Excuse me, I need to crow.
(Dean does cabbage patch dance a few times.)
What am I talking about?
"One of the principal strategic thoughts underlying our strategy in the war on terrorism is the importance of the connection between terrorist organizations and their state sponsors," he said. "Terrorist organizations cannot be effective in sustaining themselves over long periods of time to do large-scale operations if they don't have support from states. They need a base of operations. They need other types of assets that they get from their connection with their state sponsors--whether it's funding, or headquarters, or, in some cases, the use of diplomatic pouches and other types of facilities. And one of the principal reasons that we are focussed on Iraq as a threat to us and to our interests is because we are focused on this connection between three things: terrorist organizations, state sponsors, and weapons of mass destruction. If we were to take military action and vindicate our principles, in the war on terrorism, against Iraq, I think it would"--he paused, looking for the right word--"register with other countries around the world that are sponsoring terrorism, and would perhaps change their own cost-benefit calculations about their role in connection with terrorist networks. I think this process got under way with Afghanistan. There you had a regime that was ousted because of its support for terrorist operations against the United States. If the Iraqi regime gets ousted because it ultimately proves unwilling to disarm itself in a coöperative fashion with the U.N., and if the United States leads a coalition and overthrows that government, I think that the combination of those two actions will influence the thinking of other states about how advisable it is for them to continue to provide safe harbor or other types of support to terrorist organizations."[Boldface emphasis above mine. --Dean]
I've been saying it for well over a year: they have been planning this from day one.
Despite the caterwauling from the "Bush is a big fat liar" crowd, they are planning democratization. But they aren't stupid enough to think they can do it overnight, and they know there will have to be compromises in northern Iraq to satisfy the Turks.
But their real objectives are twofold: First, to put the fear of God (or, more appropriately, the United States) into the thugs who run places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Iran. Second, to slowly, over time, set in motion forces to introduce a liberalization to the Middle East that really should have taken place early in the 20th century when the British and other colonial powers left the region.
The funny thing is, the President and people like Rumsfeld, Powell, Rice, et. al. couldn't possibly say all this out loud. Just as funny, the Sauds and the Syrians and the other powers in the region also know that this is what we've got in mind, and can't say it out loud either. But it's why they've been so opposed to our efforts: not because they really care if we take out Saddam Hussein, but because by doing so, they can no longer continue to play both sides against each other. And they fear what liberalization will do to their regimes in the long run, while the status quo keeps them fat and secure.
The bigger question: does the U.S. have the patience to stick it out to get the job done? My counter-question: have we had the patience to stick it out for 60 years in Germany, for 50 years in Korea, or for decades in the Phillipines, Taiwan, Japan? I'd say the answer is self-evident. So long as we're really serious, we'll have all the support we need.
(Link courtesy of my favorite Englishman.)
It's already working:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/02/21/no_target/print.html
Islamic Jihad: won't target Americans
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By IBRAHIM BARZAK
Feb. 21, 2003 | GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- The militant Islamic Jihad said Friday it will not attack American targets to retaliate for the U.S. arrest of four alleged members and the indictment of four others on terrorism-related charges.
Abdallah Shami, the Gaza leader of the Palestinian group, condemned the arrests but said Islamic Jihad will continue to focus on its fight against Israel.
...
Ever notice how Hamas and even Fatah has never shown any shyness about calling for terrorist attacks on the US? Well Islamic Jihad is starting to run scared. Most likely their money men in Iran are worrying for their necks, cause the guys in the field are the sort of idiots who'd be happy to destroy anyone, including their own people.
What in God's name is the "cabbage patch dance?"
It strikes me that any talk by the administration about post-invasion plans for Iraq is likely to be directed at Iraqis still in power. It makes sense to give those at a slightly lower level than Saddam's Tikrit mafia the impression that they may be able to remain in power, even if we actually intend to push for democratization. Right now the administration should be saying anything that works to make them fight a little less and turn on their superiors a little sooner when things blow up. As Winston Churchill said, "freedom is attended by a bodyguard of lies". I know if I were a military officer or political official in a poor chaotic country run by a maniac, with 200,000 US troops right across the border ready to come in any time, I'd be doing some fancy straw-grasping right now.
Dean,
I agree wholeheatedly with what you say. IMHO, the only reason Democrats oppose President Bush's attacking Iraq is because the Democrats are only interested in playing politics with a serious national secutiy issue. They have nothing to offer except complaints.
The undersecretary has it exactly right. Terrorists are not in themselves nation states. Therefore, they need to exist somewhere on some landmass on the planet Earth. All landmasses except Antarctica are governed by a national government. Terrorists live somewhere at the pleasure of a terrorist sponsoring state.
