[This is a follow up to my posting of Mon, 24 May 2004]
In his speech on Monday, 2004 May 24, US President Bush said that he
would continue his Administration's previous policy in Iraq, with the
possible addition of more deals with US enemies, as in Fallujah.
(The White House transcript is at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/20040524-10.html
)
It is possible that US negotiations in Fallujah mean that the Sunni
guerillas have been separated from other Sunni powers and will not
cause much trouble to the US. At the same time, their military power
may enable the Sunni to protect themselves from Shi'ite justice. It
is also possible that the more powerful of the various Shi'ite
factions will cooperate with the United States and not work strongly
for Iran.
But that is not my main concern. It looks to me that the President
decided to give up the long term goal of victory. The goal was to
enable Americans to feel safe from attack, one or two generations from
now.
Instead of educating people to a two part strategy for US security,
the President looks to be focusing just on one part. Although he
speaks in favor of the second part, he is not preparing people for it.
(No one in the current Bush Administration has said that they are
following this two part strategy. However, I do not think that the
United States government and its military were persuaded by the
arguments the Bush Administration has made. I think the two part
strategy is, or was, US policy.)
The first part of the strategy is to intimidate dictatorships, such as
those in Iran and Saudi Arabia, and thereby to cause their governments
to support the US. This part fits within the `The Jacksonian
Tradition' of US politics. It also fits the "inference-preserving
cross-domain mapping" that US conservatives often use for thinking
about politics.
The second part of the strategy involves persuading the unconvinced to
replace their governments with governments that lead fewer people to
oppose the US.
This means overthrowing the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Al
Qaeda also hopes to overthrow those dictatorships. The US goal is to
replace those regimes with governments harmless to the US rather than
with a re-invigorated theocratic despotism that opposes the US.
Intimidation cannot work for generations: eventually, if they are not
assimilated, at least a few of the intimidated will cease to be
intimidated and will fight back. Consequently, the United States will
eventually have to replace a policy of intimidation or else suffer
defeat. It has no alternative.
Since people who consider their circumstances just are less inclined
to fight others, the goal for the US must be to arrange for justice.
Since free and democratic countries are more likely to provide the
institutions that enable them to adapt well to change and provide for
justice, the US must support such change.
In his speech, President Bush said "America's task ... is ... to help
Iraq achieve democracy and freedom." This is a general way of saying
that he is against the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and
elsewhere, and that he favors ending US intimidation.
The question is whether you think President Bush's methods will
succeed?
There are two aspects to this question. One is whether current policy
will succeed in Iraq; the other is whether the President is doing
enough to prepare Americans for the second half of the strategy.
Regarding the first aspect, do you think that the US can guarantee
order and law in Iraq? These are the necessary preconditions for
justice and democracy.
Or do you think that those who oppose US success will continue to
fight, if not this year, within the next five or ten years?
The argument for continuing to fight is straightforward: over the last
30 years, the US has pulled out of Vietnam pulled out of the Lebanon,
and pulled out of Somalia. In each case, US opponents say the pullout
occurred because US suffered more casualties than it could bear. They
say that the US is more willing to suffer defeat than to suffer
casualties. Thus, for them, fighting leads to victory against the US.
Moreover, in Iraq, many Sunni police and soldiers fear that the
Shi'ites will seek justice against them and that US will not guard
them.
The recent deal between the US and its enemies in Fallujah tends to
negate this fear. The deal enables Sunni guerillas to maintain their
positions, so long as they do not fight the US: locals may figure that
their co-religion's soldiers will deter the Shi'ites, even if the US
does not.
But Sunni soldiers must also think that if they are strong enough to
deter the Shi'ites, they could go further and sabotage the development
of a government that protects the Shi'ites. They must consider the
possibility of regaining strength in a temporary truce with the US and
then fighting again.
Similarly, the Shi'ite may welcome the US defeat of Saddam Hussein, as
Chalabi has, but then seek power for themselves. Among other goals,
they may seek justice. This is a good reason to oppose the US.
Finally, those who favor a new caliphate must oppose the US. In so
far as the US fails to provide security in Iraq, they will defeat the
US.
I myself think that the Sunni, the Shi'ites, and President Bush may
all agree to a temporary truce. The Sunni and the Shi'ites would do
so to regain strength and President Bush would do so to improve his
chance for re-election in November 2004.
I do not know what Al Qaeda will do. They may be sufficiently
weakened that they cannot attack the US; or they may prefer a known
Bush Administration over an unknown Kerry Administration; or they may
expect a Kerry Administration to be less dangerous to them and that
defeating Bush is a victory for themselves. If the latter, I expect
an attack against the US or US interests that is symbolically
powerful, since the goal for a militarily weak power is to persuade
rather than coerce.
Clearly, the Bush Administration hopes either that Al Qaeda is weak or
that it prefer the known Bush Administration. The President could
well be defeated in his re-election if a symbolically powerful attack
takes place within the next few months.
Others think the opposite, that a symbolically powerful attack will
increase US support for Bush in the election. I think it depends on
timing. In the very short term, I expect an attack to increase
support -- the `rally around the President' effect. But in a month or
two, I expect an attack to cause people to start asking whether the
Bush administration acted competently in the past 2.5 years to defend
Americans. Thus an attack in June, July, or August may well lead to
Bush defeat, but an attack just before the election may lead to his
victory.
This is exactly opposite what happened in Spain and may lead Al Qaeda
planners to time an attack that does the opposite of what they plan.
The next aspect of the question is whether you think the US President
has acted to convince enough people that the long term US goal is to
create democracies within countries in which some people have opposed
the US?
I do not. Put positively, I think the US government would make a more
convincing argument -- would succeed better in the war against
terrorism -- it did the following:
* Encourage alternatives to oil. This is a policy that the French
or others could also follow. Encourage energy savings and
promote research in alternative sources of energy.
* Prepare for a better economy. Rather than favor large deficits
without surcease, favor frugality or else raised taxes. Large
government deficits crowd out other uses of money.
* Prepare for a better society. Under the Bush Administration,
its primary educational reform appears looks like a scam that
makes use of the difference between "criterion-referenced" tests
and "norm-referenced" tests. (I may be wrong, but I get the
impression that in a decade's time, presuming sufficient
funding, it may be possible to say that `every student is above
average' by mixing the "criterion-referenced" average with
"norm-referenced" criteria.) Its health plans look to leave
behind a large portion of the population.
* Prepare for a better corporate governance. The Bush
Administration appears to stymie efforts to ensure honesty,
accountability, and transparency within the basic elements of a
capitalist economy.
* Prepare for a better national governance. The Bush
Administration seems to favor electronic voting that is open to
fraud rather than fair elections using mechanisms, such as paper
ballots, that can be audited and whose dangers are well known.
Without seeing that all this is being done, I fear the government has
abandoned the goal of victory.
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
As I slowly update it, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I rewrite a "What's New" segment for http://www.rattlesnake.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
