War Watch #3 - After Iraq, What?

By Joseph D. Douglass Jr.

[Note: Take also a look at "War Watch #1" and "War Watch #2"]

Now that the Iraqi leadership has vanished, in a manner curiously similar to bin Laden and the al-Qaeda leadership toward the end of the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq War is winding down.

What lies ahead is not a simple question to answer. Heavy conflict is all but over. The transition from war to “nation building” has already begun. In this phase, major military units have a minimal function, especially since very few U.S. military speak Arabic or Farsci. U.S. military forces are unlikely to be needed in Iraq for more than a few months. Their continued presence may even be counterproductive.

But, dare they leave? Unless former Iraqi forces and other hostile elements in the region behave nicely, massive military forces may be needed for many months. Who will be interested in nation building if the peace is that of Israel, with shootings and suicide bombings each day? How many nation builders will stay after several of their colleagues are shot or destroyed in a bombing?

Rarely is there good news from Afghanistan. Drug production is back to its pre-war peak! That means the government and law and order is already corrupted. There are weekly reports on the influx of terrorists and regrouping of the Taliban.

This is most embarrassing. In evidence, Secretary Rumsfeld was totally non-responsive to questions about the intense problems of civil order. What were the U.S. plans to maintain civil order he was repeatedly asked at a press conference on April 11. It was clear there is no serious plan to maintain order any more than there was a meaningful plan to stop the top enemy leaders from escaping.

Why? We simply do not have enough military forces with the skill to protect the civilians or to prevent the enemy brass and weapons of mass destruction from leaving. Our resources are pushed to the limit.

Had President Bush acknowledged the magnitude of forces really needed, over twice the number deployed, the public would have quickly dropped its pro-war attitude. Hence, the administration’s answer was to deflect serious questions with “Shock and Awe” bombast, coupled with fairyland stories of how Saddam’s military would instantly collapse and the people throw flowers.

The only hope for nation building without a continuing massive military presence is that the remaining Iraqi leadership that has fled the country and other potentially hostile forces in the region do not interfere with nation building. However, should these potentially hostile elements decide to intervene and follow the example of the Palestinians over the past two years or bin Laden’s “bandit gangs” in the late 1980s, they might bring a quick halt to any peaceful nation building in Iraq for quite a while. Even the UN is not so dumb to take this one on without “someone” providing whatever military forces are required.

To consider what comes next, it is useful to first look at those in Washington who have been most influential in establishing the directions for U.S. policy. These people are dominantly in the Defense Department and Vice President’s Office. They are the so-called neo-cons. They are civilians, not military.

The neo-cons[1] rose to prominence during the Reagan Administration. They operate as a group and have their own group-think. Over the years they have become very powerful and arrogant. They know they are right and will do whatever is necessary to get their way. They firmly believe in military power, in “might makes right,” or, as became the slogan during the Reagan Administration, “peace through strength.” To achieve peace through strength, they undertook an unprecedented build-up in military armaments. (As it turned out, the future costs of all the planes and tanks and ships could not be sustained and many programs had to be dropped, cancelled, or mothballed.)

As a group, their thinking can be seen in a number of publications that came out shortly before the current administration took over. Neo-con thinking dominates the key policy documents of the current administration, for example the National Security Strategy. As an example of this thinking, consider the “Statement of Principles” to achieve their “New American Century” project. Its title reveals much about this elitist group.[2]

Their objective is “to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.” It is not clear what these principles and interests are, but we can be assured that they know what is best for America. However, insofar as the neo-cons have not been particularly visible or interested in fighting many of America’s most serious problems – illegal drugs, organized crime, poor academic performance, massive consumer debt, gigantic trade imbalance, shrinking of the middle class, unbridled expansion of greed among those most well off, the expansion of money supply, demise of the family, fifty percent plus divorce rates, 30 percent of children born out of wedlock, a permanent underclass on welfare, abortion, pornography, continuing fall in the value of the dollar, billions of dollars of foreign aid that goes more to international organized crime than to help people, growing unemployment, and disappearance of U.S. industrial capability – one has to wonder why anyone should trust them to decide what American values and principles count or who would want their country to follow the path America is on.

To secure these unstated American principles and interests, it is necessary, they write, “to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” This unique role is that of having pre-eminent military power, the sole superpower. Keep the need “to accept responsibility” in mind. It is another trap that will be addressed later.

The fact that many people may disagree is irrelevant. The neo-cons recognize that the “Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today.” Nevertheless, they write, “it [peace through strength] is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.” This means “a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.” Here is another indication of their approach. The United States, they state, has to “accept” this global responsibility. They simply invent a responsibility that they then need to accept to justify the neo-con global cause – remaking the world according to their interests.

What are these “successes” they refer to? Presumably, they refer to the breakup of the Soviet Union, which itself never would have lasted a decade if it were not for the assistance of the United States or longer if it were not for the silence of all Western nations respecting the crimes of the Soviet Union for over eighty years. Contrary to the claims of the neo-cons, we did not win the Cold War. The Soviets lost it, notwithstanding U.S. and other Western efforts to keep the Soviets afloat, right up to the end. There was no revolution. The Soviets intentionally dismantled their own empire. The KGB was present and guiding the dismantling all the way. None of the neo-cons have stopped to ask why. Another question they fail to ask or answer is why go after Saddam Hussein for his atrocities and war crimes? He is a small time hood in comparison with the Soviets, many of whose leaders are still alive and in office. They, by contrast, are coddled, given lucrative speaking engagements and even invited to speak before Congress.

