Sioux
Falls, SD
- Personally,
I blame the dinosaurs for our current problems in the Middle
East. If those
insipid creatures had better taste in where they were going
to die, no one would care who Saddam Hussein is or what pile
of sand he rules. Millions of years and billions of barrels of oil later, the
United States and the world are enmeshed in the turbulence
that dictates life in the Middle East and has everyone
searching for regional peace and stability.
Though most Americans believe the world would be
better without Saddam Hussein, some wonder if the
President’s plan to invade Iraq and depose its dictator
would really make the world a safer place.
Blame who, or what, you want for today’s problems,
our American President anxiously desires to write the next
chapter in the Middle Eastern saga.
When
Bush accused Saddam of “crawfishing,” every American
should have instantly worried about his literary
capabilities. Though
no one is certain what “crawfishing” means, being
compared to a small crustacean seems less than
complimentary. Any
author readily admits reading is the secret to good writing.
Reading expands the mind, opens it to new ideas, and
enhances a person’s perspective; it even increases one’s
vocabulary. Before
Bush writes the next chapter on the Middle East, he would be
wise to study the region as a whole and past American policy
in general.
In
fact, the public and policymakers, hawks and doves alike,
should seek this understanding.
Currently, the debate on invading Iraq and
overthrowing Hussein focuses on monetary cost, what makes
invasion necessary, how long our forces will remain after
the fall of the Ba’th party (Saddam’s government),
should the United States act unilaterally, and if the
President must consult Congress and our allies prior to
implementing his plans.
Although these are legitimate questions, they have
caused us to lose perspective of the greater whole.
The debate has placed Iraq in an impenetrable box,
existing independently of any outside forces.
Once we gain even a basic knowledge of past policies
and understanding of the region, we see this Iraqi situation
as a Pandora’s box. The
only pertinent questions are, what could happen if the
United States, acting unilaterally or as head of a
multi-national force, attacks Iraq and are these risks
acceptable? Anything
else is superfluous to the issue and should be discussed
only after these two questions have been thoroughly
answered.
Recently,
several dovish opponents of Bush’s plan correctly pointed
out the United States supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq
war, even after he deployed chemical weapons.
They note the obvious hypocrisy of seemingly
condoning his actual use of weapons of mass destruction, but
now we are condemning him for possessing them and possibly
using them in the future.
Having shown the confusing, contradictory, and
controversial characteristics of American policy in the
Middle East, they momentarily stumbled into the right
direction only to be lead away by the report that Bush may
not be legally bound to consult with Congress before taking
military action.
Putting
aside all diversions, we must delve into this issue that the
doves so meekly brought to our attention.
Our government did support Saddam Hussein during the
Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s; this is an undeniable fact.
Maybe some people see the logic in this policy, after
all it was Iran who held Americans hostage in the late 1970s
and held violent mass protests against the United States. This logic is undermined by two equally undeniable facts.
Iran received its first American built F-14 fighter
aircraft (called a Tomcat) from the United States in 1976.
Many of us can remember the Iran/Contra scandal,
which provided arms to Iran at the same time we were giving
aid to Iraq. The
United States was supporting both side of the same war.
These
facts have all the elements of our Mid-East policy:
confusion, contradiction, and controversy.
Yet, there is a method to the madness.
Unable to avert the war, American policymakers made
sure neither side was vanquished.
At the time, Communism and Soviet involvement
motivated American policy, which was to maintain some degree
of regional stability through a balance of power, preventing
any one nation from falling to Communism and forcefully
spreading Communism throughout the region.
This balance of power continues to be crucial to the
extremely tenuous stability that exists even today.
Obviously,
an invasion of Iraq and a dismantling of Saddam’s regime
threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East. The
Bush Administration and Congressional war hawks , to the
apparent satisfaction of their opponents, admit a security
force will remain in Iraq to provide a balance of power. Not only is this answer insufficient, it reveals the paradigm
that is influencing Washington thinking.
Iraq is not in a vacuum, separate from outside
interests. Destabilization
of the region will occur upon the commencement of
hostilities by our invasion force.
