Friday, November 14, 2003
“THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON” Remember in the days after September 11 when everyone seemed to judge the significance of every action based on whether it would help defeat the terrorists? Don’t stay home on Halloween because being fearful will mean the terrorists have won. Don’t let John Ashcroft spy on your library books because turning America into a police state will mean the terrorists have won. And on and on it went.
This kind of rhetoric has died down for the most part. But it occurs to me that it might be time for a serious revival if current trends in Iraq prevail. Japan is dragging its feet on sending troops to Iraq. Korea has ordered its troops to stay indoors until things become more safe and secure. Most of Western Europe didn’t bother to send troops in the first place. Only Italy it seems remains undaunted.
And now of course, the Bush Administration is starting to make noises about speeding up the process of transferring power to the Iraqi Governing Council, implicitly preparatory to bringing American troops back home. If the U.S. can actually pull this off, transfer power to a stable and representative Iraqi government in a shorter than expected period of time, this would be the best of all possible worlds. But many argue that the reason for this change of plans is predicated more on next year’s election than on long-term strategies and plans for Iraq and the Middle East. Joe Biden put it succinctly:
I wasn’t all that keen on this American adventure in Iraq. But now that the deed is done, keeping promised troops away and speeding up plans for withdrawing the ones already there is foolishness. It will accomplish nothing but to convince the terrorists of the world that all it takes is a few dead soldiers or aid workers and the nations of the free world will turn tail and run. One silver lining to Bush’s reckless adventurism was the fact that many of America’s antagonists sat up and took stock of the new approach: “This guy is serious about using military force; he’s not afraid of taking casualties; in fact, he’s a bit (or more than a bit) crazy.” Does anyone honestly think that Iran’s decision to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities or even North Korea’s willingness to come to the negotiating table (news flash: DPRK diplomats have recently declared their willingness to consider a package deal) was due to the resolutions of the United Nations? No! It was because they are on Bush’s “axis of evil” list and feared that what happened in Baghdad will happen to them if they don’t cooperate. But if the other nations of the world hem and haw and if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq before really stabilizing the place, there will be a new lesson to learn: “The U.S. can’t take casualties after all. The way to deal with them is provoke a war, don’t really fight but rather melt into the population, and resist with guerrilla warfare. In a matter of a year or so, the Americans and their fair-weather friends in Asia and Europe will run away." Not all the people shooting American, British, Italian, Polish, and UN people in Iraq are al ‘qaeda terrorists, but be assured that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are watching and liking what they see.
This kind of rhetoric has died down for the most part. But it occurs to me that it might be time for a serious revival if current trends in Iraq prevail. Japan is dragging its feet on sending troops to Iraq. Korea has ordered its troops to stay indoors until things become more safe and secure. Most of Western Europe didn’t bother to send troops in the first place. Only Italy it seems remains undaunted.
And now of course, the Bush Administration is starting to make noises about speeding up the process of transferring power to the Iraqi Governing Council, implicitly preparatory to bringing American troops back home. If the U.S. can actually pull this off, transfer power to a stable and representative Iraqi government in a shorter than expected period of time, this would be the best of all possible worlds. But many argue that the reason for this change of plans is predicated more on next year’s election than on long-term strategies and plans for Iraq and the Middle East. Joe Biden put it succinctly:
My greatest fear is that this Administration, having made all the wrong choices, is going to conclude they have to bring Johnny and Jane home by the next election in order to survive.
I wasn’t all that keen on this American adventure in Iraq. But now that the deed is done, keeping promised troops away and speeding up plans for withdrawing the ones already there is foolishness. It will accomplish nothing but to convince the terrorists of the world that all it takes is a few dead soldiers or aid workers and the nations of the free world will turn tail and run. One silver lining to Bush’s reckless adventurism was the fact that many of America’s antagonists sat up and took stock of the new approach: “This guy is serious about using military force; he’s not afraid of taking casualties; in fact, he’s a bit (or more than a bit) crazy.” Does anyone honestly think that Iran’s decision to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities or even North Korea’s willingness to come to the negotiating table (news flash: DPRK diplomats have recently declared their willingness to consider a package deal) was due to the resolutions of the United Nations? No! It was because they are on Bush’s “axis of evil” list and feared that what happened in Baghdad will happen to them if they don’t cooperate. But if the other nations of the world hem and haw and if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq before really stabilizing the place, there will be a new lesson to learn: “The U.S. can’t take casualties after all. The way to deal with them is provoke a war, don’t really fight but rather melt into the population, and resist with guerrilla warfare. In a matter of a year or so, the Americans and their fair-weather friends in Asia and Europe will run away." Not all the people shooting American, British, Italian, Polish, and UN people in Iraq are al ‘qaeda terrorists, but be assured that Osama bin Laden and his ilk are watching and liking what they see.
