|
Virginia,
along with the rest of America,
has gone to war. Twenty-seven thousand personnel
from
Norfolk
and Virginia
Beach
are deployed in the
Persian
Gulf.
Hard fighting lies ahead as
U.S.
and allied forces approach
Baghdad.
While conflict rages overseas, the enemy has vowed
to bring the war back to the United
States.
Terrorists may target the Pentagon, Central
Intelligence Agency or other symbols of American
power inside
Virginia.
When hostilities started, Gov. Mark R. Warner quickly
backed the military action in Iraq.
“As a commonwealth and a nation, we must all
support the president and our troops in this
difficult mission," he said. "Virginians have always played
a critical role in defending our national security
and freedom around the world.”
Other politicians, even those who questioned the wisdom of
using force to disarm Saddam Hussein, now wish the
troops a swift victory. The willingness of men like
U.S. Reps. Robert C. Scott, D-3rd, and
James P. Moran, D-8th, to close ranks
with their partisan opponents deserves the thanks
and respect of all Virginians.
This is perhaps the ideal time, as Virginians
ever-so-briefly put partisan differences aside,
to ask ourselves: Why are we fighting this war? What
kind of world are we trying to build?
It is a weighty matter when the United
States
invades a sovereign nation that posed no direct and
immediate threat. What could justify such an action?
Searching for answers, I turn to statements that
President George W. Bush made shortly after the 9-11
tragedy. The war on terror will be long, he said,
and it will be fought on many fronts. Our enemy is
not only Al Qaeda, which executed the 9-11 attacks,
but terrorists of all stripes and the
foreign states that give them sanctuary.
Many of
America’s
traditional allies, including the Germans, backed
our invasion of Afghanistan,
where Al Qaeda functioned as a state-within-
a-state, and continue to lend
assistance in peace-keeping and reconstruction
there. Americans should acknowledge and express
gratitude for that support, even if some allies have
parted company in our decision to disarm Saddam
Hussein. At the same time, expelling Al Qaeda from Afghanistan
hardly marks the end of the war against terrorism.
Even capturing or killing Osama Bin Ladin will not
prove decisive.
Stopping the war after victory in Afghanistan
would be akin to the United
States
calling it quits after expelling Hitler’s Afrika
Korps from Tunisia.
The liberation of
Iraq
is the second campaign in the War
on Terror,
just as the liberation of Italy
was the second campaign in the European theater of
World War II. And, though many people will not want
to hear it, the War
on Terror
won’t end with the removal of Saddam Hussein from power any more
than the struggle against fascism ended when Italian
partisans strung up a Benito Mussolini’s corpse
from a lamppost. Al Qaeda is only one terrorist
organization. There are many others. Hussein’s Iraq
is only one country harboring terrorists and bent
upon obtaining weapons of mass destruction. There
are others.
During the Cold War, the
U.S.
developed a simple but useful frame of reference for
viewing global events: There was the “first”
world, America
and its friends. There was the “second” world,
consisting of communist nations. Then there was the
“third” world, comprised of largely poor, mainly
agricultural nations for whose loyalties the other
two contended. With the collapse of communism,
Americans have not yet developed a coherent
framework for viewing emerging lines of conflict in
the world – at least, not until Thomas P.M.
Barnett came along.
Barnett, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, divides
the world between those regions that are integrated
into the global trading system and those that are
not. In the March 2003 issue of Esquire, he writes: “Show me where globalization is thick with
network connectivity, financial transactions,
liberal media flows, and collective security, and I
will show you regions featuring stable governments,
rising standards of living, and more deaths by
suicide than murder. These parts of the world I
call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me
where globalization is thinning or just plain
absent, and I will show you regions plagued by
politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty
and disease, routine mass murder, and—most
important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the
next generation of global terrorists. These
parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap,
or Gap.”