To
comprehend how this is possible, we must have some
understanding of the Middle East and the countries of this
area. Perhaps
the best way to think of the Mid-East is to see it as the
ultimate dysfunctional family; brothers in religion and
cousins in oil. The
same issues that cause tension and hostility among these
nations creates strong unity when raised by outsiders.
There is a line in the movie “Animal House” that
is applicable to these Muslim countries, “He can’t do
that to our pledges; only we can do that to our pledges.”
Make
no mistake, the United States has neither friends nor
enemies in the Middle East.
The relationship between America and the nations of
this so-called Islamic Empire solely depends on the
situation and what best suits their purposes.
The nature of these relationships changes from friend
to enemy almost as often as the Islamic call to prayer
(fives times per day).
This is why we so often appear willing to dance with
the devil. Our
goal is to never let him lead.
Learning
fifteen of the nineteen September 11th hijackers
were from Saudi Arabia, Americans were outraged to discover
our best ally in the area is not as friendly as we thought. Our sense of outrage recently increased when Saudi officials
refused to allow us use of their bases in an attack against
Iraq. Arrogantly
replying we didn’t need France when attacking Libya and
reminding them of their consent during the Gulf War only
proves our Middle Eastern ignorance.
Militarily
Iran and Iraq are the two most powerful Muslim countries of
the Persian Gulf. Being
the birthplace of the Islamic religion and site of the two
holy mosques (Mecca and Medina), Saudi Arabia is the
religious power. Saudi Arabia is the Muslim holy land, much like Israel is the
holy land for the Jewish people.
(Actually, the idea Islam is a peaceful religion is
seriously undermined by the fact it was spread by Arab
peoples at the point of a sword and everywhere they
conquered took on religious significance and suddenly became
ancient holy lands). By
his title, “custodian of the two holy mosques,” King
Faud is accountable to every Muslim for protecting their
most holy land, as well as ruling Saudi Arabia.
Of course there is no little disagreement among
Muslims as to how the king should fulfill his custodial
responsibilities.
As
expected, Saudi Arabia is almost exclusively Islamic, with
this being the State religion.
To westerners, the devotion to Allah and Allah’s
will is more than fanatical, which is an accurate
perception. Arabia’s
oppression of women and mandatory, strictly enforced
religious practice are famous throughout the world.
Wrecked cars may remain along the side of the highway
for years, having been placed there by Allah’s will.
Giving themselves completely to an omnipotent god and
his will, too many Arabs have found justification for their
laziness and ineptitude.
Since everything is predestined and guided by the
hands of Allah, there is little point for humans to put
forth any effort or claim a will of their own.
As the center of Islam, Saudi Arabia is the most
extreme and strictest nation in the Middle East for
practicing their religion.
Vast
oil deposits and the dependence of the world on that oil has
given Saudi Arabia fantastic wealth and caused them become a
user nation, bringing us to the crux the of problems they
have with their brethren and our relationship with the
kingdom. Foreigners,
trapped in a highly repressive form of indentured servitude,
perform most of the menial labor and service-oriented jobs.
Despite possessing many American military
technologies, including fighter aircraft and AWACS, Saudi
Arabia is woefully incapable of self-defense.
During the Gulf War it became politically necessary
for an Arab fighter pilot, a member of the royal family, to
shoot down an Iraqi aircraft. American jets herded one unfortunate MiG-21 pilot toward the
awaiting Saudi F-15. The
inept Arab pilot repeatedly failed.
Once the MiG-21 entered the Persian Gulf and on a
course toward U.S. naval ships, one of the American pilots
destroyed the Iraqi aircraft, giving credit to the new Arab
fighter ace and Saudi hero.
In contrast, the Saudi air force is an elite
organization compared to their ground forces.
The never spoken purpose for Saudi Arabia to allow
American and allied forces to operate in the kingdom is to
bolster their self-defense.
This allows the United States an opportunity to have
a presence in the region and monitor the activities of other
nations. We are
dancing with the devil, but he cannot lead.
The
American and allied presence in Saudi Arabia places the
kingdom between Iraq and a hard spot.
