04-02-2003, 05:27 PM
A variety of news reports caused me to think a little bit, and to think in depth. Your comments appreciated. Exception: 'it's all about oil' is a tired sound byte with no depth, please leave that garbage on the curb if tempted. As to the charges that this war is about the 2004 election in the U.S. . . . hmmmmm, I am puzzled by conflicting signals on that one. In any case, GWB must have noted that his father, who was far better received on any number of counts than he, won a war and lost an election in that order. The time horizon for any change post-war is too short to help him in 2004, as I see it. But let's get away from who the president is, and look at Strategy from a more neutral position.
Let's look at long term goals and desired outcomes for the US in re the Mid East and the Arab world in general, and a few other things.
1. Reduce the footprint of US troops in the region. I am referring to the increase in US forces since 1990. More Americans are stationed/deployed there on an annual basis since 1991. This is allegedly one of the beefs of the folks like OBL, who are opposed to Americans 'defending the holy land' rather than Arabs. Not sure he does not have a bit of a point on that one, if one assumes that 'if you call them, they will always come to help you but you really don't like them the rest of the time.' One of the lines that the Saudi's I met a few years back used was odd from my point of view. Not sure how much they bought into it, but here it goes:
"Well, from where we sit, the Holy Land (the land of Meccah and Medina) needed to be defended, the Americans came to help the King, the war was won, so the Americans can now leave." (Of course the problem is the 'ease' of coming back should the need arise again to help the King, hence the forward deployed posture.)
So, if Iraq has a regime change, and if (a risk, not a certainty) that reduces any threat to Saudi stability and security by being a 'better neighbor' then: why not bring most, or all, of the Americans in uniform home from Saudi Arabia except for the usual attaches and military assistance (you know, the guys who help them fix that high tech stuff they buy from our companies, like F-15's). That stance would appeal to a lot of Americans who prefer folks defend themselves, and to a lot of Arabs who would like to see less American uniforms in the Arab world on a day to day basis. Win Win.
2. Smoke out terrorists. Risky move, but possibly effective. Even if the link to Al Qaeda seems tenuous, some interesting news shows that expatriate Iraqi's and other Arabs who dont care for the Stars and Stripes, are apparently showing up in Iraq to 'fight for Iraqi's against American aggression.' Martyrdom has a far more powerful label in the Arab world than it does in the West, at present. However, if these folks are as unprofessional as most militias, they may just build a martyrdom data base and die in any case. Now, the trick to this is: does that martyrdom build a more pro-fundamentalist Islamic reaction, in the Mideast, or will long term 'stability' mitigate those effects? There are plenty of progressives who you don't read about in the news. Very hard to predict, but smoking out the fighters and then destroying them in a lost cause may have a positive side effect. Hard to tell if that was an intended outcome.
3. Smoke out Terrorists part II. The real payoff. This action in Iraq, rather than quiteing various cells, has quite possibly stirred any number of them into action, possibly precipitously. That means that some will act When We Are Looking For Them and either be foiled or get taken down by their action. This actually makes sense to me. The more the various cells try to do, the more likely they are to be discovered.
Risk? Big! Another effective attack takes place. However, since Sec Def Rumsfeld seems to have accepted (over the past 6 months in a variety of public statements) that it is a matter of "when not if on the next big terror attack" then this course of action seems to have some merit. Smoke them out, with a spoiling attack on Iraq, so that they tip their hands a bit earlier. That may reduce the tools for reactionaries in
4. Iran. A stable and prosperous Iran is, IMO and the opinion of some others, the key to stability in the Persian Gulf. (Hey, it even has their name on it!) With Iraq less of a threat to them, absent Hussein, Iran either is less paranoid, or is emboldened to spread the Islamic Revolution. The big Risk is that the latter is the case, but with a less bellicose Iraq, the US can continue to try to move forward and try to thaw relations with Iran. This represents a major Long Term project, which the "axis of evil speech" did nothing to help. :P
5. Afghanistan. The play in Iraq is a complement to the play in Afghanistan. Containment II maybe, in re Iran? Less bellicosity, better chances for stable region, which helps the global economy. I am on very shaky ground with my thought process on this one, as the Central Asian Republics, the various Stans, that were once in the USSR need local stability to enter the global economy more fully. Last few journal articles I read on that left me with mixed feelings. However, the Russians have their own ideas on that score, so we once again return to
6. Russia. How does this latest move help our long term, not short term, relations with Russia? Some folks, on whose side I sit, advocate getting Russia into NATO in the long term. Seriously. That goal is to me the ultimate aim for any intelligent American long term strategic policy. We made a lot of moves forward in working with them in Yugoslavia, however, EU issues will be strongly tied to that. What may actually happen is a repeat of the Triple Entente, with Russia, France, and England in a bloc . . . more economic than military. Or, Russia joins the EU rather than NATO. Should that occur, the likelihood of war among the EU and US would, some suggest, increase, but I contend that it would decrease. The European model of collective security is generally: do everything we can do to avoid another bloody war!
