Transforming the Mid-East Thru Iraq--Hindustan Times, Michael Barone, get it!

I'm continually amazed by those who are paid to write and be aware of what's going on in the world and why, but STILL have no clue as to why Bush wants Saddam's head on a pike!

One word: geopolitics! One domino can change, even transform the ladscape of this moribund region. There might even be synergestic effects.

Blogger Stephen Den Beste thinks that Bush could not be more expansive about all his reasons until very recently. Why? Prior announcement that you aim to change Saudi Arabia's Danegeld policy towards terrorists is not something you can do when you also need the same counrty's cooperation to get the first job done! Now that it's almost a fait accompli, he is more open about it.http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/Notwhyweredoingit.shtml

From The Hindustan Times:
"The newly-elected George W. Bush ignored Hussein....Then 9/11 happened....But by the time the Taliban were history, Washington had sketched out a blueprint for a multi-front war on terrorism. Once the battle plan was laid out, it was realised that Rumsfeld’s thinking was right. Many of the warpaths against terrorism ended with an X on Hussein’s face — but for wildly different reasons.

"The first and most important front in the war on terror evolved from the WMD-terror convergence theory. Al-Qaeda literature found in Kabul...made it clear terrorists were desperate to get WMD capability. The big, hairy fear of the US today is that the next 9/11 will be done with anthrax or plutonium, not jet fuel.

This is forcing the tectonic shift in US strategic thinking. Stopping a terrorist plan that is already unfolding is nearly impossible. So the US has shifted its sights further down the chain of causality. Go after insecure sources of WMD....

"The second front was about the long-term eradication of the root causes of Al-Qaeda-type terrorism.... [T]he reason educated Arabs sign up with bin Laden is a lack of democracy in their homelands. The antidote: open up the Arab world.

"Completely overhauling the Arab world is a task roughly comparable to knocking the Soviet bloc, so the White House has preferred not to blow the trumpet on this....The second front warriors are pushing for the occupation of Iraq as they need a model Arab democracy. Iraqis are secular and are expected to welcome ballot boxes after decades of dictatorship. It also has enough oil to pay for its own revival.

"[A]nother reason is that the US needs a lot of surplus petroleum handy for a showdown with the unrepentant cashbox of jehad: Saudi Arabia. Another derivative: the next secular Arab democracy the US wants is Palestine. The Israelis have already been put on notice.

"Hussein must feel befuddled....He became a target of a new, preventive strategic doctrine straight out of Minority Report and a plan to transform the Arab world so radical no one quite believes it.

"This represents an enormous shift in mindset for an America-first White House....Bush is taking on an enormous task and even greater risk. Toppling Hussein pales in comparison to the decision to modernise Islam."
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_197994,00120002.htm

And Barone gets how this may further the hope of peace in Israel--sooner, not later:
"What next [after Saddam is gone]?...Former CIA Director James Woolsey suggests that, once we are secure in Baghdad, the United States should send a special emissary to Syria's Bashar Assad. 'He should say, `Look, you little so-and-so, you have to get out of Lebanon now. If your forces are not out of Lebanon within one week, there will be serious consequences.' ' Then we should help the Lebanese uproot the Hezbollah terrorists who hold southern Lebanon. This will be a blow against the mullahs of Iran, who control Hezbollah, which many regard as a larger and more dangerous group than al Qaeda. Sen. Bob Graham, then chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, voted against the Iraq war resolution because it did not target Hezbollah; he had a point.

"Ouster of the Syrians and Hezbollah from Lebanon removes one of the two impediments that keep Israel from reaching agreement with the Palestinians--an unsafe northern border. And their ouster would also put pressure on the Palestinians to remove the other impediment, the corrupt and terror-filled leadership of Yasser Arafat."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/030317/opinion/17pol.htm
----
These are bold and dangerous times. "Interesting times," as the Chinese curse goes. So what's wrong with this synergestic hope?

 

Indian Colonel (ret.) comments on pending war...

"y taking action against Iraq, the Americans are sending a clear signal to the Muslim world and Islamists that the US is prepared to go to any length in its fight against terrorism. The strong message the Iraq episode conveys is aimed at the Islamic world. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 General Wesley Clark, former commander of NATO forces, stated that Muslims countries have to choose between an Islam that is tolerant or one that is militant. The Americans seem to have calculated and accepted the risk of alienation in the Islamic world. The recent softening of Iran towards the US shows that the divisions within the Islamic world seems to be working to the advantage of the Americans.

"This year's Strategic Review, nicknamed the 'Bush Manifesto,' makes it clear that the US will pre-empt all threats to its security. Significantly, President Bush talked of 'American justice,' not mere justice. It is a misnomer to say the US intends to become a global cop! The US has no such intention; what the US is telling the world is it will become global sheriff -- and Saddam Hussein is the first guy in its crosshairs.
[SNIP!]

"Iraq is the right place to begin the American war on Islamic fundamentalism. Success here will be easier to achieve than other countries like Saudi Arabia. In addition, Iraqi oil will compensate for the loss of Saudi oil.
[SNIP!]

"The US wants to establish a new world order. The creation of a political climate which supports US global economic interests is crucial for this purpose. The elimination of threats to US assets, in the homeland and overseas, from non-State actors committed to violence, and the States that support them is therefore on top of the US agenda at present.
[SNIP!]

"The Americans are pursuing a long term agenda in the Middle East. Those who think the Americans will not act in Iraq are underestimating the impact 9/11 has had on the US."

MORE on the logic of picking off Iraq ensues at:
http://www.rediff.com/news/2003/mar/17guest.htm

--Orson