Centuries ago, Christian and Jewish traders brought
the concept of monotheism to the many polytheistic tribes of
Saudi Arabia. Using
this ideology, Mohammad, through divine revelation, created
the religion of Islam. Ironically, Christian and non-Muslim peoples are seen as
infidels, with the Jews being thought of as something worse
than this. Many
Muslims and some Muslim leaders, such as Saddam Hussein,
Osama Bin Ladin, and even Arabs living in the kingdom, view
the infidel armies operating in Saudi Arabia as
transgressors on holy land and question King Faud’s
abilities. The
Saudi government is straddling an extremely fine line
between Western alliances and their Muslim brothers.
When
Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Saudi Arabia did not
face this dilemma. Iraq,
having overrun a fellow Muslim country, threatened the
balance of power in the Middle East.
Saddam would control too much of the oil supply and
was poised to attack Saudi Arabia and claim this
religion’s jewel. The
security of the kingdom and stability of the Middle East was
at stake. The
American coalition operated from Saudi Arabia, with
unanimous support of the other Muslim nations.
In a sense, Saddam had started another family feud
and the world, acting as police officers at a domestic
disturbance, was allowed to provide assistance.
This time, however, the Islamic Empire does not see
Saddam as presenting a direct threat against them, making
outside intervention unwelcome and unacceptable.
Saudi Arabia, being heavily criticized for its
maintenance of the holy land, cannot allow the United States
to launch strikes against one of its brothers.
Despite
centuries of bickering and infighting, this Middle Eastern
dysfunctional family will always unify in opposition to
Israel and outside interference.
In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak hopes, “wisdom
prevails,” saying he does not support a U.S. invasion, but
also believes Iraq should allow the return of U.N. weapons
inspectors. Speaking
from Amman, Jordan, Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed
Saeed al-Sahaf backed away from an earlier Iraqi proposal to
negotiate weapons inspections.
On this subject the Information Minister said,
“They (the United States) are talking about bombing Iraq
and changing the government, so what should we talk
about?” (Reuters
News Agency) Making
this statement from Amman only emphasizes the Jordanian
opposition to an attack on Iraq.
Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, and
Oman have all expressed opposition to the Bush plan to oust
Saddam Hussein in a military operation.
Even Kuwait opposes President Bush.
Turkey, our partner in NATO, has expressed opposition
to any plans designed to overthrow the leadership of one
nation by another.
Iran,
the other military power in the region, fought a war against
Iraq, in the 1980s. In
the 1990s, during Desert Storm, Saddam called his brothers
to the west asking to store some of his most sophisticated
aircraft in Iran, until the war ended.
Iran immediately accepted, allowed the aircrafts to
land, shot or imprisoned the pilots, and painted Iranian
tail marking on the planes.
Surely Iran supports another attack on Iraq by the
United States- nope. Iran
has firmly announced their opposition to Bush’s invasion
plan and the rhetoric coming out of Washington has put them
on the defensive.
On
September 3rd, the Jordan Times quoted Iran’s
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza, the “Iraqi people,
and not a world power, should determine Iraq’s destiny.
At the same time, Iran will not stand idle before
such instability because if a country decides to overthrow
another country’s government, this will create a norm.”
This may seem like a somewhat confusing statement,
until we place it in context, then it is clearly ominous.
Speaking about Iran, President Bush called them a
member of an “axis of evil,” accusing them of seeking
weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism.
These are the reasons being cited by President Bush
and members of his Administration for why it is necessary to
invade Iraq and change regimes.
Iran, through its Foreign Ministry spokesman
obviously believes it is the next target of the American
military. On
Saturday, September 7th, Iran announced the
successful test of its Fateh A-10 surface-to-surface
missile, adding it is intended to be a defensive weapon.
Of course a surface-to-surface missile can also be
used as an offensive weapon.
This
test, along with the previous statement is a clear warning
to the United States and any potential coalition members.
Rather than waiting for their turn to face the Bush
war machine, Iran is indicating they will join with Iraq to
repel U.S. and coalition troops.
