For Better or Worse?

[Jim]

Victor Hanson asks a question which is startling because it is largely unasked in public debate: Is the U.S. better off with the Middle East as it is now than as it was before 2001?

 

Although this appears in the National Review, I ask all to approach his analysis with an open mind. In particular, I'd be interested in your comments on his country-by-country analysis:

 

Four-and-a-half years after September 11, how has the United States fared in neutralizing these seven threats?

 

The Taliban is gone. In its place is the unthinkable—a parliamentary democracy that welcomes an open economy and foreign investment. Afghanistan is plagued still by drug-lords and resurgent terrorists, but after a successful war that removed the Taliban, the country hardly resembles the nightmare that existed before September 11.

 

Iran is closer to the bomb than ever, but there is at least worldwide scrutiny of its machinations, in a manner lacking in the past. Tehran is in a death struggle with the new Iraqi government, trying to undermine the democracy by transplanting its radical Shiite ganglia before a constitutional, diverse Iraqi culture energizes its own restive population that supposedly tires of the theocracy.

 

The thousands who died yearly under Saddam’s killing apparatus in Iraq have been followed by thousands killed in sectarian strife. Yet Saddam and his Baathist nightmare are gone from Iraq, offering hope where there was none. After three elections, a democratic government has emerged. Despite a terrible cost in American lives and wealth, so far elections have not been derailed, open civil war has not followed from the daily terror, and Americans are looking to reduce, not enlarge, their presence.

 

Libya is perhaps the strangest development of all. The United States is slowly exploring reestablishing diplomatic relations. Moammar Khadafy is giving up his WMD arsenal. And the country is suddenly open to cell phones, the Internet, satellite television, and is no longer a global financial conduit for international terrorism.

 

Pakistan is still run by a military dictator. But as a result of American bullying and financial enticement, it is slowly weeding out al Qaeda sympathizers from its government, which on rare occasions attacks terrorists residing in its borderlands. Indeed, al Qaeda seems to hate the present Pakistani government as much as it does the United States.

 

Saudi Arabia has gained enormous leverage as oil skyrocketed from $30 to over $70 a barrel. Yet under American pressure it has cracked down on al Qaeda terrorists and has cleaned up (somewhat) its overseas financial offices—perhaps evidenced by a wave of reactive terrorist attacks against the Riyadh government. American efforts to urge liberalization have met a tepid response—given Saudi reliance on the oil card, and its sophistic argument that for the present an autocratic monarchy is the only alternative to a terrorist-supporting theocracy.

 

Syria is out of Lebanon by popular pressure. It still supports terrorists against Israel—and now Iraq too—but judging from its rhetoric it must be feeling squeezed by a democratic Turkey, Iraq, and Israel on its borders, and a new tough stance from the United States.

 

So where does all this leave us? In every case, I think, far messier—but far better—than before September 11.

[Skye]

I can't see things being better from the US perspective. The US is engaged in two wars and an unpredictable country is probably trying to get nukes. There's been good but it impacts less directly on the US. I don't really disagree with the country analysis, perhaps a little in weight and tone, but I take a different conclusion. Then again alot of this was precipitated by 9/11 so it's not a simple comparison.

[Bettina]

Afganistan is much better now than it was before Nato invaded it. It was the most supressive human rights regime ever seen in modern times. I won't go into specifics here, but I'm glad we invaded it and set the women and girls free.

 

Iran was on the march toward a bomb even before the middle east turmoil. Maybe we just sped it up a bit but the bomb was always being sought. Allah wants the bomb, and Israel is the reason.

 

Yes, everything is messier, but change never occurs without a mess or a cost and change had to be done. For the middle east to continue on building terror camps, tyrants, and dictators, would eventually destroy the modern marvels that civilized countries have built.

 

What is sad, is that many countrys just sit still and wait till someone else does the dirty work.

 

Anyway, I liked that article.

 

Bettina

[Severian]

Allah wants the bomb, and Israel is the reason.

 

I don't think that sort of comment is going to help matters.

[Jim]

]I can't see things being better from the US perspective. [/b']The US is engaged in two wars and an unpredictable country is probably trying to get nukes. There's been good but it impacts less directly on the US. I don't really disagree with the country analysis, perhaps a little in weight and tone, but I take a different conclusion. Then again alot of this was precipitated by 9/11 so it's not a simple comparison.

 

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion if you agree with Hanson's country-by-country analysis.

[Phi for All]

I think the US has less stability but a larger presence in the Middle East, so we've increased both the danger and our ability to cope with it. I think Afghani women in Kabul have it slightly better than under the Taliban (we see photo ops of them attending school without burkas), but no where else in Afghanistan. Khadafy in Libya really was startling. He obviously learned the Saddam lesson. But I wonder if Iraq hasn't become the terrorist central that Libya used to be.

 

We are still very much in crisis there. The next decade will see if our recent actions present more danger or more opportunity. I sincerely hope people stop dying so much over there. I hate hearing about having to break eggs to make an omelette.

[Severian]

Khadafy in Libya really was startling. He obviously learned the Saddam lesson.

 

Maybe we need to kill the infant children of dictators more often.

[Phi for All]

Maybe we need to kill the infant children of dictators more often.

Definitely. Show those barbarians how civilised people act.

[bascule]

So where does all this leave us? In every case, I think, far messier—but far better—than before September 11.

