Sunday, May 13, 2007

Bookmark and Share

Iraq and Afghanistan in the longue duree of history

Blair got only 1 thing right – the war against fascism. Bush still baffles.

by Ferdinand III


In the long view of history, one can observe that there are three essentials when fighting a war to win. First, identify the enemy and why it is necessary to fight them. Second, clearly lay out a plan to achieve victory, including reasonable time frames, and an honest assessment of what it will take to win. Third, repeat one and two incessantly on the domestic political front with formal and informal updates so the citizenry knows what is going on. None of these 3 principles of political leadership has been enacted in the long war with Islam.

These 3 principles are as old as the empires of man. In a world of modern communications they are mandatory. In the wireless or radio age, Churchill’s ‘I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat…’ speech during the nadir of the war against Hitler, was honest, brutal and it galvanized the listening mass of Britain to steel themselves for a war of long duration and sacrifice.

Indeed all of Churchill’s speeches showed similar brilliance in oratory and information dissemination. The enemy, the goals, the time lines, the good and the bad, and the dread balance of fate were offered to the British with almost unctuous veracity. As erudite oratory they have no historical equal. As valid appraisals of a long war, they have no peer.

It is well known that Bush has read Churchill’s speeches. Yet miraculously from the beginning 2005 he has basically stopped briefing the nation on Iraq. The most important US political and military project since 1991 lies undefended by its main architect.

The Iraq war has highlighted problems with US political leadership and its military. First the US political class, from both parties it should be pointed out, relied on the WMD argument to invade Iraq. It would have done better to highlight the full 23 reasons for going to war, including the Iraqi disregard for 16 UN resolutions, attacking US and British planes and assets during the 1990s, and the breaking of the cease fire treaty of 1991. To the list of 23 congressional reasons to go to war the moral arguments to free the Iraqi people, and stop the pilfering of the $60 billion UN Oil for food scandal – the largest financial scam in history, could have been added.

The US military in Iraq is the most effective fighting force on the planet, and probably the most efficient in the history of man. But they are undermanned and under-funded. The US military has 1 million men, of which only 500.000 can engage in battle. Its military spend is 3.5% of GDP. It should be closer to 5%. The US needs an effective fighting force of about one million men, to avoid battle fatigue, ensure enough time for proper training, and to have enough troops to do the different things a modern army must do including special ops, counter-terrorism ops, and urban fighting. The US is simply unprepared to fight a long war against Islam.

Why then should the US be in Iraq and why are the Canadians, Brits and Americans in Afghanistan? There are 3 replies to this good question and they have nothing to do with WMD. Iraqis knew how to make WMD, they never had the distribution capability to use it [personally I believe that Syria has the latest Iraq stocks, created post-1993 of WMD].

First, Iraq is the starting point to roll back Islamic terror. The Western media and political class won’t name the enemy, but the foe is Islam and Islamic inspired terror. Iraq is the greatest geopolitical asset the West can control. By controlling Iraq you have leverage over Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran. You ensure that oil flows through the straits of Hormuz. Combined with the Afghani occupation we have future bases to launch further strikes into the Islamic heart of darkness.

Second, Iraq was an unstable, terror funding regime, which started 2 regional wars in part to control oil and clear its national debts. Al Qaeda groups including Al Ansar were in Iraq during the 1990s. Funding of Palestinian suicide bombers was a national policy. Terror regimes have to be brought down. Iraq which broke the 1991 cease fire agreement was the first in line to disappear.

Third, in the long view of history, ‘realism’ has proven itself ineffective. Realism works when it is combined with a clear vision and with processes that we control. Without controlling key processes, realism descends into chaos and reactionary policy. Former US ‘realpolitick’ in the region meant that any corrupt bastard who was our enemy’s enemy was our friend. This is morbidly inappropriate. We need to understand that the marriage between idealism and power is the only way to structure the Middle East in the long term view of history.

Realism ‘sans une autre chose’ has historically never proven itself as an intelligent way to construct national foreign policy. Foreign affairs are premised on protecting national self-interest, an idea which is founded on controlling key aspects of the area or region in question and which must be combined with a moral, societal mission. It is this lethal combination of realism and moral guidance that leads to victory. However if you don’t control key processes, including economics, trade, the military or the political situation, then your ‘realist’ approach is nothing more than Jimmy Carter-like stupidity and confusion.

In 1979 the Carter administration permitted the Shah of Iran to fall with the realist intonation that ‘there is realistically nothing we can do about it’. This is the classic example of realism leading to tragedy and future bloodshed. By not making the case to defend the Shah; enact further democratization of Iran; improve Iranian liberal institutional development; support an ally against Soviet Russia; and fund a stable regime that kept the straits of Hormuz open; the Carter administration reacted with a realist response that lead directly into the current war on Islamic terror. It is naught for nothing that Jimmy Carter is the worse US president in history.

The British leaving Iraq in 1932 is another example of ‘realist’ policy with execrable long term ramifications, but convenient short term political gain. The British controlled Iraq post World War one. Like the Americans today they tried to hold the country with too few troops, not enough ruthless military campaigning and without showing the Arabs blood, steel and over awing power. By 1926 the British had made plans to leave even as they signed a 50 year alliance with their Iraqi puppet government.

Domestically it was great politics – bring the boys home, let the Arabs kill themselves, save our treasure! But of course in the long view it was a disaster. Upon the British exist there was a military coup, the fragile British supported government fell, bloodshed ensured and 40 years later there was the inevitable mutation to the Hussein dictatorship. Such is the long term price of short term political opportunism.

The same was true of the US decision in 1991 not to liberate Iraq from Hussein. One million dead innocents, a huge UN financial scam, and a cold and hot war later we are doing the work that could have been more easily accomplished 16 years ago. Great domestic politics, brutal long term effects.

National self interest and foreign policy setting, must include ideas like; prestige, power, and supporting real allies, not just funding the local butcher of the month, who wants a hand out and says nice things to you about your supposed enemy. This is not how great civilizations and worthy first rate powers act.

Tony Blair and George Bush for all their flaws did get the big issue of our time right – the need to fight Islam in its heartland combining military power with the vision of liberal democracy and peace through liberal constitutions. Arabs if they so choose can partake in modernity. It will take longer for the Arab mind and culture to conform to a Western export of a constitutionally based society with the separation of church and state, and the protection of property, rights and the rule of law. It might take generations. But there is no choice.

Islam will need to be changed from without. It will not be changed from within. For 1400 years its leadership has called for a world-wide caliphate. It is time to put that lie to the grave. But we need to fight wars to win, not to score political points.

The 3 key principles that great leaders commit to during times of war and stress are nowhere to be found in the Western world – make the case honestly, inform transparently and update regularly. Instead it is the domestic posturing of low politics – buying of votes, compassion, tears for the camera, loving support of the multi-cult, undying devotion to Goddess Gaia etc. – that preoccupies the time of leaders. Once in a while they put in a sound-bite or a quick happy talk when dealing with the most important issue of this generation.

Great powers and civilizations present in times of war, a coherent and intelligent rationale as to why we are ‘over there’. It is astounding that no one amongst the political elite has the courage or the conviction to do it. It is a sad commentary on Western state of affairs. We are a civilization that is afraid and unable to accept the fact that realism combined with idealism and controlling key processes, informs the longue-duree or long term outcome of history and foreign policy. Such is the price we pay for our current mindless fascination with post-modern nonsense.