Questions and Answers About the Middle East

[The following is an exceptionally long piece, especially for a blog. It will be up all weekend for the purposes of opening a dialogue the readers of this blog. I encourage readers to leave comments and express your views regarding the Iraq war.]

Late last week and most of this week depending on where you read it, I wrote an op-ed/rant titled, “I Have Seen the Enemy, And It Is Us.” Some people thought it was excellent while others very much hated it. I personally didn’t think it was my best work and for those that have written and commented about it, I’ve said as much. I think what happened when I was writing it was that I’ve been having this conversation about the Middle East and specifically Iraq since 9/11 and I feel like it never goes anywhere. Some people get it while some don’t. As the man once said, “Some men you just can’t reach.” It’s also not my responsibility to bang the drum for Bush’s foreign policy. If the man’s motives were not so buried in rhetoric and propaganda then most people I think would at least understand what’s going on without me having to lobby for free on his behalf. To those whom I offended by sounding like a pompous jackass, I sincerely apologize.

I’ve been thinking since I wrote the piece about the scope of what has happened since 9/11 and how it changed me and my thinking about our foreign policy. I think I owe the loyal readers of my work an explanation of where I’m coming from and how I got there. I also have some questions for all of you.

To being with, I believe, based on Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack” and Ron Suskind’s “The Price of Loyalty” that the Bush administration had always planned to depose Saddam Hussein, well before the attack on 9/11. Oddly enough that never bothered me. It would seem that the people who armed and backed Hussein against the Iranians, mainly Don Rumsfeld and company, realized after the ’91 Gulf War that they had essentially created Frankenstein’s monster in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Somewhere along the line somebody realized that that under the right circumstances, the beast they created to stave off Soviet aggression would come back to bite them.

In the many conversations I’ve had on this subject I’ve heard other theories about why they wanted Hussein out. Cheney wanted a plum to throw to Haliburton, Bush wanted to avenge his dad nearly being assassinated by Hussein’s agents in Kuwait and Don Rumsfeld needed a testing ground for what he thought would be the new, sleeker, less cumbersome military; a McNamara, if you will. Those are all plausible but who can say what was in their hearts and minds. One thing was for certain, the world had changed after the Berlin Wall came down and this trio apparently thought it was time to tie up loose ends.

So going in to a debate on whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, this is my starting point. I realize most people start with the question of “WMD’s” but that doesn’t even tell half of the story.

The other part of the equation regarding Hussein’s Iraq was the future of sanctions. Before 9/11 there were a few countries, France in particular, who were lobbying the UN to remove the sanctions from Iraq. Let us assume for a moment that there never were any WMD’s in Iraq ever, even after the Gulf War, as is the contention from most on the left. Let us further assume that France was right in lobbying for the removal of sanctions as Iraq had shown itself to be complying with UN resolutions. Most assuredly the sanctions would have been removed in time and that would have greatly empowered the Hussein regime. While the Duelfer report stated that at the time there appeared to be no weapons program, “Duelfer supported Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made it clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.” (Credit msnbc.com)

As I stated above, the Bush administration felt that in one-way shape or form we would have to deal directly with Hussein sooner than later. I invite you to think about Iraq from their point of view – beyond oil or blood vendettas and all of that – history will remember Cheney and Rumsfeld for directly arming Hussein in the ‘80’s. If he turns around and attacks us (beyond trying to assassinate a former president) then who do you think would catch the blame? If you really want to be cynical about it, their fixation with deposing Hussein probably came directly from their desire to cover their own ass. These are human beings after all and I seriously doubt they wanted an attack by Hussein on their conscience.

Once again, this is what I had put together even without considering the role 9/11 played. To be honest, had we not been attacked, I honestly doubt the Bush administration would have had enough capital to push for a land invasion. They probably would have saved it for Bush’s second term when presidents tend to be ballsier.

Unfortunately, 9/11 did happen and it had a greater effect on our foreign policy then I think people realize. Going as far back to the days of our first president, George Washington, we have always been an isolationist country at heart. Sure we’ve been engaged in foreign conflicts ever since the country was formed but that doesn’t mean we liked it. As far as I can tell in the readings I’ve done, we as a population have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into foreign conflicts. Luckily for us as our country evolved our closest neighbors were either not hostile or not capable of dismantling our way of life. Europe on the other hand is not so lucky as it is on top off both Asia and Africa. At the end of World War II our isolationist country was forced into playing the role of rival superpower to the Soviet Union. Suddenly with the advent of nuclear missiles the world got a lot smaller and much more uncomfortable for a country whose only desire was to stay on their side of the pond out of harms way. I’m generalizing to be sure but to also make a point. We’ve been struggling with our role as a superpower since it was thrust upon us and even though most in our government thought they could handle the responsibility, the populace (you and me) need constant cajoling, convincing and coddling.

