[« Animation of the Philosophy of Liberty] [Jason Whitlock - An Honest Voice: "Imus isn’t the real bad guy" »]

02/23/2007: "What to do about a Iraq, Resurgent Islam and Everything?"

Right now we are actively debating what to do about the War in Iraq with a sharp eye on what is going on in Iran. Indeed, regardless of one's past support for the conflict, or one's persistent desire to see that democracy spreads and flourishes in the Middle East and throughout the world, it is impossible not to notice that things are not going well in Iraq. As part of the analysis of what to do in the future we must observe what really happened in the past, review current options, but more importantly we must analyze what we should be doing in regards to Islam as a whole.

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was attacked by a dissident group of Islamic Fundamentalists. For these Islamic Fundamentalists the USA represented a convenient “straw man” that could be safely attacked in order to attract attention and support for their internal conflict inside Islam. The USA really posed no threat to these people, and had very little influence upon the Islamic world as a whole, however, attacking the USA gave this minority of Islamic Fundamentalists a credibility that they otherwise would have lacked through more peaceful means such as debate and discussion. So repeated attacks were made against the USA and the West by Al Qaida and other Islamic groups for the primary purpose of developing their base inside Islam rather than to influence US and Western policy regarding the Middle East and Islam.

So after being attacked numerous times, and trying to resolve the conflict through non-military non-violent means, after 9/11 the USA went to war against this dissident group of Moslems who had a base inside Afghanistan, and who also operated out of virtually everyplace on earth. We were actively supported by the rest of the world, particularly our “friends” in Europe, Russia, China and the Middle East. Our fight was justified, our means were reasonable and effective, and our goals were logical and beneficial for all. We were not at war with Islam. We were not on some kind of Crusade to restore Christianity or to oppose Islam in any manner. We were just defending ourselves against a chronic threat.

And the World supported us. I think few would argue that our involvement in Afghanistan was justified, and even that our continued presence there is useful or at least necessary.

Iraq is another matter. The invasion of Iraq has driven wedges not just between the nations of the West who have the most to lose from a resurgent violent Fundamentalist Islam, but also within nations and even within political parties. It is argued, in most cases from hindsight, that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake and driven by lies and misrepresentations by the Bush Administration.

I will not admit it was a mistake to go into Iraq. Not even in hindsight. We invaded Iraq for 3 reasons: Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), Iraqi Support for International Terrorism, and Saddam was a serious threat to everything good in the world. And the idea that the Bush Administration would lie about such serious issues is preposterous since it clear that all the information that was relied upon came from the prior administration, and also reliable and varied foreign intelligence. Some of the information may have been wrong, but it was not fabricated.

Although we did not find huge stock piles of WMDs like some believed were possibly in existence, we did find convincing evidence of Saddam increasing his capacity to produce WMDs, particularly of the biological kind. For some of these items you are looking at a relatively short period of time between having the capacity to produce and actually producing and also a short shelf life once produced, so it is difficult to argue that because we did not find stockpiles of WMDs, Saddam did not have them since he had the capacity to produce them. Although Saddam was not involved in 9/11, and no one ever suggested he was, he was a significant player in international terrorism supporting a wide variety of terrorist groups across the globe. And as for Saddam being just a big pain in the butt that needed to be removed, I think 2 major wars that resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives (Iran-Iraq War and the Invasion of Kuwait) should serve as ample reason alone, but his human rights abuses to his own people rank him up there with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. Since the removal of Saddam Hussein the world is clearly a little safer since a possible source of WMDs is now gone, support for terrorism has fewer sponsors, and a war criminal has been brought to justice.

We could probably argue whether or not the war was justified at the time for ever. But I think most people would agree that the following occupation of Iraq was a muddled ill-conceived bungle. It is clear that removing Saddam from Iraq unleashed a level of chaos that few really realized was possible. I admit that I thought at the time that once Saddam was removed, the Iraqi people would strive for a secular society. Of all the Arabs in the Middle East the Iraqis are the most advanced, well educated, and non-religious (at least they used to be). But I and many more like me were wrong, simple as that.

