On September 11, 2001 America was forced to turn an historic corner and on March 200, unfortunately and tragically, our own government misled this nation into backing a wrong turn, militarily, and our actions changed forever, not only the Middle East but America as well. We are no longer the people we were before 911.
September 11, 2001 was an unquestionable shock to our nationalist pride and to our long held sense of impenetrable security. This was "God's" country we had always held, and God would not ever allow his flock to be hurt. What we never took into account was that a fanatic group of men from a part of the world we have never really understood, motivated by a 2000 year old vendetta fueled by blind hate, would follow the dictates of 'their' God, Allah, and rain down upon us the fires of Arabian Hell.
Well, the deed has been done. Now what we have to do is to put the pieces back together again. This task however, cannot be accomplished with the same blind hate as the motivating force, as employed by those who attacked us: regardless of how natural it may seem or feel too many. In an episode of the 1960's television western series, "Have Gun, Will Travel", the black clad hero, Paladin, draws against an angry adversary and disables him with one shot to the arm. Paladin then states to the man, "One should never draw in anger. It slows the hand!"
In the same exact manner, Blind Hate blocks out the power to 'Think.' - and without that very important capability we are, truly, blind to both motive and direction. And proper motive and choice of direction are the key elements of advancing into a future with the least amount of pitfall.s We have pretty much spent our future revenue and we cannot afford another long-term Middle East war.
How and Why of the Iraq War
Unless one is brain dead or politically intransigent (a selective self-imposition of the same state), everyone who is capable of the mental skill of 'thought' knows that the Iraq war was 'completely unnecessary.' Quite simply, there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) or programs ongoing to produce said as the Bush administration claimed at the time. The reason this administration was so anxious to go in to Iraq has as yet to be divulged, but one has reason to believe that in the end the revelation will come down to simple admission: it all had to do with oil. This bloody reckless adventure had little to do with the long-term interests of America in the region, but more the desires of the Vice President's corporate friends and associates in the oil industry.
Iraq is the last known major oil reserve that is close to the past production potential of the Saudi oil fields - which we know are rapidly running out. Whatever nation or industrial power has effective control of the Iraq Oil Reserve can be said to hold effective control of the developed world for at least 50 years. The Dick Cheney backed oil lobby (or vice versa) wanted it and they were willing to shed as much American and Iraqi blood as necessary to get their hands on this petrochemical prize.
In fact, they were so positive that the trek into Iraq would be nothing more than a simple 'cake-walk', they did virtually no planning at all - in spite of all of the learned warnings given. So after about six to ten weeks of administrative and Neocon backed euphoria (remember, Mission Accomplished?), the roof, literally, fell in. The resistance to come from Iraqi insurgents was not even sketched out as a footnote in the playbook of whatever miniscule amount of planning was put together by the Bush administration. Now, we're in it up to our necks - or should I say -up to our soldiers' necks.
Availability of Fresh Troops
Sometime between June and the end of July of this year of 2007, for all intents and purposes, the United States Armed Forces will have run out of fresh combat ready troops. At this crucial point in the so-called "War on Terror", the armed forces will be totally dependent on the constant rotation of our already strained National Guard and Reserve Personnel. And as it stands at present American armed forces desperately need to increase in size to meet future commitments in an unstable world, not just in Iraq. But the volunteer army concept is coming up short and failing us badly. And this shortage is being brought to the present critical state because the volunteer army is simply not getting enough volunteers. Why is this happening?
Well all one has to do is to watch the news on television every night and the answer is revealed by simple deduction: American youth have opted to keep their arms, legs, eyes and lives, rather than risk said in the area of combat offered by the Iraq experience. And even the patriotic ones have decided that they don't want to be absent from their young families while on constant rotation recall, in a war that appears to have no end or justifiable outcome.
Let's face it, the facts as known and the polled opinions of Americans indicate that the Iraq war was not worth the effort, cost to date and to come, or the lives spent on both sides. So why would any American youth with half a brain be willing to risk getting a bullet in it, or worse, to maintain the wounded pride of a highly flawed leader? So what alternative is there left for a badly strained American army?
Other than resorting to a massive pullback of occupation troops in other countries (Germany and South Korea), the only other alternative left is to give serious reconsideration to bringing back the - Military Draft! It is, however, highly unlikely that a war weary American public will tolerate even a hint of such a proposal. That's the 'rock and the hard' place for the present and future presidential administrations be they Republican, Democratic or Independent Third Party.