The entire
Middle East
falls within the “Gap.” With the possible
exception of sub-Saharan Africa, the
Middle East
is the location of the most dysfunctional states on
the globe. But unlike sub-Saharan Africa, which poses no threat to the
U.S.
or other democracies, the militant Islamic
fundamentalism bubbling up from the Middle
East
most certainly is. The Middle
East
breeds anarchy and exports terror. And Middle
Eastern nations, thanks in good measure to their oil
riches, possess the means to acquire weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear weapons, and
long-range missiles
to deliver them.
To wipe out the
twin threats posed by terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction,
the
U.S.
must address the “root cause” of violence. The
root of violence is not poverty per se, but the autocratic
and corrupt rule of non-democratic governments that
prevent their nations from participating in the
wealth-creating “core.” Most Middle Eastern
states are miserable failures; after a half century
of self governance, they have proven incapable of
meeting the aspirations of their citizens. Among
those nations possessing oil wealth, most have
squandered it; among those possessing no oil, most
have plunged their people into poverty and misery.
In any democratic society, voters would have thrown
the bums out long ago.
Rather than accept responsibility for their failures,
ruling elites look for scapegoats. In the victimist
worldview of the Middle
East,
there are two:
Israel
and the United
States.
Ruling elites clamp down on criticism of their own
regimes but tolerate outcries against Israel,
the Zionist oppressor of the Palestinians, and the U.S.,
supporter of Israel
and bullying superpower. Deep popular frustration
manifests itself in the only way that it is
permitted, in hatred of Israel
and the U.S.
I do not pretend that the
U.S.
is entirely blameless. Central to the post-WWII
history of the
Middle East
was the struggle of the ruling elites of newly independent countries to wrest control over their
petroleum resources from U.S.
and European oil companies. Further, during the Cold
War decades, the U.S.
inflamed nationalist passions by supporting
unpopular rulers like the Shah of Iran. But those
tensions are long past. Middle Easterners appear to
have forgiven France
for its colonial rule over Lebanon
and Syria,
not to mention its bloody war to maintain colonial rule of
Muslim Algeria. They would forgive our
transgressions, too, were not other forces feeding
their resentment.
Here is the crux of the problem: The U.S.
champions the values of open, democratic political
systems and dynamic, market-driven economies –
principles which many Middle Easterners rightly
regard as a threat to their traditional social
order. Emulating the
U.S.
model would undermine power structures based largely
on patronage, the subordination of women and tribal-collectivist values. Likewise, many Middle Easterners regard
the sexual permissiveness of Western society, with
attendant practices such as abortion and pornography, as morally repugnant.
Where Middle Eastern societies value tradition and
stability, the
United States
embraces dynamism
and change. More than any other people, Americans
are open to disruptive technologies, to fresh ideas
and to living and working beside people from all walks of life. We have
built our prosperity on the free movement of goods,
capital, information, technology and, above all,
people. We are committed to the ideals of an
ethnically pluralistic society grounded in
democracy, respect for individual rights and
economic freedom.
Critics of the war in
Iraq
contend that the U.S.
is hooked on oil. They miss the point. We’re
hooked on an open global trading system that allows
us to import oil, or energy, at a fraction of what
it would cost us to produce it ourselves, and allow
us to pay for it by exporting PCs, medical
equipment, software and Hollywood
films. Anything that undermines this open trading
system – a system that defines our relationship not only
with Middle Eastern nations but with all
nations – threatens the economic foundation of the United
States and other economically
advanced nations.
(A shared antipathy for the open global economy, I
believe, explains why anti-global leftists around
the world protest the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein’s fascist regime.)
Americans
don't like war. We'd like nothing better than to
declare, "A pox upon all your houses,"
seal ourselves off from the rest of the world, and
let someone else deal with the Saddam Husseins and Kim
Il Jungs. But, as much as we’d like to, the U.S.
cannot turn its back on the Middle
East.
No other nation has the military capability to take
on Saddam Hussein -- certainly not France, Germany
or Russia.