US in Iraq, had we gotten Russian cooperation, would have iced our relationship, but sadly, that bit of statecraft did not come to pass. Could be that Putin needed a time and a place to show that 'Russia once again can stand up to the Americans' and he took the opportunity.
This piece is very unclear to me.
7. Eastern Bloc. You will note that the new NATO nations, such as Poland, Czech, Slovak, and others seem to have 'joined the coalition.' The long term effects of this on European policy is to me positive, though others will point to this 'spooking' the Russians.
8. Turkey. (Full disclosure: I worked for a Turk for about 3 years.) A pivotal nation in European and MidEast security, IMO, and Russian security. With a calmer Iraq, Turkey has one less enemy at the gates. (Look at their historical situation, and the map, and one can see that they are the perfect opposite to the US situation: we have nothing but friends on our borders, while they have an enemey, or a potential enemy, at every point of the compass on their borders.) With a stable Iraq, what chance any change in the better for Turkey? And, for that matter
9. Syria. Hassad the Second has the opportunity to be the Gorbachev of the MidEast. Will he take it? He can make breakthroughs if he significantly reforms Syria's government. Don't know enough to go into more depth, and I need to read up on that one. What he does effects
10. Israel. With Iraq less bellicose (that assumes the risk up top pays off) then US can, and I would hope they would, use our action as leverage to strong arm them into moving forward with the Palestinians to find an acceptable solution to both parties. That pays dividends with all Arab states.
11. And last but not least, long term ending of the aristocratic model of government in most of the Arab states who are our 'friends.' How long will the _whole world_ put up with that medeival model of governance? Can't constitutional monarchies, ala UK, be the model for the royal families of the Mid East?
Anyway, while a lot of folks are looking at short term detail, I have tried to think long term.
Look forward to your replies.
Let's look at long term goals and desired outcomes for the US in re the Mid East and the Arab world in general, and a few other things.
1. Reduce the footprint of US troops in the region. I am referring to the increase in US forces since 1990. More Americans are stationed/deployed there on an annual basis since 1991. This is allegedly one of the beefs of the folks like OBL, who are opposed to Americans 'defending the holy land' rather than Arabs. Not sure he does not have a bit of a point on that one, if one assumes that 'if you call them, they will always come to help you but you really don't like them the rest of the time.' One of the lines that the Saudi's I met a few years back used was odd from my point of view. Not sure how much they bought into it, but here it goes:
"Well, from where we sit, the Holy Land (the land of Meccah and Medina) needed to be defended, the Americans came to help the King, the war was won, so the Americans can now leave." (Of course the problem is the 'ease' of coming back should the need arise again to help the King, hence the forward deployed posture.)
So, if Iraq has a regime change, and if (a risk, not a certainty) that reduces any threat to Saudi stability and security by being a 'better neighbor' then: why not bring most, or all, of the Americans in uniform home from Saudi Arabia except for the usual attaches and military assistance (you know, the guys who help them fix that high tech stuff they buy from our companies, like F-15's). That stance would appeal to a lot of Americans who prefer folks defend themselves, and to a lot of Arabs who would like to see less American uniforms in the Arab world on a day to day basis. Win Win.
2. Smoke out terrorists. Risky move, but possibly effective. Even if the link to Al Qaeda seems tenuous, some interesting news shows that expatriate Iraqi's and other Arabs who dont care for the Stars and Stripes, are apparently showing up in Iraq to 'fight for Iraqi's against American aggression.' Martyrdom has a far more powerful label in the Arab world than it does in the West, at present. However, if these folks are as unprofessional as most militias, they may just build a martyrdom data base and die in any case. Now, the trick to this is: does that martyrdom build a more pro-fundamentalist Islamic reaction, in the Mideast, or will long term 'stability' mitigate those effects? There are plenty of progressives who you don't read about in the news. Very hard to predict, but smoking out the fighters and then destroying them in a lost cause may have a positive side effect. Hard to tell if that was an intended outcome.