President Bush specifically stated when addressing a joint session of congress that any terrorist sponsoring state is our enemy in our war on terrorism. Iraq provided succor for a terrorist who recently committed suicide by shooting himself in the head three times. Hmmmmm. Osama bin Laden recently admitted he is in cahoots with Saddam Hussein. Ergo, Saddam Hussein supports terrorism. He must go.
Terrorists will vanish if they have no country to provide them shelter. This is vitally important since we cannot win our war on terrorism defensively. We must go on the offense to win. In fact, we might not be at all able to defensively plug all the places where terrorists can attack us. Since they attack soft targets you can bet they will not hijack 5 more planes simultaneously since security at commercial airports is more stringent than before 9/11. They will attack something else, but what? They will attack somewhere else, but where?
I personally doubt we can even check every single cargo container truck trailer arriving from Singapore, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Taipan, Seoul, Indonesia, India, not to mention from any Arab terrorist sponsoring state. Currently we check only 3% of these cargo containers. How much would it cost to check every single one? The cost is extremely prohibitive.
We would also be even more hard pressed to check all the other containers arriving from the Mediterranean or Europe. To be successful all terrorists must do is sneak ONE nuclear bomb on to a cargo container on the bottom stack of a ship that will offload on a LIFO basis these very containers in either the port of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Fransisco, Portland, or Seattle. We also have ports all along the Atlantic and the Carribbean to cover as well. This sounds to me like an almost impossible task.
My argument does not even cover other soft targets such as dams, interstate overpasses, sporting arenas, water treatment plants, or government buildings.
The only reasonable option we might have is to optimize the advantages of going on the offensive against our enemies swiftly and overwhelmingly. Remember, they attacked us without provocation. We did not attack them. Therefore, they deserve what they get for attacking Uncle Sam. If you mess with the bull you get the horn. Sometimes life is just a bitch Saddam.
Dean,
I am not sure if democracy will solve all the problems facing Arab governments. But it does include one important element you only alluded to.
Nurturing a free press in the Arab world currently dominated by totalitarian governments will force a healthy debate that does not currently exist. With a free press free to criticize their respective governments the Arabs will then be forced to address their problems of their own creation for which they currently blame the Jews, America, and Israel (more Jews). A free press will encourage Arabs to freely express their own opinions. This currently happens nowhere in the Arab Middle East.
Arabs have no experience with governing themselves. The practical everyday responsibilities of administering a government was always left to the govenment.
Robert:
Actually, it's "In wartime, truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."
The long-term effect of our Iraq policy is that Saddam Hussein will no longer rule Iraq.
Dean:
Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing in Feith's statement which you quoted about democratizing Iraq.
You seem confident in your ability to read the administration's thoughts about this, and deduce that they have a "secret plan" to democratize Iraq -- even when their overt statements indicate that they plan a 5+ year military occupation with 100ks of US troops, the maintenance of most of the Baath gov't. structure, a Turkish occupation of the currently semi-autonomous Kurdish regions, etc.
You told me in e-mail you had posted "numerous" examples of Bush's commitment to democracy in Iraq. Is this the kind of evidence you see as persuasive?
Kevin Brehmer:
Many Democrats in Congress supported and still support Bush's Iraq plans. Of course some object. This may not be because they are inherently obstructionist, but because they are trying to represent their consituents. A majority of the American public does not want military action unless the UN is involved.
Sorry, but there's absolutely nothing in Feith's statement which you quoted about democratizing Iraq.
The part I quote here isn't about democracy, it's about how the liberation of Iraq, long term, is an integral component to the war on terror.
If you read everything Feith has said, it's clear that creating a liberal and democratized Iraqi society if at all possible is a big part of the equation. It's the most challenging part, but it's far from impossible.
You seem confident in your ability to read the administration's thoughts about this, and deduce that they have a "secret plan" to democratize Iraq -- even when their overt statements indicate that they plan a 5+ year military occupation with 100ks of US troops, the maintenance of most of the Baath gov't. structure, a Turkish occupation of the currently semi-autonomous Kurdish regions, etc.
They currently estimate 2-5 years while they form the basis of a liberalized society. There will be extensive assistance from allies, of course, but we may well be there at least in part for a long time. So what?
The issue of the Baathists is unsettled, but they've made clear that they don't plan on keeping around those with records of human rights abuses.
It is far from clear as yet what the Turks' role would be. We have some rather inflammatory things some Iraqi politicians who would like to hold power have said, which is hardly definitive.
If you're going to liberate a country, you're going to start with an occupation. That is how these things work. We have done this successfully in the past. There's no reason to believe that the American public will stomach the creation of a military dictatorship. That is not our style, nor is it in our national interests to do so.
Was it worth it? Bush and his administration keep reminding us that Saddam's brutal regime has been ousted, all Iraqis are smiling and the world is a better place.
http://www.martinsewell.com/iraq.html
Cheers
Martin