I’ve seen it asserted many times, in many circles, that once we complete the war in Iraq, the rest of the world, especially the Middle East, will see what we’ve done and come around to our way of thinking. At the very least, they’ll NOT hate us for what we’ve done. This assertion has been made to placate the fears of many who disagree with the war that the Iraq invasion will increase terrorism by playing on the fears of the average Muslim/Middle Easterner/whatever.
Now, the more news I absorb, and the more I read threads like this, the more I come to question this view. Can anyone give me any reason whatsoever to believe it? Even if we ARE able to show images of Iraqis dancing in the streets greeting our soldiers with joy (I’ve gotten the impression that this has already happened a lot less than many people thought), why should it significantly change the current attitudes of the Middle East, which seems to be dangerously against us?
I’d love to be wrong about this. I’d love to think that this war will NOT result in thousands of American deaths at the hands of terrorists the war is solely responsible for creating (or, at the very least, I’d love for those deaths to be less than what would’ve resulted without war, but no one can prove anything either way). But I haven’t yet heard any reasons why it wouldn’t, thus this thread.
Certainly, I think it’s a safe bet that in future, if the Rest of The World was allowed to vote on the US Presidential Elections, you would get greater than a 40% turnout from people outside the USA.
But I digress… after much considered thought on my part, I’m of the opinion now that very little good can come out of this situation unless…
(1) All rebuilding contracts are performed by non Coalition countries.
(2) 100% of the costs of rebuilding is borne by the Coalition countries and not ONE single cent is paid for out of Iraqi oil coffers.
(3) 100% of the post-Saddam restructuring and administration is handed over to highly regarded non-aligned Arab administrators from the region - preferably Palestinian and Jordanian.
(4) That Iraq be allowed to implement ANY sort of goverment it wishes - regardles of US objections. Preferably, a model such as Iran’s current situation.
(5) That the USA in particular simply gives, and gives, and gives to the Iraqi people for at least the next 10 years - without a single favour in return. Hospitals, Universities, Schools, Sporting Facilities, Roads, Sewage Plants, Water Treatment Plants, Irrigation Projects - you name it… the whole kaboodle - all for free without a single price tag attaced.
Failure to implement any, or all of these points will doom the USA to terrorist reprisals for the next generation I predict.
It’s a dreadful situation because I’m not hearing even the slightest hints by the US Administration that they are within 5 light years of being aware of these realities.
I disagree. It’s the neo-con plan to do none of the things you suggested. Any fallout that occurs, is just evidence for them that the “war on terrorism” isn’t finished, and so another invasion is justified, then another…
I do not think anyone is naive enough to assert that this war will fix all of the problems in the mid-east for the US. Nor hs it ever been stated, to my knowledge, that this war was supposed to stop the terrorist attcks against the US. If you remember 9/11, you will know that the US was attacked and hated before this war was even much more than a fantasy.
This war is to dissarm Iraq of WMD that the administration has chosen to believe may be accessable to future terrorists. And * in the process* (intended consequence), free the Iraqi people of the brutal tyrany of Saddam’s government. The “average Muslim/Middle Easterner/whatever” can be reasoned with. If the US does not screw it up, the aftermath of the war would justify us. Extremists will never be resoned with. And anyone who says otherwise has an agenda I wouldn’t trust. They can only be dealt with and hopefully contained.
My question to you is why do you think this war should stop the hatred of the US in the mid-east and the terrorists craving for American deaths?
Any significant changes will result after the war, and when the Iraqi people are free. But, that hatred will always be there in one form, or the other, as long as there is an imam willing to spew his vitriolic hatred towards the US and every non-muslim entity that has the gall to have interests in their “holy land”. This war did not create the hatred, although it is apparently feeding it with the biased views of those in the area and their wish to promulgate every percieved wrong-doing of the US no matter what we do.
There are reasons galore out there. You even demonstrated one with your question about the freeing of the Iraqi people. Another obvious reason is the inability f terrorists to use the WMD the Iraqi government is supposedly creating under everyones noses. Those are the doccumented reasons of the US and British governments. If you have not heard these reasons, it is only because you chose not to listen.
Boo Boo Foo
All you have listed would never happen. the people of the US would not put up with it even if we somehow got rid of Bush and elected Hillary Clinton, or the most liberal of our homegrown socialists. So I guess we are “doomed”.
I am no way an expert of the psyche of the region. And I cannot tell you if what we are doing, and will ultimately do, make everything hunky dory. And I do not believe that is what we are trying to do with this war. We have acknowledged we are “doomed” after 9/11. We have chosen to fight back. Not appease or placate. And , at least, the administration and most of this country has acknowledged that although we may be doomed we will do what we must to detere terrorists and any possible use of WMD. That is my greatest fear. Not that we will be attacked again, or that we may be doomed for the future. It is the ability of the extremists to inflict massive and terrifying harm on us the way they would with WMD.