In the long run, the only way to protect
ourselves from Saddam Husseins and Osama Bin Ladins
is to promote the modernization of
Middle Eastern societies and their integration into the core global trading system. I certainly do not
advocate some simple-minded notion that we can
implant American-style democracy in foreign
cultures. But we can help Middle Eastern peoples
create governments that are more representative,
more pluralistic and more respectful of human rights
than they are now. We can help Middle Eastern
governments institute the rule of law, free their
economies from socialism and corruption, and expand
economic opportunity for all their citizens.
Most relevant to the point at hand, we can help create
institutions that enable Middle Eastern peoples to
better their own lives rather than redirect their
frustration and fury against the
U.S.
Why
Iraq?
Yes, we all agree, Saddam Hussein is a murderous
dictator with a penchant for invading neighbors and
accumulating weapons of mass destruction. But
what’s wrong with “containment”? Why not keep
him “in his box? Although Hussein clearly would
like to acquire nuclear weapons, there’s no
evidence that he’s near getting them. Are a few
hundred warheads on short- and intermediate-range
rockets loaded with chemical and biological weapons
enough to conquer and intimidate his neighbors? He
gassed the Iranians but did not defeat them – and
that was before the Gulf War and international
sanctions had gutted the power of his military
machine.
There are two arguments for preferring “regime change”
to containment. First, Hussein is defiant and
unrepentant. The trade sanctions are only partially
effective. By brokering the flow of
“humanitarian” relief to his own people, he
solidified his power and acquired resources to
continue building his weapons of mass destruction. A
lifting of the U.N. sanctions – supported by many
in Europe
-- would allow him to resume his ambitious plans
full throttle. French corporations are happy to help
him develop his oilfields and redevelop his
military, including weapons of mass destruction. Hussein consented to
receive inspectors back into his country only
because the
U.S.
and its allies sat on his borders, prepared to
invade. How long does the U.S.
have the patience, at the cost of a billion dollars
or more per month and continued diplomatic tangling
with the French, to hold the knife to his throat?
All it takes is a (democratic) regime change in the
United States and the troops might well come home.
Then Hussein is unleashed.
Secondly, Hussein remains a destabilizing force in the Middle
East. It is common knowledge that he has nourished the suicide cult of Palestinian
terrorists by paying $25,000 to the families of
“martyrs.” It is an indisputable fact that he
has hosted numerous terrorist organizations in Iraq,
including the Palestine Liberation Front,
responsible for the Achille Lauro hijacking; the
Mujahedin-e Khalq, which conducts terrorist
operations in Iran; and the now-deceased terrorist
mastermind Abu Nidal, mysteriously assassinated in
his Baghdad apartment last year, who was responsible
for terrorist acts in more than 20 countries. The
notorious Hamas organization also has an office in Baghdad.
Al Qaeda seems to be the one terrorist organization that
Hussein has not actively collaborated with until
recently. In a recent speech to the U.N., however,
Secretary of State Colin Powell documented that
connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda have grown
in recent years. Most notably, Abu Musah Al-Zarqawi,
believed to be responsible for the murder of
American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan
last year, runs a terrorist training camp in Iraq.
Though Powell's evidence was suggestive, I will concede,
it did not constitute hard proof. Anyone predisposed to
disagree with the Bush administration has reasonable
grounds for skepticism.
But it strikes me as obtuse to think that liberating
Iraq
would not bolster the War
on Terror.
The liberation of Afghanistan
yielded a treasure trove of intelligence from
captured computers and files that have helped
unravel the Al Qaeda organization over the past
year. Similarly, the liberation of Iraq
would give the
U.S.
access to the files of Saddam Hussein’s infamous
intelligence service, the Mukhabarat --- assuming
the files haven’t all been destroyed in the
devastating cruise missile attacks on Hussein’s
command structure. If the
War
on Terror
were dedicated exclusively to extinguishing Al
Qaeda,
the intelligence findings might be meager – we
simply won’t know how extensive the ties are until we enter Baghdad. But if our goal is to combat all
Middle Eastern terrorist organizations that have
targeted Americans in the past, then we can expect
an intelligence bonanza.
