I've been thinking lately about what it would actually mean to *WIN* the War on Terror.
These thoughts were inspired in large part by some of ABC News' reporting from Iraq on the occasion of the first anniversary of the Iraq War last week. As part of this reporting they conducted a series of "person on the street" interviews, which assuming that their reporting truly captured typical Iraqi opinions, was nothing short of stunning. Some of the comments include: "I know that one day we are going to turn on the radio in the morning and hear that the United States has occupied the whole Arab World." "No matter what, we know the Americans are working for Jewish interests." So, it occurred to me - what could possibly account for such startling opinions? I suppose that the first reaction would be to attach such opinions to the US's role as the preeminent occupying power in Iraq. I would reject this explanation, however, because such viewpoints hardly seem unique to Iraqis. Moreover, as has been noted many times on this List, most Arabs living within the Arab World have been subject to some particularly virulent forms of propaganda throughout their lives. For example, consider the state of Arab journalism, even *with* the relative improvements in journalism represented by Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiyah. Neverthless, which of the following was the Top Story on in the Arab press last Thursday: A) The One-Year Anniversary of the Iraq War B) Colin Powell's Surprise Visit to the Region C) The Deaths of Two Arab Journalists in Iraq and the Rumours that the Americans Assassinated Them The answer, of course, is "C." Even to this day, a baseless accusation like this can be reported seriously in the Arab press, and far more importantly, believed. Given these stark realities, it is worth recalling that despite the United State's strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, it was Saudi Arabia that produced Osama bin Laden; it was Saudi Arabia that produced most of the 9/11 hijackers, and that all of this occurred long before the US invaded Iraq. While Saudi Arabia makes a convenient scapegoat because of the role of Saudi nationals in 9/11 in my mind it is largely an artifact of history that Al Qaeda was able to predominantly recruit Saudis instead of other Arabs. The factors underpinning the decision to lash out so violently at the United States seem likely to me to be reflected as much in the propaganda evidenced above in Iraq as in other places, as it is It seems clear to me that truly *winning* the war on terrorism is going to require eliminating the environments of oppression and ignorance that have bred the lies, which fuels the desperation that underlies the decision to turn to terrorism. This will require bridging the "freedom defecit" in the Arab world, and bringing the Arab people into the world of the free flow of information and participation in governance. Thus, in my mind, I cannot imagine a scenario for *winning* the War on Terror that did not involve regime change in Iraq. So long as Saddam Hussein was ruling Iraq with an iron grip, feeding his people anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda, and moreover, convincingly portraying to the rest of the Arab world that the suffering of the Iraqi people under UN Sanctions was a direct result of American policy (rather than his refusal to spend Oil-for-Food money on *Food*) the War on Terror would never truly be over. To believe otherwise seems akin to believing that the "War on Drugs" can be won by increased vigillance and polcing of existing drug sources, rather than tackling the underlying causes. In the long term, only a fundamental change in Iraq to a free and open democracy will truly be able to turn the tide in favor of eventual victory in the War on Terror. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