When the Berlin Wall came down it marked (more or less) the end of the Cold War. Unfortunately old habits die-hard and so do beliefs. During that period our government thought that the single biggest threat in the world was the spread of Communism. Pan-Arabism and Islamic fanaticism was just a blip on the radar. It was something in the peripheral and that is where it remained until 9/11. Apparently the only people who knew the truth about the threat of Pan-Arabism and Islamic fanaticism were the Arabs/Muslims themselves. It was as if we as a country thought that with the end of the Soviet Union we could go back to being isolationists despite the world being even smaller now than ever before. We weren’t caught sleeping on 9/11; we were caught wishing. We were wishing that we didn’t have to be “the” superpower anymore.

Going back to our good friends in the Bush administration, they too thought the threats of the Middle East were far enough away that they could plan accordingly. That fantasy world came crashing down all around them. I’m asking those of you who claim to be anti-war or just plain hate the Bush administration, what exactly did you want them to do after 9/11? Did you think the problem was just isolated to Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan? If you read what al Qaeda and their brother groups have put out there, the plan isn’t just for Western societies to be out of the Middle East; that’s just phase 1. Their ultimate goal is to convert the entire world by the sword (I’m talking about the Islamic terrorists, Wahhabists, etc., not all Muslim people). Maybe we as average Americans didn’t know this at the time but I’m fairly certain those in power were perfectly aware of what ends our enemies were after. Again, put yourself in the position of the Bush administration, you can’t just abandon the Middle East and there is no country per se, to attack. As is often stated, “There is no al Qaedia.”

Some people say that they were OK with the invasion of Afghanistan but that’s where it should have ended. I’ve never understood why. The threat of Islamic fanaticism is far beyond that particular country so what would make you think that 50 some odd years of building hatred for Western civilization would just dissipate overnight? The other problem with limiting our strategic goals to just Afghanistan is exactly the problem we have right now. Bin Laden isn’t in Afghanistan anymore and hasn’t been for quite some time. According to Richard Miniter in his book, “Shadow War,” bin Laden has been jetting back and forth between Baluchistan, Pakistan and various places throughout Iran. If the argument from the left is that the War on Terror should only be limited to seeking out bin Laden then should we have invaded Pakistan and Iran right after Afghanistan? I think we can all agree that systematically wiping out a series of countries while hunting for one guy is probably not prudent strategy.

I throw the ball back to you dissenters and anti-war types, what do you do once bin Laden goes underground? The problem is bigger than al Qaeda and it’s certainly bigger than bin Laden. If we had been lucky enough to kill him the first time around do you really believe all of the various networks dedicated to annihilating Western Civilization would have just folded and went home? What exactly would you have had the Bush administration do at that point?

Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the biggest threats to peace in the world. In addition, 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. Many people have argued that if we were going to invade a country based on the potential threat they posed, then we should have gone after North Korea, who actually has a nuclear weapon, or Saudi Arabia who seemed to be complicit in the 9/11 attack or Iran who is actively seeking nuclear weapons. People have further argued that between years of sanctions and bombing runs Iraq was of no real threat and should not have been invaded. I have never understood the logic of these arguments. You are suggesting that we instigate nuclear war with North Korea and wait for Iraq to eventually become an equal or greater threat? Maybe it is just me but I thought the more prudent strategy would be to take out the weakest target and use it a base from which to leverage the other two enemies into some form of dialogue. Putting aside the issues of oil, arms and egos, if you just look at a map it is plain to see the value of having a strategic base of operations in Iraq.

On paper it actually was a good plan. Of all the potential targets in the greater Middle East and Central Asia (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan) the country that should have had the least resistance while providing the largest circle of influence was Iraq. If you take out Iraq you remove a hostile enemy to Israel, you surround Iran (with Afghanistan and Pakistan, our allies now, on the other side), and you put pressure on Syria. If the idea was to plant our sphere of influence smack in the middle of terror central then I believe Iraq was the place to do it. This is a war largely made up of symbolic actions. Iraq has provided a steady stream of symbolism to an enemy that believes itself to be guided by the whims of God.