At a minimum, achieving “regime change” in
Iraq
will advance the War
on Terror
by depriving terrorist organizations of an important
safe harbor and financial supporter. In the best of
all worlds, gaining access to the Mukhabarat’s
files would help us unravel terrorist cells around
the world.
Iraq
is the linchpin for altering the geopolitics of the
Middle East. The post-Hussein regime could become the first true Arab
democracy. The oil-rich sheikhdoms of Kuwait
and
Qatar
have made progress in introducing
parliamentary government and respecting human
rights, but still remain constitutional monarchies.
A democratic Iraq
could change the terms of debate in every Middle
Eastern country.
Skeptics may rightly ask whether democratizing
Iraq
will prove to be an exercise in futility. The
U.S.
successfully introduced democracy to
Germany
and
Japan
after World War II, but both nations were
economically advanced, with educated and largely
urban populations, and had previous experience with
democracy. Iraq
in the modern era, by contrast, has been ruled in
turns by a colonial power, a monarchy and a
totalitarian regime. The country is divided
ethnically between Sunni and Shia Muslims, Kurds,
Assyrians and Turkish peoples. Whether these groups,
after decades of oppression, can “agree to
disagree” in a pluralistic, democratic society is
open to question.
As long
as we accept that the Iraqis are not likely to
achieve Western-style standards of democracy and
human rights right away, there good
reasons to think that democracy will work in Iraq
better than it has in other hot spots where the U.S.
has undertaken nation building, such as Haiti,
Somalia
and, most recently, Afghanistan.
·
Iraq
has a tradition of strong central government, which
may help prevent the fission into fragmented tribal
entities that occurred in
Afghanistan.
·
Hussein
will leave utterly discredited. There will be no
nostalgia for Baath party rule. At the same time,
Islamic fundamentalism never took root under his
despotic rule. Although the country could
conceivably revert to tribal warlordism, there are
no obvious ideological alternatives to democracy.
·
By
Middle Eastern standards, Iraq
has a well educated population with a large middle
class – or at least it did before Hussein’s
military adventurism impoverished the nation.
·
Literally
millions of Iraqis have fled the country.
Presumably, the exile population has been
inculcated, to some degree, with the norms of
democratic societies. Thousands, perhaps hundreds of
thousands, of them will return to help build a
democracy.
·
Unlike
Afghanistan,
Iraq
possesses extraordinary oil wealth that can be used
to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. This
wealth, combined with the renunciation of weapons of
mass destruction and a downsizing of the military,
will make it possible to improve living standards
rapidly. Prosperity after decades of deprivation
should enhance the legitimacy of democratic rule.
·
The
U.S.
appears willing to make a serious, long-term
commitment to nation building in Iraq,
which it did not in either
Haiti
or Somalia.
As in
Afghanistan,
we can help Iraqis forge a new military force
accustomed to civilian control. The presence of
U.S.
forces will ensure that the new military does not
engage in any coups or putsches.
Critics of regime change fret that the
U.S.
commitment to Iraq
could last years. That should come as no surprise, nor
should it impose undue hardship. The U.S.
has stationed troops in South
Korea
and Japan
for more than 50 years
without excessive strain to protect
those nations from
aggression.
The U.S.
presence in South
Korea is less welcome than in the past. Were it not for
the belligerent behavior of the Kim Il Jung regime,
one could advance the argument that our military
forces were no longer needed there. One also wonders why the
U.S.
maintains more than a nominal military presence in Europe. We could avoid “imperial overstretch” by shuttering outdated, Cold War outposts and
shifting military assets to where they're really
needed: the Middle
East.
Foes
of the American invasion of
Iraq
raise one other legitimate concern: By fueling
hatred of the
United
States,
we will only help terrorists recruit more followers.
Thousands of Muslims will join the “jihad” against
the Great Satan.
Yes, that is a risk. But there will be many benefits to
overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
·
Hussein
supported terrorism. Toppling his regime will
deprive terrorists of financial support and a safe
haven.
·
Intelligence
from Mukhabarat archives will allow us to identify
and track down terrorist cells.
