Made ya look. Thread title is extreme hyperbole, strictly for advertising purposes. Take it serously and you will be mocked.
In this thread, Simon X has asked all comers to defend the “Democratic Domino Theory of the Middle East.” Some have, but none seemingly with a great deal of enthusiasm. My own view, which I posted, was that I supported the current US policy because while it was obviously flawed, it was at least a comprehensive and coherent plan, and that while I had not heard any others, I’d like to.
It was suggested that asking for “better ideas,” should be it’s own thread, hence I have created one. The request is for all comers to furnish the outlines of a superior post-9/11 foreign policy. Here are the conditions:
1. It must eliminate the threat that Radical Islam poses to the United States (Or else make the case that there is no threat). In fact, to stay on point, I’d like it if the last sentance of any proposal included words to that effect (see my example below).
2. It must not be consistient with the American character. We’re not going to put veils on women, give up our cars or adopt socialism.
**3. ** It must be feasible. If you want to say “The US forces Israel to give up 100% of the West Bank by threatening to withdraw all aid” I’d say that’s feasible; it might not work, but we can at least envison that as possibly happening. “Give the UN exclusive rights to all global oil reserves.” is not feasible. All nations and groups act in their enlightened self-interest, except for the ones run by crazy people.
This goes also for military logistics. It is not possible to keep division-sized formations or carrier battle groups deployed in the field for more than a few months or so at a time without suffering severe loss of effectiveness (and expense).
4. It must have some detail. If you refer to “UN Troops,” indicate which nations are going to furnish these troops. If you say “compromise” or “cease-fire” you must give some indication of what happens if one side proves intransigent or to be acting in bad faith.
**5. ** It must be workable in its timeframes. No grand schemes that bear fruit in 2100.
6. You can dial the wayback machine to about 9/13/2001 and start doing things differently from that point onward, but no further. If you do, you must fairly account for events in the last two years. If you want to invade Saudi Arabia under a UN flag, explain how you got the approval that Bush didn’t for Iraq (and not “I’m smarter”).
7. Finally … you must assume that (pre-invasion) your intelligence services are telling you that Iraq “probably” has some sort of WMD program and “possibly” has functional weapons.
The following is offered as a summary of current US policy, here for informational purposes and as an example of a plan that, IMO has about a 50/50 shot at working:
The Neo-cons’ plan in <400 words
Situation:
Radical Islam is a looming mortal threat to the United States. Fundamentalism is growing in size and strength, and the destruction of the United States as we know it is a stated goal of many adherants. It’s ability to harm the United States is currently limited, but will only increase with time, and may increase exponentially if extremist groups acquire WMD and/or the ability to control the global economy via the worldwide dependance on Middle Eastern oil.
The root cause of Radical Islam the frustration, shame and anger many Arabs and Muslims feel about their social/political/economic situations. Changing the political landscape of the Middle east is essential to improving the lives of Arabs. However, the autocratic regimes in the Middle East are not open to reform; indeed they generally foster anti-American sentiment in an effort to divert internal pressure away from themselves, staying in power by fostering the belief that Arab problems are solely attributable to outsiders (primarily the US and Israel, though often “the West” or “infidels” in general), and that their problems can only be addressed by attacking those outsiders.
Solution:
Therefore, these regimes must either be forced to reform themselves or be replaced with reformist regimes that will begin the long, slow process of bringing the Arab world into the 21st century. It is unlikely that economic or social pressure would be effective in bringing about a change in the Arab political landscape. Economic sanctions would likely harden anti-American sentiment. Increased economic aid would increase the sense of shame many Arabs feel about their situation; besides which such aid would be going to the very regimes that are already the problem. Targeted, limited use of American military power is the quickest way change the social and political landscape of the Middle East.
The obvious target for such action was Iraq; they were already an outlaw regime in violation of UN resolutions, they were a gross abuser of human rights, and they were suspected of developing WMD. Moreover, they have a relatively secular and educated population and significant natural resources.
Replacing the Iraqi regime creates the possibility for successful, modernized, liberal democratic Arab state.
If the Iraqis can create for themselves (with US help) a social/political/economic situation that is obviously superior to that in other Arab nations, it will act as a dramatic spur to reformist sentiments in those nations, disproving notions that Arabs cannot govern themselves, that Islam is incompatible with democracy, or that all of the Arabs world’s problems are attributable to outsiders. Internal pressure will mount for reform in Arab nations; hopefully this will come peacefully, though violent revoltions cannot be ruled out.
As Arab nations improve their situations, the anger and frustration that fuels terrorism will lessen, and as nations modernize, less-militant and restrictive brands of Islam will grow at the expense of extremism. Eventually, cut off at the roots, Radical Islam will disappear as a major social force and cease to be a threat to the US.
That’s a broad summary that I think Paul Wolfowitz could live with. (Here’s more.). This is NOT “my” plan. If you want to attack it, go to the other thread. If you refer to me as a neo-con, a right-winger, a Republican or a Cowboys fan, I will regard it as a personal insult.
I’ve heard a hundred times that Bush and his people are morons. Let’s see you do better.
