Nick:
Although true to the extent that conflicts are almost always led by people
with some degree of wealth, I don't think this erases the link between
poverty and violence. A rich man can look at his neighbors' poverty and
become enraged enough to lead them or fight on their behalf. Sometimes we
call that behavior noble, sometimes we call it hypocrisy. I don't think it
is even relevant to any moral judgment.
Me:
It absolutely is if the policies that rich man espouses will, in fact, keep
those poor people poor, or even make things worse. As is the case for the
terrorists. Then it seems reasonable to point out that they're _not_
fighting on behalf of the poor, they're fighting for their own causes and
power and the poor have nothing to do with it.
Nick:
I'm not arguing against the need for military action, but it sometimes
sounds like you reject all other solutions. You're not saying that our
only
choices in Pakistan are to unconditionally support the existing government
or use force to disarm the country, are you?
Nick
Me again:
In the case of Pakistan, actually, those might _be_ our only two options we
have others elsewhere. I usually sound like I reject other solutions
because everyone else on the list rejects military action out of hand - or
talks like it, at any rate. Military action in this situation is a
necessary predicate to other things, just like defeating Nazism was
necessary _before_ rebuilding Germany. But it's a case of sequence. The
current government of Pakistan is, in my judgment, actually not so bad. I
think Musharraf is the only chance they've got. So not _unconditional_
support, of course, but highly conditional support. Our conditions can, in
fact, make it easier for Musharraf to go where he probably actually wants
to go - towards a Pakistan that looks sort of like Turkey. So that's a
goal.
We can't develop the Middle East under their current governments. Bashar
El Assad _doesn't want_ his country to become a wealthy state, because the
necessary predicate for that is that it become a democratic one. And the
necessary first step to making Syria a democracy is - remoing Assad from
power. The leaders of the countries we are dealing with _want their people
to remain poor and ignorant_. They can only remain in power if they are
poor and ignorant. They are completely unwilling to do those things that
would make their people _less_ poor and ignorant, because those things
would weaken their grip on power. Instead they divert their people's
attention to violent confrontations with the West. But their people will
only support them in these confrontations _if they win_. So far, they have
won. The "Arab street" cheered Bin Laden when it seemed like he had struck
a huge blow against the US - not when his forces were smashed in
Afghanistan. The power of radical ideologies - like Nazism, or militant
Islam - is critically dependent on _victory_. Deny it victory - face it
with a string of unmistakeable defeats - and it's like denying oxygen to a
fire.
In the case of Iraq, for example, we clearly don't want to support the
current government. In the _particular_ case of Iraq, military action is
probably our only option, as it appears to be getting ever-nearer to
weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot allow that to occur. My point
is that military action like overthrowing the Iraqi govenrment will have
_positive_ effects for us on public opinion in the Middle East. It will
show that violent confrontation with the West is not an effective option.
Since Saddam pumps money into the suicide bombings in Israel, this might
actually help the situation in Israel a great deal as well - _another_
plus. A free, or at least more free, state in Iraq, will almost certainly
provide great benefits to the reformers in Iran in two ways. First, it
will create an external but immediately available base of support for them.
And second, it will show that the way of the radicals has no future - it
will begin to resolve the dilemma described by Bernard Lewis of the problem
of Islam's current subordinate status. Right now large parts of the Muslim
world are trying to regain that old status through violence, because in the
past whenever violence has been used against us we have appeased those who
did it. Changing that policy will make them choose other avenues - and the
logical other avenue is internal reform, which is our overarching
objective. Another plus. It will give us less reason to support Syria and
more ways to undermine its government. Benefit number three. And it will
make us far less dependent on Saudi Arabia and able to take steps with its
incredibly dangerous decision to propagate Wahabist Islam as a tradeoff
with its home-grown radicals. Benefit number 4. Finally, a free and
(eventually) wealthy Iraq will be an example of our carrot - line up with
us, and you could live well too. But that can only come through toppling
the current Iraqi government. Benefit number 5. Only military action can
do these things.
War is politics continued by other means. The purpose of war in this
instance is not to conquer territory - we don't want it. It is, first, to
remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of those who would
threaten the United States - that is, of course, our overwhelming priority.
But second, and almost as important, the purpose of war, instead of
appeasement, is to demonstrate to the masses of the Muslim world that
victory for them _cannot_ come through violence. If they choose violence,
they will not be appeased, they will be defeated. Knowing that, they won't
choose violence. We have a political objective here - our war will be won,
in the end, in the minds of the Muslim world. Only victory - clear and
decisive victory - can give us a foothold there. Development will come
later - it must come, but it _cannot be done_ now. Only military victories
will give us the opportunity to do that.
If Britain and France had put their armies in Czechoslovakia in 1939, does
anyone think Hitler would have invaded? Without the power he gained from
continually outfacing Britain and France, does anyone think Hitler would
have survived for very long? I'm reading Martin Gilbert's biography of
Winston Churchill right now, and the truly horrifying thing is watching how
many opportunities Britain and France threw away to stop the impending
catastrophe. Time after time after time, they had the chance and discarded
it - and they did it because of arguments very similar to what I'm seeing
here. Hitler acted the way he did because of the German economy. He did
it because of legitimate past grievances. And so on. No. None of those
arguments were true. Nazism couldn't be stopped by giving it a little bit
and hoping it would go away. It couldn't be stopped by fixing the German
economy - in fact, by the late 1930s the German economy was doing pretty
well. It could only be stopped by denying it the oxygen it needed -
victory. 60 years later _we are having the same arguments_. We have a
chance to do it right this time. We must alleviate the poverty and
suffering of the Muslim world, certainly - although in the end, they will
have to do that for themselves, of course. But we can, and should, help.
But first we have to win the war.
Gautam