Individually neither country is capable of inflicting
defeat on the United States, but collectively they are
obviously much stronger and present a much greater threat to
our invasion forces. By
joining Iraq, the Iranians would also be able to spare much
of their infrastructure and resources from American bombs,
since most of the combat will take place within the
boundaries of Iraq. After
being accused of the same activities as Iraq, being a part
of the “axis of evil, supporters of terrorism, and
developers of weapons of mass destruction, the best possible
Iranian strategy would be to join Iraq, rather than wait
their turn. It
seems highly probable this new war against Iraq would
immediately escalate, perhaps beyond the means allocated to
the American military planners and leaders.
Every
nation making up the so-called Islamic Empire has made
statements opposing the Bush plan to invade Iraq and depose
Saddam Hussein. We
must realize the United States is pursuing a path leading to
direct conflict with Iraq and one of their religious
brothers. We
already see the diplomatic unity of this region in
supporting one of their own from outside intrusion.
With Iran virtually committed to taking action, by
not standing idle, the United States should expect to face,
at a minimum, two Mid-East nations on the battlefield.
The
Bush Administration must also recognize the similarity in
these nations’ statements of opposition.
Each one has said they oppose the idea of one nation
overthrowing the leadership of another, then imposing a
government of its liking upon the people.
Obviously none of these countries, perhaps even
acting as a collective, cohesive military, will be able to
repel an American army in combat.
On issues of International Law, however, they do
stand a chance against the United States and appear to be
maneuvering in this direction.
To invade Iraq and oust Hussein, the United States
must provide conclusive evidence Iraq and Saddam present an
imminent threat to the United States.
Lacking any delivery systems capable of reaching the
United States, one must assume Bush believes Saddam
represents some sort of immediate terrorist type of threat.
So far, the President and his Administration has
provided no other “evidence” than Hussein possesses and
wishes to develop weapons of mass destruction, including
nuclear weapons. They
must have been living under a rock for the past thirty years
if this is somehow new information to them.
Speaking on “Meet the Press,” Vice-President
Cheney stated the President has discussed this situation for
the past twelve to fourteen months.
Whether twelve months or thirty years, demonstrating
Saddam Hussein represents an imminent threat to the United
States will be an extremely difficult sales pitch to the
international community.
The
United States does have one Middle Eastern nation supporting
the Bush plan. Unfortunately,
Israel is another source of unity among the Islamic Empire.
To attempt a brief discussion of the animosity
between Israel and its Muslim neighbors is impractical and
impossible due to time and space constraints.
Most people would agree Israel and the Islamic Empire
do not get along well, often resulting in bitter, bloody
violence. Israel not only represents another possible reason for an
invasion to escalate into a regional conflict involving
these nations against America, but it is providing several
ominous statements of its own.
During
the Gulf War, Iraq launched thirty-nine SCUD missiles at
Israel, including its first retaliatory strike against
coalition aerial bombing.
Rather than taking aim at his aggressors, Saddam
lashed out at Israel, hoping to draw them into the conflict
and, in turn, gain support from his Middle Eastern brothers.
Fortunately, the SCUD missiles carried conventional
warheads and the coalition was able to convince Israel to
refrain from retaliating by allowing Israel to select 100
targets to be destroyed and giving them access to satellite
information that supplied them early warning detection of
incoming missiles. This
time, however, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has
stated Israel will retaliate if attacked.
The entrance of Israel into this invasion is likely
to spur surrounding Muslim countries to take military action
of their own, possibly escalating the war to involve nearly
every nation in the region, each aligned with Iraq. With a great degree of certainty, we can believe Saddam will
launch weapons at Israel, Sharon has vowed to retaliate, and
we must expect increased opposition from the other
Middle-Eastern nations.
Prime
Minister Sharon has several retaliatory options available,
ranging from conventional weapons to nuclear and
thermonuclear warheads.
In what some call the worst kept secret of the Middle
East, Israel achieved its nuclear weapons capability in the
mid-1960s, successfully using it as deterrence on several
occasions. Some
estimates have Israel’s current nuclear arsenal at more
than 400 nuclear and thermonuclear weapons.
Israel is undoubtedly able to turn the sands of Iraq
into glass, but a massive nuclear detonation is only one
option and with American troops operating in the country
this is highly unlikely.
Israel also has much smaller nuclear weapons,
sometimes called “micronukes,” that can be delivered by
an aircraft and are used against airfields, hardened bunker
complexes, and troop concentrations.