20 Bloody Months to ...What?
Roughly speaking, there's just about 20 months to January 9, 2009 when a new American president is sworn into office, and the George Bush Jr. presidency ends. With the state of the Middle East balanced on a tightrope of regional tension and increasing nuclear threat sensitivities that can be a long time. And the possibilities of what can take place in between are not only multitudinous, but also fraught with far reaching dangers all along the way. No one can predict what the future can bring, but we can plot out the possibilities. When dealing with the Bush administration speculation is necessary as a defense posture, for reason does not reside comfortably at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Looking back upon history as example, it is easy to recognize that a lot can happen in 20 or so months, but that point alone should not be our main concern. For it is not simply a matter of what this lame duck president can still get us into in such a time frame, but more a matter of what he can get us committed to. I, like a great many Americans, do not want to see American troops and forces committed to defending Israel, not because we are anti Semitic, but because we don't know what Israel will do in a panic. And they are approaching that point now - for good reasons, namely an unstable Pakistan and a nuclear-armed Iran.
The Islamic Bomb Is Already Here
For decades there has been the nightmare of the western world and, most importantly, the Israeli Defense Force, of the very troubling prospect of an - Islamic Nuclear Bomb. For all intents and purposes the question of when dissolved on May 28, 1998 at 3:00 PM, upon the detonation of a nuclear device by Pakistan. With that nuclear blast, Pakistan became the 7th nation to (officially) join the nuclear Weapons Community, and at the same time the first Islamic nation to achieve that status.
This event carried even more weight of urgency when on April 4th of that same year, Pakistan also successfully tested its Ghauri medium range missile with boasting a range of 1600 km (approximately 950 miles): in reality the missile was actually a North Korean No-dong, but its performance and potentiality was no less real. In any event, within a significantly short period of time, Pakistan had gained not only a nuclear capability, but delivery capability as well. From that day on, the entire Middle East equation changed - forever.
The point is Pakistan's real nuclear arsenal is far more dangerous than Iran's possible future nuclear capability. To date the Pakistanis have several successful tests of a nuclear capable missile, and by now it is not a hard reach to suggest that they have, more than likely, developed the know-how to place and fire one with a nuclear warhead.
The President of Iran has no real power to launch any sort of missile strike, nuclear or otherwise, at Israel or anyone else. That power resides firmly in the hands of the Mullahs, and there is every indication that they plan to keep it that way. Added to which, the Mullahs are firmly in control of that country with a sizable backing from the population. There is no significant organized political force in the background capable of wrenching this power from their grasp.
There is also the loose factor of - 'just what do the Iranians have nuclear wise?' Simply put, neither the Israelis nor the rest of the world knows for certain. Keeping in mind, this is a country that managed to hide a rather large nuclear reactor from the world's intelligence services for more than 20 years. How far are they? How many nuclear experts do they have? And most of all how effectively can they be taken out by massive air strikes? The answer most military experts give is that their facilities are so widely scattered and well buried in most cases (of the ones we know about) that at best, they could only be cauterized by air strikes employing 'low-yield nuclear devices.' Needless to say, no sane mind would consider such a tactic because of the very dangerous precedent it would set. No one or nation state that is with the possible exception of the Israelis.
Just about the only thing we can be certain of with respect to the Iranians is that, in all likelihood, they have absolutely no intention to proliferate any nuclear weaponry they may produce to unstable forces. It is highly unlikely that the Iranian government will ever supply a terrorist organization with any nuclear devices they may develop for the simple reason, one can never tell when such forces may turn against you; yesterday's allies can quickly become today's enemies. These people are not stupid nor have they ever given any indication that they are suicidal. They are never going to, voluntarily, give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist organization. It just ain' t gonna happen!
Now however comes the really troubling news: The situation in Pakistan is the direct reverse of that in Iran. The government of President Pervez Musharraf is a minority government - just like Saddam Hussein's government was a minority government in Iraq. It should be noted that there have been two almost successful attempts to assassinate Musharraf in the past two years. And just recently, a number of his personal bodyguard staff has been removed for suspicions of plotting against him and his office.
Over the past few years Pakistan has undergone major social and political unrest, added to the increasing pressure from both the Taliban and al Qaeda forces in the country's surrounding mountainside. Of recent the country has been rocked by increasing violence. The violence that flared between ethnic Pashtuns and supporters of a pro-government party, was sparked by the March 9th ousting of that nation's top and very popular (and regarded as too independent-minded) Supreme Court judge. The unrest became so violent, the government was forced to dispatch 15,000 troops to the capital to quell the disturbance - 41 people were killed.