Is this the “correct” way to do it? No one can honestly say. Regardless, placating and appeasing , I would never support. My sense of justice, and perhaps my overconfidence in the abilities of the US would make such an option beyond repugnant. I am also more afraid of such an action because then it lets the whole world know that the US can be administered to whomever’s will with the fear of terrorism. As the world leader, and only superpwer, we have so much more to lose than the love of exremists if we went that road.
I don’t see anyone offering viable alternatives. Your list highlights that. So, I think we must do what we have to do in the process, and hopefully manage the situations we can control as well as we can.
There are no “proofs” and no guarantees for an open-ended issue like this. There was no “proof” that the Marshall Plan would work after WWII. But it did. There was no “proof” that the League of Nations would work. It didn’t. There was no “proof” that the American colonies would create a viable nation. On the first try, they didn’t, and they had to do it over a decade later in what amounted to a bloodless coup that resulted in the current Constitution of the U.S.
There is no “proof” that leaving Saddam Hussein alone would result in horrible things happening elsewhere. There is no “proof” that it wouldn’t. Ditto on the United Nations. You have to weigh the probabilities.
Saen: " All you have listed would never happen. the people of the US would not put up with it even if we somehow got rid of Bush and elected Hillary Clinton, or the most liberal of our homegrown socialists."
Just out of curiosity, which “homegrown socialists” would you be thinking of? (Oh, and btw, liberals and socialists are usually thought of as distinct and often oppositional political positions.)
Dear readers, please note that the following post relates more to the future threat of random terrorist reprisal attacks as a result of the Iraq War - rather than the immediate issues existing WITHIN the Iraq War.
I hear what you’re saying Saen - to be sure, I hear where you’re coming from, my friend. Still, I have an observation on all this - and it’s an observation which I rarely see mentioned nowadays. So here goes… I hope I do the concept some form of justice…
It seems to me that the true root causes of “militant Islamic extremism” are actually born out of a “war of ideas” - just as the battle of Communism vs Capitalism was also a battle of ideas. Certainly, as it stands, there can be no denying that the end results of militant extremism are ugly, horrible, tangible events - no doubt - but the original cause, the true root cause, is fundamentally an idea that the Islamo-Arabic psyche has something to say - that is has worth - and that it’s tired of feeling downtrodden and exploited etc etc etc.
It seems to me, that when all is said and done, the only true way to beat an idea, is to beat it with an even better idea. I accept that the USA is entitled, just as any Western country is entitled to take every possible security precaution imaginable to protect one’s homesoil - don’t have a problem with that - however… I would ALSO contend that to use the US Military to seek and destroy terrorism is a most unwise and injudicious use of a magnificent resource - because it isn’t actually attacking the root cause - namely, you aren’t attacking the fundamental IDEA of militant Islam with a superior idea.
Analoguously, I would suggest that Communism was defeated, not by battle, but instead, by implementing superior ideas into the Western landscape. Yes, it’s true that Mutually Assuerd Destruction played a part - as did the fiersome NATO arsenal. But what really beat the Soviet Union was the superior ideas which went into the Western World - and quite simply, the Soviets could no longer AFFORD to keep up the pretences of equality - in the end, they were bankrupt because the IDEA of Communism was inferior to the Western World.
As it stands, I’m not hearing anyone… anywhere… actually addressing the TRUE root causes for militant Islamic extremism - and I accept that my thesis now diverges AWAY from the narrow confines of Mesopotamia. But I’ll stand by my words here…
The world’s most stable societies share some common “ideals” - ideals which inarguably represent things which exist in the “noble” end of the human emotional spectrum - and here they are…
(1) A commitment to legislated property rights…
(2) A commitment to true freedom of the press and the right of dissent…
(3) A commitment to respecting civil rights - across all genders and religions…
(4) A commitment to eradicating corruption and black market activity…
(5) A commitment to making every new generation even MORE highly educated than the last…
Time and time again, throughout the globe, throughout history… experience shows that any country or region which sells itself short on any, or all of those points opens itself up to extremism.
My sadness is that I’m seeing the USA foolishly attempting to “fight back against terror” with massive military might when in reality, all you need to do is reduce your exposure, and start exporting assistance to every country in the world which is less blessed than your own to implement those fine ideals I outlined above. If you stop and ponder my points for a moment - please, I ask you - nominate any country you care to which is currently exporting militant Islamic extremism, and then apply my litmus test of ideals above - and 100% of the time you’ll find that one, or all of the ideals are missing in some capacity.
This is why I’m sad… nobody seems to be getting this at the moment… namely, to beat an idea, you have to beat it with an even better idea.
We’re allowed to defend ourselves - totally agree. But to use military might overseas in the absolute epicentre of the hornet’s nest when the true solution is to influence a commitment in that region to the ideals listed above is, well, reckless.
I would like to apologise for my last post actually. In my 3rd last paragraph, I used the word “foolish” to describe the USA’s efforts to fight the “War on Terror” with military might.
I was wrong to use that word. My paragraph implied that I believe the USA is “only” using military muscle to fight the “War on Terror” and this is blatantly incorrect.
I gladly accept that the USA’s “War on Terror”, encompasses many, many varied levels of effort - from diplomacy to police work to intelligence work through to military action.
But the reality is that the US will want to provide contracts for rebuilding infrastructure to the coalition, which to many people is equivalent with shipping carton loads of Iraqi loot back to the US.
It is unfortunate that the reputation of the USA amongst people all over the world has plummeted recently, especially when everyone was so supportive after 9/11.
What is just as bad is that this conflict has garnered support for Saddam Hussain amongst people living in many muslim countries.
I was trying to use an extreme as an example. I did not have anyone in particular in mind. As a matter of fact, I know no one on the political scene that would fit my example because of the fact that the people tend not to tolerate such ideas in their leaders. And I never meant to mutually equate Liberals with socialist. I said the most liberal of socialist. While they have opposing positions, they are not mutually exclusive in their ideals.
Boo Boo Foo
The best idea we have come up with is democracy. And all in your list is implimented mainly through democracy. While instilling such a form of government through outside force has had a bad history throughout nations that have never claimed it on their own. It has been acknowledged, and even somewhat planned as an aftermath of this war. Regardless of wheather When the Presidnet addresses the issue of “freeing the people of Iraq”. To me that means a self determining people with our ideas of democracy. It also seems to me he is desiring to make an example of Iraq after the war to spread those ideas. you or I find it attainable, it has been acknowledged and touted. So your “I’m not hearing anyone… anywhere… actually addressing the TRUE root causes for militant Islamic extremism” leaves me wondering what it is you are getting at.
Saen, my observation earlier regarding myself not hearing anyone addressing the “true root causes of militant Islam” extends way beyond just Iraq you see. As you know, we had a dreadful bombing down here in Bali last October in which 200 people burnt to death. Dreadful stuff. And it too, was a manifestation of militant Islam.
My observations pertain to the pan-Islamic world - not just Iraq alone. Not just the Arab world alone. And it’s in that context that I made my observation. Forgive me if that wasn’t clear.
But something needs to be said here… the single biggest mistake the US Administration is making at the moment is that they are exercising the diplomatic finesse of a sledgehammer - in totally 100% of everything they do. And worse yet, when America speaks of “democracy” to Arab Street, do you know what they think? They just look at Egypt - a country which supposedly is nominally “democratic” which, in reality, is failing dismally across all 5 of my social “ideals” which I listed earlier. Accordingly, when the US talks of imposing “democracy” on Iraq, Arab Street automatically just thinks “Yeah right… another Egypt in the making… thanks but no thanks…”
That’s the worst part about using the word “democracy”. So many countries down through the years, have gone out of their way to describe themselves as “democratic”, and have done so to cynically manipulate American public opinion - when in fact, examples like Chile in the early 70’s and South Vietnam in the mid 60’s - well those sort of examples were little short of being dreadful despotic regimes unto themselves.
And Arab Street isn’t dumb, you know. They study history, and they know from long experience, both internally of the Arab World and externally, that very rarely has the USA been able to ever understand the subtle needs of a given region. Arab Street perceives these current efforts by the USA as just being more of the same - the same sort of “propped up foreign aid addicted quasi democratic regimes which only pay lip service to the true ideals”.
So, you see, my honest belief is that when you described my 5 ideals earlier as basically “being what democracy truly is”, I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you. I think it’s eminently possible for more than a few forms of governance to exist which STILL manage to ascribe to the 5 Golden Ideals, but also, manage to be a form of governance which is uniquely tailored to the culture of the region in question.
And this is where Arab Street is totally freaked out, you see. They perceive the notion that some form of “cookie cutter mass production US Democracy Model” can be plonked down anytime, anywhere, and then be made to work - well… they perceive that notion as being the ULTIMATE in nation-state naievety.
The consensus is that it falls a long way short of the best ideas that the Arab World themselves can come up with - because THEIR attitude is that they are having something (yet again) rammed down their throats - and regardless of whether it’s good medicine or not - it’s the perception of being “condescended to” which breeds so much resentment from what I can see.
This is why I strongly recommended the Iranian model - it would far more easily be implemented with infinitely less turmoil and spoiling tactics. Conversely, an example of a “quasi democracy” aided and abetted by the USA which is imposed on the region is the basket case which is Egypt - a country which relies on 7.9% of it’s annual GDP to be foregin aid - and still, it’s literacy rates are falling off the radar.
Hence, there’s a giant chasm between the “simplistic US best case desires” and the “real world Arab Street what-will-actually-work” philosophies you see.
And that is what I was working at earlier. I’m not hearing anyone in the US Administration concede that these sort of subtle realities firstly exist, and secondly, need to be accomodated.
The bottom line is this - every effort by the USA to “force” some sort of solution on Iraq will be resisted by Arab Street - purely out of principle. It matters not whether this is right, or wrong - it simply matters that it is. And the US Administration pointedly seems to be ignorant of this reality.