·
Fury
at the United States
will be mitigated by scenes of Iraqis greeting
the
allies as liberators.
·
A
democratic government in
Iraq
will provide an ideological
alternative to
fundamentalist Islam.
·
The
new balance of power will diminish state support for terrorism by
other states, such as
Iran,
Syria
and Saudi
Arabia.
The
display of
U.S.
military power and political is already changing the
political calculus of the
Middle
East.
There are reports that the Syrian regime is reining
in its support for terrorists. Syrian dictator
Bashar al-Asad does not want to replicate Saddam
Hussein’s fall from power. Meanwhile, moderate
Palestinians appear to be gaining the upper hand
against Yasser Arafat. The futility of the Intifada
and the loss of the radical Palestinians’ greatest
ally,
Iraq,
may create an opening for peace talks with
Israel.
When
the war in Iraq is over, the U.S.
will take a respite from its military exertions. We
then should turn our diplomatic attention to Iran
and Saudi
Arabia.
The
Iranian clerics, unrelenting
foes of Israel, have underwritten the radical
Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations. Iran
also has funneled funding, training and logistics
assistance to extremist groups in the Gulf, Africa,
Turkey
and Central
Asia.
Unlike Hussein in Iraq,
however, the clerics do not exercise totalitarian
control over the country. Considerable power is
vested in a freely elected parliament, and the
judiciary is semi autonomous. As evidenced by
massive demonstrations,
the reform movement enjoys great strength.
Heartened by events in
Iraq,
reformers may succeed in wresting power from the
mullahs. The U.S. should back the reformers, but subtly,
so as not to incur a nationalist backlash or
accusations of meddling.
Saudi Arabia
may not
harbor terrorist organizations but the
ruling sheikhs are clearly complicit in exporting
their fundamentalist brand of Islam, Wahhabiism, to
other nations. The Saudis fund the madrassas,
religious schools from
Pakistan
to Malaysia,
that teach a strict, medieval version of Islam and
inculcate hatred of Israel
and the United
States.
It also is well documented that individual Saudis have
bankrolled Al Qaeda and other terrorist movements.
Finally, there is something about the closed Saudi
society itself that breeds a fanatic odium towards
the U.S.:
Let us not forget that most of the 9-11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.
Americans
have long considered the Saudis as friends.
Indeed,
Saudi
Arabia
has lent its airfields to the
U.S.
to prosecute the war against
its old enemy, Saddam
Hussein, and as a leader of OPEC, the country has
worked to stabilize oil prices – not for
charitable reasons, of course, but to ensure that the U.S.
and other industrial nations never
feel compelled to kick their oil dependency. Once the war against Iraq
is complete, the U.S.
will have
re-evaluate its "friendship" with the Saudi monarchy
and consider backing a democratic reform movement
there.
As
a long-term policy, the
U.S.
should vigorously nudge Middle Eastern countries to
reform their political and economic structures. At
the risk of repeating myself, I stress that it
would be foolhardy to hold Middle Eastern nations to
impossible standards of democratic perfection. The U.S.
and other democracies took centuries to get where
they are today, and we still don't always get it
right.
Middle Easterners must find their own way.
They must work out their own visions of society, informed
perhaps by Western experience, but in line with
their own religions, their own values, their own
history. We
probably won't always like what we see --
anti-Americanism thrives in Latin American
democracies as well, so we should not be surprised
if it surfaces in Middle Eastern democracies. But
anti-Americanism in Latin America is tolerable because it
is not coupled with militarism and a quest for
weapons of mass destruction. Societies that give people a voice in government,
respect human rights and grant economic freedoms
tend to eschew military adventurism and integrate more
readily into the global trading system than those
that don’t. Open societies achieve greater material
progress, don't squander their
wealth acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and
don't breed the foot soldiers of terrorism.
The
United
States
is not an imperialist power. We have no interest in
conquering countries or creating an “empire.” As
Americans, our goal is to liberate people from
tyranny because we believe that a world inhabited by
a free and prosperous people also is the safest
world.
--
March
24, 2003
|
