Thursday, August 30, 2007
Military Power Comes First
It Is a Long War against the extremist elements of Islam
by Ferdinand III
The long war is an apt and pithy description of what the “West” (loosely termed), faces in the Middle East. Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and other regions of Islamic Occupation offer no easy solutions. Yet some facts are obvious: 1. Arab imperialism and Islamic intolerance are determined to destroy civilization and 2. Military victories must precede political liberalization.
For all the various views on Iraq, the reality is plain; we are engaged in a long (100 years) war not to conquer Islamic Territory, but to regime change pre-modern societies. In times past empires were territorial and founded on controlling key trade routes, passages and location of mineral commodities and slave resources. In the modern era political and economic domination (or exploitation to please chattering Marxists), is achieved through capital control, managing the factors of trade, and via advanced services and knowledge based industry.
Such control is however premised on political and military strength. The Dutch controlled world trade in the “Gouden Eeuw” (Golden Century) from the early 1600 for 100 or so years. But due to declining profits, corruption, a weak political system and a declining investment in military technology they were surpassed by London and the densely populated and interconnected Hinterland of the Thames, i.e. England. By erecting a nation state the English were better able to project the power of empire, using the capital and trading wealth of London to foster navies, merchant firms and; the various institutions of empire.
There are many factors in the rise of an empire. But one is vital military power, sustained by a trading regime premised on capital accumulation (capitalism) is a necessity. When viewing the long war against Fundamentalist Islam and Arab Imperialism, we would do well to remember that economic Liberalization is paramount in crating military dominance.
How does this relate to the Middle East? It does so in two ways, first, all western militaries are under funded. The USA for example has at most 550,000 fighting personnel in a long war; this is half the necessary level. In Canada; (19,000 troops able to fight) the U.K (90,000); Germany (50,000); and Holland (20,000); the situation is even plus pire (worse). Most western states simply don’t have a projectionable military. Besides a lack of men, they don’t possess the equipment, the transport or the logistical means to display force when and where it is necessary. Soft power and moral suasion without a strong military able to project force is useless.
Second in a long war with Arab and Islamic Imperialism a military victory must precede any other forms of restructuring. Germany and Japan were rebuilt, post 1945, as western allies because it was clear who was victorious and who was defeated. Russia post-1991 was never clearly defeated by the west (at least from the Russian viewpoint). Hence the inevitable rise of ‘Putinism’ and anti western meddling and saber rattling.
In Iraq and elsewhere the Russian example applies political reconstruction in advance of a sound and overwhelmingly clear military victory, is a pyrhhic event. You cannot place constitutional political and diplomatic changes ahead of military domination. In fact in Iraq and elsewhere, the Americans and Europeans have gotten the chain of events precisely backwards. In regimes changing pagan, pre-modern societies, the order is: military victory, security economic, liberalization, foreign investment and then political and constitutional reform.
By not following the correct prescription, the obvious happens. Israel gives up to a fascist Hamas Government. Lebanon becomes a Muslim dominated terror state. Iraq descends into a Dantean hell. Afghanistan sees a dramatic resurgence of Talibanic inspired guerilla warfare. In trying to achieve regional dominance ‘on the cheap’, we have only ensured that the costs in treasure and lives is greater and more dear than necessary.
It repels the post-modern mind, but in fighting a backwards paganism, the only hope lies in a military over lordship. Arabs and Muslims understand power, blood and war. Viewed historically, this ‘long war’ is not lost, but merely beginning. Diplomacy and politics have their places in such a conflict appeasement, ‘land for peace’ and wonderful rhetoric about the ‘greatness’ of Islamic-Arab culture and mores do not after all the ‘Palestinians’ are a 1967 invention designed to mollify the Arabs. Look at Gaza today and see how far that got us.