This “New American Century” is also where the concept of pre-emption in the National Security Strategy came from. It did not just suddenly appear from out of nowhere. As written in the “New American Century” statement of principles, “it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.” There is another side to this coin. If you believe this, which in practice would be based on secret intelligence and their judgments, it is a way to wage war without having to justify that action.

Having moved 300,000 troops and all their heavy equipment to the Middle East, the primary target of the neo-cons, is it reasonable to think they will move all this capability back home before their objective is achieved?

What is this objective? It is a complete restructuring of the Middle East.

A careful reading of the National Security Strategy reveals this policy. The war on terrorism is an “historic opportunity” to “defend the peace by fighting terrorists and tyrants” [which includes most Middle East countries] and to use this “opportunity” to extend the reach of democracy, free markets, and free trade around the globe. This is described as a “distinctly American internationalism” in which “We stand firmly for the non-negotiable demands for the role of [secular] law, limits on the power of the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and respect for private property.” That is, under the guise of fighting terrorism, our policy is to change those cultures and regimes that do not square with American principles, values, and interests.

The above “non-negotiable demands” may not seem out of order to Americans and most other industrialized nations. However, it will send a shiver up the spine of the leaders of most Arab states (not to mention Vietnam, North Korea, China, Pakistan, and, yes, even Russia). Additionally, the goal of bringing “democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world” requires a number of conditions, especially “energy security,” by which is meant OIL.

As we look at the Middle East and the rationale for invading Iraq, what sticks out is 1) an elitist leadership that is repressive, 2) their role in supporting international terrorism, 3) religious and ethnic intolerance, and 4) interests in weapons of mass destruction. Iraq differed from several other Middle East states only because Saddam Hussein was more universally hated, and for this reason Iraq was a good country to attack first. However, in terms of posing a threat and supporting terrorism, both Syria and Iran out-rank Iraq. Saudi Arabia is not far behind. It would be hard to decide which of the leaders of all these countries hates the United States more.

Additionally, less than a month ago, just as the United States was deploying forces to invade Iraq, it became clear that Iran was going to start producing nuclear weapons grade material. During the war, material support for Iraq was sent through Syria and irregular forces from both Syria and Iran began appearing in Iraq to help in the battle against the U.S. forces.

This poses three revealing questions. 1) If U.S. military forces leave the area, will Iran and Syria allow U.S. or UN peace-keeping and nation-building forces to establish a government contrary to their interests? Normal police and nation-building forces are no match for irregular and guerrilla forces. 2) Will U.S. military forces leave the area before this threat that could soon become “dire” can be met? Both Syria and Iran have long been on the neo-cons’ short list of countries that need to be disarmed and have their regimes changed because of their history in supporting international terrorism. 3) Because of their support to terrorism and their repression, and hence instability, isn’t Saudi Arabia also in need of “adjustment”?

How can the United States, its policy driven by the neo-cons, not capitalize upon this historic opportunity to redraw the entire political map of the Middle East? Changing Iraq is not a fait accompli without also changing Syria and Iran. Changing Iraq alone will not satisfy the neo-con thirst for “peace” in the Middle East. If U.S. forces are brought home, even President Bush is most unlikely to do an about face and send them back in a year or two. In that time, Iran could be building nuclear weapons and selling nuclear material to other countries, or trading the fuel for a favor or two.

Based on the past 100 years’ history, dire threats do not come out of nowhere. In all cases their emergence has been aided and abetted by others, especially the United States and its European allies.[3] Totalitarian states need help because their focus is on forces of repression and military, not on the principles and interests that enable societies to pursue a natural path of growth and production. As analyzed independently by Igor Shavarevich[4] and Francis Schaeffer,5 socialism cannot work and, unless propped up, will fall because it is inherently suicidal.

The Middle East has not been a “dire” threat except to the extent the countries have been aided, such as Iraq was by the neo-cons during the Reagan Administration, when it was in their interest to do so, which they conveniently forget.

Threats do not suddenly emerge. The development of a threat is a long process that can be seen from afar. The answer is not the military prowess worshiped by the neo-cons or the pre-emptive attacks they embrace, but rock-solid principles of the sort unheard of in foreign policy and industrial circles.

The answer to keeping threats under control is simple. Stop providing them with assistance and armaments. For an authoritative answer, read Ephesians, beginning with Ephesians 5:11 “Have no fellowship (have nothing to do) with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove (expose) them.”

Certainly, any nation worth its salt will prepare itself to defend its citizens. If attacked, a nation must defend itself. But, American principles of defense and foreign policy set forth by our Founding Fathers did not include any need to boldly promote our principles abroad or accept any global responsibilities. Rather, they were to avoid entangling foreign alliances, not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, to vest the power to declare war in the Congress and not in the Executive, and to provide for an Army and Navy to defend American citizens and American borders, not act as some sort of world policeman to do the bidding of foreign or commercial interests.