Pakistan's President-General Musharraf, a Mohajir (Muslims who fled India after the partition of the subcontinent from Britain in 1947), came to power via military coup in 1999. The Karachi based MQM Party (Mutahida Qaumi Movement) draws its main support from the Mohajirs. The party emerged in the 1980's when Mohajir resentment of Pashtun control of business and transport boiled over into major unrest and riots that resulted in hundreds being killed. Now many fear that there may possibly be a return to the wide spread ethnic violence of the 1980's with all of its implications for a modern - nuclear armed - Pakistan.
Should President-General Musharraf be removed by counter-coup or assassination, the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal will hang in the balance. If that happens, the fate of that arsenal will dictate virtually all actions, military and diplomatic, in the Middle East. A reaction similar to what took place after the breakup of the Soviet Union and the concern over their loose nukes
More important than all else, however, is the implications of either and Israeli, American or joint attack on either Iran or Pakistan. All hell is likely to breakout in the Western world - economy wise. The price of oil would jump to astronomical levels for starters. Then, slowly, there would be a shift to other sources of petroleum, and this would create new power brokers on the world scene. The first to benefit would be the Russians; they have the next large available reserve of oil: then comes the Venezuelans and the Nigerians. Within 18 months to 6 years there would be an entirely new world order in which the standing of the United States, at present, would be an unknown.
The American Middle East Foreign Policy
In the final analysis American regional foreign policy, such as it is, envisions a "Nuclear Free Middle East", but it is one that places no such demands of inclusion on Israel and its nuclear arsenal. In fact, our insane policy virtually ignores the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal (estimated by experts at somewhere between 200 to 500 warheads). What Middle Eastern leader, or any leader, would agree to such an insulting demand under these circumstances? Can one even imagine how long their leadership survive should they ever did entertain such a one-sided proposal? Therefore, what purpose is served by such a demand that can never be met, diplomatically or otherwise?" None!
The Israeli Factor
With the notable exception of a brave few, like conservative columnist and former presidential candidate, Patrick Buchanan, most are unwilling to state the obvious: Israel is the cornerstone of the entire Middle East problem. And like it or not, the developed world is not only held hostage to its fears for survival but, even more important, it is under constant threat from that rogue state's possible actions. Always present, hanging in the air surrounding diplomacy and negotiation, is the very volatile question - "What will the Israelis do?"
Quite simply put, covering an area of 8463 square miles, Israel cannot take one single nuclear hit and survive - and they know it. Even a near miss would spread deadly radiation debris over most of their farming land and threaten their water supply. And in the Middle East, water is more important than oil. This very succinct knowledge is at the center of all of their survival thinking. They can also fathom that the very real possibility of a Democratic president in the White House and a Democratic controlled U.S. congress in 2009, is not likely to encourage or back an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, much less on one in Pakistan. On their own, the Israelis do not have the manpower to invade or occupy either Pakistan or Iran. But they know that they must do something - and soon. The question is - what will they do - with or without American assistance?
All of this external regional pressure on Israel comes at a time when its government is at odds with itself through its coalition parties. All sides have serious issues over the handling of the recent war with the Lebanon based radical Hezbollah; which many Israelis feel they lost due to inept operational handling by the Olmert regime. At present it is a war of words between the Olmert government and the hardliners led by the Benjamin Netanyahu faction in the wings. Therefore, rational elements in that country, and the world community at large, have to nervously wonder just what decisions will be made and acted upon when a dynamic change takes place within their immediate neighborhood.
The worst-case scenario is a situation where the Pakistani government faces eminent collapse and threatened takeover by a radical Islamic element, in the same general time period when it is reliably determined that the Iranians are well within reach of a nuclear weaponry capability. And should this nightmare scenario take place in the corridor of time between now and January 9, 2009 - when President Bush leaves office, it is more than likely that the Israelis will feel compelled to act sooner rather than later. In fact, there is every possibility they will act - before he leaves office.
The American Option
The wise American decision would be to step back from this 2000 year-old simmering abyss and let the participants work it out. Face to face with no allies backing them, in time, both sides will become aware of the total destruction each can bring down upon the other; just like the West did with the Soviet Union. At that point, working better than any diplomatic effort from outside parties, they will be forced to seek and work out acceptable alternatives among themselves. Unfortunately however, our country is addicted to an Israeli driven Middle East foreign intervention policy, and in dealing with all sides in the Middle East conflict, such a policy can best be described as - 'Diplomatic Suicide.'
So here we are, the great United States of America, stuck in the middle between all sides in the Middle East conflict, and unable to extricate ourselves from Iraq. Finally, we have them - right where they want us. |