Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Iraq at year 3: To flee or not to flee ?

30 years of cowardice and gutless appeasement led to 9-11

by Ferdinand III

There are three basic opinions regarding the Iraqi war. One group opines that the war is now too bloody, grossly mismanaged and worse, it was not sanctioned by the UN. This somehow makes the liberation of 25 millions immoral. This group disregards previous conflicts including the 2001 Afghani invasion; the 1990s Balkan conflicts; the 1991 First Iraq War; and numerous other conflicts not sanctioned by the august UN and yet were necessary military ventures. They also ignore 500.000 dead innocents during Hussein’s regime and the largest financial scandal in history – the UN managed ‘Oil for Palaces’ program which is funding the current Iraqi civil war. A second group feels that the invasion while deplorable and immoral, did topple a murderous dictator but that the cost in US blood and treasure is too high. This group points to the low level civil war; and a non-functioning government as reasons to withdraw and let the Iraqi’s handle their own affairs. They also implicitly feel that Arabs and Iraqis are not capable of building a sustainable democracy in the short term. A third group believes that not only was the war necessary as part of the larger fight on terror, it was 12 years too late and that pre-emption and state building is going to be the only option left in fighting fascist Islam and recreating the failed states of the Arab world. Pre-emption is of course the ‘Bush doctrine’ and no competing facts or reality exist to displace its logic regardless of media coverage, exaggerations and anti-war bias.

Last week the US government published its ‘National Security Strategy’ [www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006]. This document, if people care to read it, lays out the Bush Doctrine in detail and outlines the logic supporting the maintenance of US forces ready to strike anywhere US interests are threatened. The strategy commits the US to pre-emptive strikes: "When the consequences of an attack with [weapons of mass destruction] are potentially so devastating, we cannot afford to stand idly by as grave dangers materialize." Critics of the doctrine of course point out that intelligence on WMD – held by every intelligence agency in the world – was incorrect and that pre-emption is therefore incorrect. This criticism is wrong on 2 grounds: 1. WMD does exist and is probably in Syria and beyond and 2. Perfect information does not exist anywhere in the world about fascist regimes and their intentions. Pre-emption is a necessary policy to actively secure a nation’s border when that border can be easily transgressed with ICBMs, domestic dirty bombs or nuclear suitcases.

Pre-emption is vital as the West confronts Iran and Syria. An invasion of both of these countries is long overdue. As well Egypt – a hot bed of militant and fanatical ‘Sunnism’ – must eventually be dealt with along with Hamas. The Palestinian people, recipient of the most aid per capita in history, live miserable and brainwashed lives. Funded by Western and UN interests the Palestinians have wasted billions of dollars on arms buying; corruption and self pitying nonsense blaming their conditions on Jews and a predatory Israeli state. It is simply time to end the criminalisation of the Palestinian people. But regime changing any of these entities is fraught with peril. No one who subscribes to the Bush Doctrine believes that regime change and active offensive warring is painless, costless or simple. The complexity of the underlying tenets of the Bush Doctrine must be read by its critics who have spent 30 years appeasing fascist Islam which lead directly to 9-11.

The Bush Doctrine’s idea of pre-emption is premised on something termed ‘effective democracy’ where the institutions of democracy -- regular and honest elections; representative and accountable government -- serve as the basis of political, religious and economic freedoms. This mandates that regime change must be followed immediately by the long and arduous and dangerous task of building democratic institutions. By building such institutions the possibility that a Hamas-like fascist and terrorist group will take control is delimited. Political participation takes the place of exclusion; the free flow of information and a marketplace of ideas replace propaganda; hate education and screaming fascist fanatics who kill to order political compliance and support.

Of course no one knows what will happen during the rebuilding process. There can be no guarantees that elections will lead to pro-Western stable democracies. As well sometimes the thug in place now [Pakistan for instance] is better than the alternative since they are actively aiding in the War on Terror. But is clear that elections usually produce more long-run stability and less aggressive regimes. Everything else regarding the Middle East has failed. I for one cannot comprehend why a return to failed policies is more intelligent than fundamental reform. Critics of pre-emption have no answer to this question and usually retreat to bromides about peace, love and understand root causes – as if such intellectual nonsense was not previously tried leading directly to 9-11.

Iran is now the critical test case of pre-emption – even more so than solving the current Iraqi civil war. A regime change in Iran is mandatory to ensure world security. The Bush doctrine clearly and correctly states that ‘Governments that honor their citizens' dignity and desire for freedom tend to uphold responsible conduct toward other nations…while governments that brutalize their people also threaten the peace and stability of other nations.’ Iran’s regime does not represent its people. It is the mad Mullahs that want war with the West not the Iranian people. This means the threat Iran poses is unlikely to change as long as the regime remains the same. Ergo regime change is the only way forward.

How this is done is another matter. The Iraqi conflict is not a template that will serve all situations and possibilities. Iran and Syria will pose different challenges necessitating the use of different strategies. Iraq has been a crucial test ground for regime change and its aftermath. No doubt the US military has made some great blunders [not securing the borders; not finding WMD; not securing government sites; not prosecuting the war with more vigor and ruthlessness; not wiping out fascist elements and militias etc.], but it has also done some things right. An important metric never uttered by the media is that the death rate is now 1/3 of what it was under Hussein. On average 5.000 babies each month died in Iraq during the 1990s – that rate is now down to less than 100. Progress has been made but the war will take a lot longer to terminate than previously estimated.

Nevertheless history teaches us that pre-emption is far better than suffering another 9-11 – a feat accomplished after 3 decades or more of gutless appeasement.