It is generally believed Israel has developed low
yield neutron bombs, causing minimal damage to property but
extremely deadly. Possessing
nuclear weapons and actually using nuclear weapons, as we
know, are two separate issues.
Israel, in the past, has demonstrated a willingness
to utilize nuclear weapons, though they have never used them
in combat. In
1990, one Israeli Major General recommended the use of
tactical nuclear weapons to American leaders preparing to
fight the Gulf War. On three incidences, Israel has assumed nuclear alert and
apparently assembled devices: the 1967 war with Egypt, the
Yom Kippur War, and the first night of Desert Storm.
Ariel Sharon, one more than one occasion, has been
quoted as saying, “The Arabs may have the oil, but we have
the matches.” Far
from being a doomsday fanatic, the threat of an Israeli
nuclear retaliation is a legitimate possibility that should
have everyone concerned.
Israel
has utilized its nuclear weapons arsenal, so far, as a
deterrent, letting their enemies know they possess The Bomb
and taking bold actions short of use to scare their
opponents. Aside from deterring enemies, Israeli nuclear policy allows
for the use of these weapons in the event of an
unconventional (chemical, biological, or nuclear) attack.
Contrary to public opinion, the coalition in the Gulf
War did finish the job it was sent to do, fulfill the 1990
U.N. resolutions. Unfortunately,
these resolutions were carried out before Saddam became a
casualty. In
the Gulf War, Saddam knew coalition forces did not threaten
his dictatorship in Iraq.
As long as he survived the war, he would continue to
be that country’s ruler.
He also understood his regime would be terminated if
he used weapons of mass destruction. In other words, Saddam was aware he had everything to gain by
not using unconventional weapons, especially against Israel.
This time, the main objective of the mission will be
to oust Hussein from power, giving him nothing to lose and
everything to gain by escalating the war.
The United States admittedly does not know exactly
what weapons of mass destruction Iraq possesses, but we will
when these weapons fall on Israel or our American and
British troops.
Even
if the Bush Administration is able to miraculously prevent
any one of these significant risks from taking place, an
article in a recent edition of the Jerusalem Post indicates
our invasion plan will lead to greater problems in the
future. The
Israelis have picked up on Bush’s statement that this
attack is a continuation of our war on terrorism.
The Jerusalem Post discussed Syria’s support of the
terrorist organization Hizbullah.
Following the May 2000 Israeli withdraw from Southern
Lebanon, Hizbullah militants have launched several mortar
and rocket attacks in the area of Shebaa farms.
During the spring, Hizbullah fighters began launching
rockets into northern Israel.
Taking note of America’s justification for invading
another nation as a continuation of the war against terror,
Israel is drawing similarities between Hizbullah and Saddam
Hussein. The
article ended with the bleak statement, “As the U.S. moves
closer to ‘regime change’ in Baghdad, Syrian support for
Hizbullah and other forms of involvement in terrorism will
increase the likelihood of a sudden and
‘disproportionate’ Israeli response.”
If our actions do not directly result in catastrophic
consequences in the Middle East, our policy, utilized by
other countries, definitely will.
It is a dangerous and destructive precedence for
America to set.
Obviously
no one can predict the future, but assessing these risks is
well within the capability of anyone with an intellect
greater than that of a crawfish.
There are clearly too many risks associated with
invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, even if he does
have nuclear capabilities. The world must demand Iraq allow weapons inspectors free and
complete access, we must destroy the munitions and research
being carried out by Iraq, and nations must work toward an
Iraqi revolution from within.
It is evident none of the risks brought up in this
article have been considered by the Administration, the war
hawks, or the peace doves.
The United States of America is preparing, for the
first time in its history, to instigate a war.
If we become an aggressor nation, imposing our will
upon the world, our society’s core values of liberty,
freedom, and Democracy will lose all meaning before the
world and within ourselves.
Our culture, in a theoretical sense, will go the way
of the dinosaur. At the most basic level, the terrorists will have changed
America; they will have won.
- Alan
Malavolti is a contributing writer for
PurePolitics.com who lives in Sioux Falls, SD.
South
Dakota Politics