3. Smoke out Terrorists part II. The real payoff. This action in Iraq, rather than quiteing various cells, has quite possibly stirred any number of them into action, possibly precipitously. That means that some will act When We Are Looking For Them and either be foiled or get taken down by their action. This actually makes sense to me. The more the various cells try to do, the more likely they are to be discovered.
Risk? Big! Another effective attack takes place. However, since Sec Def Rumsfeld seems to have accepted (over the past 6 months in a variety of public statements) that it is a matter of "when not if on the next big terror attack" then this course of action seems to have some merit. Smoke them out, with a spoiling attack on Iraq, so that they tip their hands a bit earlier. That may reduce the tools for reactionaries in
4. Iran. A stable and prosperous Iran is, IMO and the opinion of some others, the key to stability in the Persian Gulf. (Hey, it even has their name on it!) With Iraq less of a threat to them, absent Hussein, Iran either is less paranoid, or is emboldened to spread the Islamic Revolution. The big Risk is that the latter is the case, but with a less bellicose Iraq, the US can continue to try to move forward and try to thaw relations with Iran. This represents a major Long Term project, which the "axis of evil speech" did nothing to help. :P
5. Afghanistan. The play in Iraq is a complement to the play in Afghanistan. Containment II maybe, in re Iran? Less bellicosity, better chances for stable region, which helps the global economy. I am on very shaky ground with my thought process on this one, as the Central Asian Republics, the various Stans, that were once in the USSR need local stability to enter the global economy more fully. Last few journal articles I read on that left me with mixed feelings. However, the Russians have their own ideas on that score, so we once again return to
6. Russia. How does this latest move help our long term, not short term, relations with Russia? Some folks, on whose side I sit, advocate getting Russia into NATO in the long term. Seriously. That goal is to me the ultimate aim for any intelligent American long term strategic policy. We made a lot of moves forward in working with them in Yugoslavia, however, EU issues will be strongly tied to that. What may actually happen is a repeat of the Triple Entente, with Russia, France, and England in a bloc . . . more economic than military. Or, Russia joins the EU rather than NATO. Should that occur, the likelihood of war among the EU and US would, some suggest, increase, but I contend that it would decrease. The European model of collective security is generally: do everything we can do to avoid another bloody war!
US in Iraq, had we gotten Russian cooperation, would have iced our relationship, but sadly, that bit of statecraft did not come to pass. Could be that Putin needed a time and a place to show that 'Russia once again can stand up to the Americans' and he took the opportunity.
This piece is very unclear to me.
7. Eastern Bloc. You will note that the new NATO nations, such as Poland, Czech, Slovak, and others seem to have 'joined the coalition.' The long term effects of this on European policy is to me positive, though others will point to this 'spooking' the Russians.
8. Turkey. (Full disclosure: I worked for a Turk for about 3 years.) A pivotal nation in European and MidEast security, IMO, and Russian security. With a calmer Iraq, Turkey has one less enemy at the gates. (Look at their historical situation, and the map, and one can see that they are the perfect opposite to the US situation: we have nothing but friends on our borders, while they have an enemey, or a potential enemy, at every point of the compass on their borders.) With a stable Iraq, what chance any change in the better for Turkey? And, for that matter
9. Syria. Hassad the Second has the opportunity to be the Gorbachev of the MidEast. Will he take it? He can make breakthroughs if he significantly reforms Syria's government. Don't know enough to go into more depth, and I need to read up on that one. What he does effects
10. Israel. With Iraq less bellicose (that assumes the risk up top pays off) then US can, and I would hope they would, use our action as leverage to strong arm them into moving forward with the Palestinians to find an acceptable solution to both parties. That pays dividends with all Arab states.
11. And last but not least, long term ending of the aristocratic model of government in most of the Arab states who are our 'friends.' How long will the _whole world_ put up with that medeival model of governance? Can't constitutional monarchies, ala UK, be the model for the royal families of the Mid East?
Anyway, while a lot of folks are looking at short term detail, I have tried to think long term.
Look forward to your replies.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete