Here’s the story. He’s saying we’re in a world war against an assortment of Arab/Muslim forces:
He seems to figure that the best answer is to upset the entire Middle East applecart, friends and foes alike:
“As we move toward a new Middle East,” Woolsey said, “over the years and, I think, over the decades to come … we will make a lot of people very nervous.”
It will be America’s backing of democratic movements throughout the Middle East that will bring about this sense of unease, he said.
“Our response should be, ‘good!’” Woolsey said.
Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, “We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you – the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family – most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.”
I have no problem backing democracy, but there’s also the question of how you get there, how many people will be killed and lives ruined along the way, or even if that’s what the Arabians and Egyptians will get if we destabilize their current governments.
And this is one of the guys being mentioned for a top position in the Iraqi occupation.
Problem is, increasingly what those people want is Wahabism. And that doesn’t really gel with what the PNAC want.
So if they really plan to bring down all the leaders of Middle-Eastern countries one by one, they’re going to have to impose a US-led colonial administration on each one to prevent Islamist overthrows.
To paraphrase Mubarak, expect a hell of a lot more Osamas.
JC - my problem with his reasoning (as you’ve succinctly encapsulated it) is that:
A) Sure, we don’t find the current situation ideal, but we’ve been living with it for decades, and it’s (on the whole) no better or worse than it’s been.
This depends on how one views our imminent takeover of Iraq; if you think that will work out well, then things are better than they’ve been, and if you don’t, then things are worse. He’s in the former camp.
B) I think you mean our ‘ends’, not our ‘means’, but I get the idea. Anyhow, it depends on what our ends are. If our goal is to maintain a reliable oil supply, then I would think encouraging massive upheaval in the region isn’t the way to go. If it’s to discourage terror, there are better paths also. If it’s to bring democracy to the region, there are other paths there, too.
C) And it could make things a lot worse for us before they get better. I think a lot of these loons have Iran’s evolution in mind - but it’ll be 25 years this fall since the Shah fled into exile. The prospect of a Middle East that’s a far bigger hornets’ nest for us over the next 25 years than it’s been over the past 25 years, in order to have it evolve into a group of pro-Western democracies by around 2030, doesn’t strike me as the best of all possible futures, even if it works out that way in the end.
When I was young, the radicals of that era claimed to want to tear down the Establishment and start over. But the radicals in question were in their teens and twenties, and the young and inexperienced are prone to saying such things. I’m not sure what the excuse of Woolsey, Wolfie, etc. is.
This is exactly the thought-pattern that I discussed in Col’s thread, that he did not see fit to answer. It scares the heck out of me… but, from what I understand, if Bush’s people are in a neo-con groupthink mode, it could show up. Like Reconstruction after the Civil War, we could do horrid things.
Well, more proof, if such be needed, that the hawks have well and truly taken over the asylum. I guess next we’re going to have a speech from a high administration official explaining that the Axis of Evil is trying to steal our precious bodily fluids.
Buncha damn “fraidy cats”. Guess what. We already pissed em off. We are in a war that has “inflamed” the region and let them know that we aint gonna play dead.
Not that I am saying you are wrong. We all wanna hold hands and sing peace songs. The problem is that there is a confrontation brewing. And it is not the “arabs” fault. Nor is it the US’s. It is the way the world is now. We have interests over there. They do not like our infidel ways. They attack our citizens. We have more interests over there… etc, etc.
I see where his stance has merrit. Tell me where yours does that this is not an eventual standoff that will lead to a final comeuppance for one side or the other.