August 29, 2002
Ha'aretz has an excellent article in it about the Arab reaction to an invasion of Iraq. The one thing I noticed in it was the air of defeatism that the Arab world is starting to acquire:
The war on Iraq" is not merely a bland expression that describes the state of affairs. Judging by the extent of Arab rhetoric and political commentaries, the war stands to go down as "the Mother of All Wars," one even more momentous - to the Arab world - than the previous Gulf War. In terms of regional significance, it even has the potential to surpass the resolution of the Palestinian problem. Because the planned attack on Iraq is the Arab war against America. "We are at the threshold of a redrafting of the map of the Middle East," wrote the political columnist Adli Sadeq in Al Quds al-Arabi, a newspaper published in London. The American plot, he writes, groups together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Palestine, Syria and Iran, and ultimately aims to redivide the Middle East into loyal statelets, or even into tribes - tribes and oil wells.
Notice how the tone is not how to prevent a "redrafting of the map" but that such a redrafting is for all intents and purposes a fait accompli. The Arab world understands that we will win. They also know that once we win, all the assumptions that have governed the worldview for the past 50 years have gone out the window. Since Britain and France left the Arab world, and the creation of Israel, the Arabs have never experienced utter defeat along the lines of what happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. Every time Israel approached that point, the UN(read: US and/or USSR) stepped in, and victorius interruptus occurred. Because of that, the Arabs have never had to truly face the brutal reality that they have been "lucky" for the past half century. The Arabs have a belief that they can win, because while they have lost wars in the past, they have never had to sue for peace.
After the Gulf war, that belief was shaken somewhat. However, due to the status quo obsession of Bush41, and the general cowardice and fecklessness shown by Clinton's foreign policy, the credibility we had at the end of the Gulf War was eroded to nothing. It only took a short while before the Arab world and most importantly Saddam and Osama came to think that we were incapable of attacking with the intent to overthrow and/or kill the leadership in the Arab world. The Arab world mistook forebearance for weakness. That is why Osama and Saddam attacked us. They believed we were incapable of striking back. That Afghanistan fell so quickly shocked the Arab world somewhat. If we conquer Iraq*, for the first time, the Arab world will understand what is meant by unconditional surrender. That will change things, because we will have demonstrated, decisively and lethally, that the Arab world is incapable of standing up to American military might, and that the only thing preventing us from doing them like we did Saddam is our own forebearance. At that point, our "street cred" will be such that we won't have to use military force again. The Arab world will be forced to engage in self-examination, which they have never had to do in the 20th century.
*In one sense we are liberating Iraq. In another sense, we are conquering it. We are invading with the deliberate intent of removing a sovereign government and replacing it with one more palatable to us. While it will be also more palatable to the Iraqis, thereby liberating them, it will be more palatable to us, making it a conquest.
Blogged your post. The Arabs need a sound thrashing. If their soldiers try to hide among their civilians in cities (in violation of the Geneva Conventions), we should flatten their cities. They need to learn that nothing can protect them from us, once we choose to act.
Riyadh delenda est!