Has the war effort been perfect? Of course it hasn’t. We obviously planned for mass surrenders and non-interference from Syria and Iran; we got the opposite instead. I’ve said this before, our government, be it Republican or Democrat, is still trying to figure out how we can go to war without actually killing people. Unfortunately, lots of people get killed in the experiments we try.

It is with all of this in mind that I was for the Iraq war. I always saw it as one of the many strategies against fighting the Islamic fanatics. I also knew going in that we as a public would need some convincing that could be squeezed into short catchphrases and cable news segments. That’s why when the administration was beating the drum about WMD’s I tended to laugh because I knew and they knew damn well that wasn’t the real reason we were doing this, it looked good on paper though and don’t ever underestimate the power of a good marketing strategy.

On the less cynical side, suppose we hadn’t pushed the envelop in Iraq. Suppose that after 9/11 Bush said to the world, “We’re sorry we abandoned Afghanistan after the war against the Soviets and let it be overrun by the Taliban. We’re sorry we gave Hussein mixed messages on invading Kuwait and then led a coalition against him to get his forces out of there. We’re sorry we put an American military base in your holy land of Saudi Arabia. We’re sorry we encouraged the Kurds to rebel against Hussein and then watched them get slaughtered by him. We’re sorry our word means nothing. We’re sorry for being a decadent country filled with sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Give us a few days and we’ll just pack our things and let you folks in the Middle East handle your own business, Israel, nice to know you.” I’m sure some of you wished that’s exactly what would have happened. Well suppose it did, are you under the assumption that if we abandoned the Middle East to their own devices and let Israel be bombed off the planet that the fanatics wouldn’t have eventually found their way back to America? On that note, what if we had let the sanctions off of Iraq. Sure the connections between Hussein and al Qaeda were contentious at best and dubious at worst, but do you think allowing the possibility of a stronger connection blossoming with no safeguards in the area between those two would have been the best move on our part? Again, why are we arguing a “wait and see” strategy when the results would most assuredly have been disastrous? And for those who argue that Hussein was secular and bin Laden religious I say back that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Without getting into all of the information on this specific topic, there is sufficient proof that rather directly or indirectly, at some point Hussein would have been in possession of “the bomb” and undoubtedly he would have given to any number of terrorist organizations. Those organizations tend to do business with each other and overlap, like street gangs. To think otherwise is to be a tad naïve.

I will admit that proceeding rather ham handedly with the invasion of Iraq was a huge risk. The results could have gone any number of ways. It hasn’t been perfect and it sure isn’t pretty but I’m not sure what course of action would have been better. The idea is to be there in a strategic place to mix with local intelligence agencies and disrupt terrorist plans. That is what we’ve been doing. It doesn’t get much reporting in the news but it is happening.

I think this is why I got so frustrated with one person in particular and then was further infuriated by the comments of Randy Rhodes. The War on Terror and Iraq especially is so complex that focusing on erroneous rationales for starting a land invasion, I believe, misses the bigger point. I know people feel like Bush lied about WMD’s despite foreign intelligence reports saying they were there. I know people like to hold their politicians, especially ones they don’t like, to impossible standards of behavior. I get it and I suppose I sympathize with that point of view. I guess I’m just so cynical that when it comes to politics I expect to be lied to and when it happens I don’t take it personally. I knew we were being sold a bill of goods. Hell, I still expect to find some of what we were told was there in Syria but that’s another column. I guess I tend to forget that some people feel legitimately betrayed by the Bush administration and I don’t consider their feelings because as I stated above, I never believed it in the first place. I’ve always been fixated on taking Iraq as a strategic goal and nothing more.

In the news, pundits far and wide are referring to the Iraqi elections as akin to the fall of the Berlin Wall. It could be, one never knows. If Palestine and Israel make relative peace, if the Mullahs of Iran are deposed, if Saudi Arabia truly embraces democracy, if all of the countries in the Middle East and Central Asia commit every resource to ending the worldwide threat of Islamic fanaticism, Bush’s policy beginning with Iraq will have turned out to be genius.

So I am asking all of the doubters and Bush-haters, what would you have done after 9/11 instead of what’s been done? How would you have handled this problem? If Al Gore had been president it is conceivable that 9/11 could have been stopped due to a variety of reasons. But then what? If Al Gore was president today and 9/11 never happened what would you have had the man do about the potential threats in the Middle East. If I’m wrong and my analysis is so off then explain to me what I’ve missed.

I await your cordial and informed comments/e-mails.

Thank you.