosophical congruencey is the engine that drives America's preemminence as a superpower and explains how our nation has achieved in mere centuries what other countries or cultures have been unable to attain over the course of millennia.
Again, thank you to all who have contributed in this thread. This sort of hard-edged assessment of global politics is precisely what keeps me coming back to Rantburg. Bravo!
At stake in Iraq just now, is whether Jihadi terrorism and guerrilla action can be defeated. Iranian nuclear weapons are the bigger immediate issue, but Iraq offers the definitive test of wills. Do the U.S. and allies have the stomach to see the Jihadis off, even if this requires killing every one of them in a postmodern Iwo Jima? The whole Muslim world is waiting to see who wins this battle of wills, and I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the future course of Islam may be decided in light of it.
The news from Iraq is good, though we must look through carnage to see it. The audiotape which appeared yesterday, from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the "field marshal" of the Iraqi Jihad, tells the story. He is apoplectic, indeed apocalyptic, about the failure of the whole Arab world to rise to his defence. He gives a very frank account of being "let down in the darkest circumstances", while "hundreds of thousands of the nation's sons are being slaughtered by the infidels". He thinks Iraq and Afghanistan have now been "handed over to the Jews and Crusaders". Verily: keep firing.
In Fallujah, the U.S. and allies uncovered the command centres of the Sunni Jihadi underground. Despite the best efforts of Zarqawi's henchmen to remove irreplaceable assets from Fallujah before the storm, including their leader, the allies are now sifting a trove of intelligence finds in the city.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
11/29/2004 9:09:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Al Qaqaa,this appears to be a typo,shouldn't it be Al Cacaa.
#2
Local observers/agents placed ahead of time in likely refuge/rallying towns should be able to spot most of the harried, wounded and very nervous looking out-of-towners when they show.
#1
Nothing new; this is probably the third time they've pushed this line.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/29/2004 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
To listen to the left, they (the troops) are already crazy (or stupid). Most of them voted for Bush so by the definition the DNC operatives they are in fact "crazy" (Senator Edwards) or may just plain "stupid" (Terayza).
#4
When are the ex-hippies going to stop recycling all this Vietnam crap?
I can't wait for them all to die off. I am so sick to death of them reliving their glory days!
Soldier reacts negatively to killing the enemy: "The war is driving US soldiers crazy."
Soldier does not react negatively to killing the enemy: "US soldiers are psychopathic killers."
Posted by: Matt ||
11/29/2004 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Actually, we're seeing the beginning of a new derangement syndrome - MSDS. That's the initials of Military Success Derangement Syndrome, a malady that only affects the far left when the United States military does what it's trained to do. Those affected with MSDS are incurable. The only hope for them is for all of them to be isolated. I nominate that island in the Hawaiian chain the Navy used for decades as a target range, and that it be rehabilitated for that purpose to replace Vieques.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/29/2004 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