Saddam did one thing well: He contained Iran. Because of that everyone tolerated his paranoid insane behavior and his destabilizing actions regarding neighbors and international terrorism. Now that Saddam is gone, however, there is a power vacuum, and it would seem that the parties attempting to fill that vacuum are playing for keeps. The Iranians have taken advantage of the absence of Iraqi force and money, and filled the gap expanding their roles not only in Iraq but in Lebanon, in Palestine, and in unlikelier places (South and Central America?). This is not necessarily a bad thing for us. I know it looks bad, but I am not sure if Iranian influence is any worse than Saddam's since the Iranians are easier to talk to than Saddam ever was despite the strange and bizarre behavior of the current Iranian president. And those Moderate Arab nations that wish to counter Iran are more desperately in need of our support than ever before. Ironically, this state of complete chaos puts us in a position of leverage and control like never before if we are willing to tolerate the uncertainty.

Now what to do about Iraq? I don't know... maybe nothing. If extra troops can convince the Iraqi people to stop trying to kill each other over religious and tribal differences then I suppose that would be the ideal situation, particularly if it does not involve additional US casualties (it would seem that the added troops are improving security for US forces if no one else). If it is not possible to end the bloodshed in Iraq, and at this point it is too early to know if that is even possible, then we should "withdraw" from the Shia-Sunni War, and get out of the way. Let the Iranians and the other Arabs fight their little proxy war for the next 10 years in Southern Iraq. We establish secure bases in Kuwait and in Kurdistan to make sure that the Kurds are safe (and so that we can protect the Turks from continued harassment from Kurdish separatists -- a fair trade all in all for the Kurds). We put pressure on Syria to change sides or at least question their alliance with Iran. We heat up things in Lebanon to make sure Iran and Syria are under serious pressure there as well. And we generally sit back and watch as the Middle East (and Iran in particular) bleeds itself dry. Eventually Iran will run itself into the ground trying to recreate a New Persian Empire (since Iran only has 10 years of exportable oil production left that should be about what is needed). A rather cruel and callous perspective, but perhaps it is the only one we have.

But what to do about Islam as whole? Somehow the USA has been maneuvered by internal philosophies as well as by external factors into confronting more than just “Islamic Dissidents”. We are now confronting the entire Islamic World in the form of a Resurgent Islamic Movement on behalf of the West, while our “friends” in the Middle East, Europe and Asia have essentially decided to withdraw their support from us! Why are we dong this? What does the USA have to fear from a Resurgent Islamic Faith? It would seem that those who have legitimate reasons to fear a Resurgent Islam are those who are doing the least to oppose it: Moderate Arabs, Europe, Russia and China.

How did we allow ourselves to be suckered into this position of fighting to protect this strange group against the destabilizing effect of Islam on their societies, while those same parties most profoundly effected feign a lack of interest in the issue or outright opposition to us?

Perhaps it was just an over abundance of confidence in our own abilities combined with an American Naivety concerning the sincerity of our “friends”, many of whom turn out to be jaded cynical scoundrels. Together with a profound and perhaps unreasonable optimism in the power of democracy to solve all the worlds problems. Whatever the reason for our current position, it is not necessary for us to carry this burden alone. In fact it may not even be necessary for us to worry about a Resurgent Islam at all. Why should we worry over whether or not Europe survives as a culturally Western entity in the absence of such concern inside Europe? Why should we defend Moderate Arab nations when they seem unwilling to defend themselves? And why should we be opposing Islamic expansion into Asia when Russia and China seem quite happy to see us flailing away desperately in the Middle East? We have no real stake in the cultural hegemony of these groups in their regions so we should not be trying to protect them from the spread of radical Islam.

We just want oil.

And Islamic countries have proven more than happy to sell it to us as long as we don't bother them too much. In fact it is quite obvious that these countries need to sell their oil much more than we need to buy it. If for some reason there was a substantial cut-off of oil supplies from the Middle East, the USA along with the rest of the world would face some difficult choices, and likely economic trauma. But the oil supplying countries would be utterly and totally ruined. Without selling oil, these countries have no other means of support or survival.

It would seem that there simply is no rational basis for getting ourselves involved into what has become an Intra-Islamic conflict between Shia and Sunni in Iraq, and it would seem equally absurd for us to get overly concerned about growing Fundamentalist Islam in Asia and Africa. As long as they sell us oil, what do we care?