 

I'd call this article "Straining to look through rose colored glasses"

 

Ignoring the situations in Iraq and Iran for a second, we have Pakistan. They're a non-signatory of the NNPT, they possess nuclear weapons, one of their top government officials sold nuclear technologies to Iran and North Korea, and he's been pardoned and sequestered ever since, immune from questioning by the IAEA. While we don't expect Musharraf to go around using nukes willy nilly, who's to say his regime won't be toppled, leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of whomever can successfully stage a coup?

 

In the time since all of this happened, the US has declared Pakistan our "ally in the war on terror." Zuh?

 

The author of the article tries to juxtapose the instability of the region against all the positive change which has been accomplished, making the situational flux (and Iranian nukes) out to be the only negative aspect(s) of the situation (Iranian nukes conveniently omitted from his closing sentence), and attempting to paint every other negative result of US military action as being just about as bad as things were before our military intervention.

 

Anyway, it's a "keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side" interpretation of the situation. Me no likey. I mean, the guy mentions that Iran is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, then conveniently forgets that and goes on to state "In every case, I think, far messier—but far better—than before September 11"

 

Sorry, the situation in Iran was much better before September 11th... before Pakistan's A.Q. Khan sold them the technology they needed to enrich uranium.

[Jim]

Maybe we need to kill the infant children of dictators more often.

 

It was in the 1986 that Gaddafi's daughter was killed by a USAF bombing raid.

 

From 1986-2003 Gaddafi expended millions, if not billions, in developing a highly advanced WMD program. Immediately after the Iraq war commenced, Libya came clean with its highly advanced WMD program. A few months later, Gaddafi took responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing.

 

Gaddafi's response to his daughter's death was to rejuvenate his WMD program. His response to Bush doctrine as announced within hours of the 9/11 attacks, was to dismantle a WMD program that was far more advanced than US intel had believed.

 

But it was Libya's nuclear program that most alarmed officials.

 

"We were not surprised on the chemical side," the official said. "On the nuclear side ... my understanding is that they did have a much further advanced program, including centrifuges."

 

This official said the inspectors saw completed centrifuges, as well as "thousands of centrifuge parts."

 

Another senior administration official said Libya's weapons programs are robust "in every area."

 

"It's enormous," the official said. "We have grave concerns about the program."

 

The first official said Libya approached British and U.S. officials in mid-March, about the same time the war in Iraq began.

The Bush doctrine was announced within hours of the 9/11 attacks: The US will not distinguish between terrorists and the nations that give them haven. This simple but important policy changes the entire calculus for a country considering giving support to terrorists. Given the forceful response of the US to the death of under 3,000 of its citizens, such countries are left to ponder the response if they allowed a terrorist group to kill a US city.

 

For all of our troubles in Iraq and, to a lesser extent Afghanistan, this policy resulted in the targets of our belief that WMDs were being incubated being quickly put out of power and in some cases killed and made to stand trial. The point was not lost on Gaddafi who might well now have a nuke if the US had not proven this important principle.

 

All of this is independent of the other clear analysis of Hanson in the other six countries. Notwithstanding the simple group think of the MSM, Bush's anti-terror program has been a success. We have not had an attack on US soil although that will surely not hold indefinitely. In all seven of the countries analyzed, the US position has improved.

 

While I do not underestimate the power of the MSM to undermine these successes, the immediate and forceful enunciation of the Bush doctrine was historically significant and necessary. On balance, we are safer for the actions taken.

[Jim]

I'd call this article "Straining to look through rose colored glasses"

 

It would be more difficult to dismiss Hanson's points if you actually responded to what he had to say re Pakistan, Iraq & Iran and did not ignore the points regarding the Libya, Syria, Afghanistan & Saudia Arabia. Agree or disagree with Hanson, I think it is far too easy to dismiss his analysis as mere "straining to look through rose colored glasses." This is a serious scholar of history and he gives clear reasons for his conclusions that should not be so lightly dismissed. Hanson, unlike most, can envision what the world might look like without US policy.

[Bettina]

Maybe we need to kill the infant children of dictators more often.

 

I don't think that sort of comment is going to help matters.

 

Bee

[Severian]

I don't think that sort of comment is going to help matters.

 

Ever heard of irony?

[Skye]

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion if you agree with Hanson's country-by-country analysis.

He writes balanced analysese, but then concludes that in all cases the US is left better off. I don't think that the US is in a better situation with Iran for example. I think the US would be better off with Iraq the way it was (cynically that is, idealistically it's better now). Pakistan is neither here nor there for me, supporting a military dictator isn't great even if he reciprocates that support. Lebanon is better, but don't forget the political mainstreaming of Hezbollah. Syria is probably the same but only because it really couldn't get much worse. Libya is definately much better, and Afghanistan is better, though there's still alot of unresolved issues.

[Sisyphus]

I can't say whether or not we're better off now. Or rather, I can say that NOW we are decidedly worse off, but it's too early to say what will happen in the long run. I, for one, am optimistic, but the outcome is far from decided.

 

On a side note, Libya is obviously good news, but their history is also a political lesson in not needlessly pissing people off, something it seems like the current powers that be have not really learned, or are learning very slowly. "Speak softly and carry a big stick" OUGHT to be the most obvious maxim of foreign policy, I'd say.

 

Note: I said needlessly offending people. There is a difference between refusing to be bullied and being a bully yourself. The former helps matters, the latter makes them worse. American animosity has probably kept Castro in power, and membership in the "Axis of Evil" has made North Korea and Iran justified in pursuing pursuing whatever weapons they can to deter American invasion. After all, they can always point to Iraq...