Just as there are limitations on how much can be done to democratize the Muslim world, so it is with domestic issues but for the argument as to which is more important. One would argue that it is more important to have a safer, less threatening international scene than to worry about the economic security of the nation. Repetitive cries fall back on the Chamberlain appeasement syndrome, as it were, to justify declaring war on pockets of Muslim antagonism generating terror.
There is no counter argument here but for the wrong way and the right way approach to this war. In Afghanistan it was clear what the US had to do: the Taliban openly harbored al Qaeda that wrought destruction across the sea. Although Saddam was always a threat to neighboring countries, along with the threat of disrupting the free flow of oil, the US officially proclaimed the desire for his removal. The mistake here was that the congressional resolution singled out one dictator in a host of dangerous dictatorships, which in truth should have initiated a cold war front against all.
For fifty years Israel had waged a reactive hot war against Palestine’s stubborn resistance and have had little but “catastrophic success.” The net result is that it now has resorted to building an iron curtain round its expanding borders. Some have suggested that Israel’s approach should have long ago been the initial Bush approach to Iraq of all-out search and destroy. This, of course, would have resulted in the same unmanageable Vietnam situation, which clearly showed that nationalism and cultures were underrated, just as we at home underestimate the power of minorities to carve a national will out of divisive cultures.
The only alternative to moderating the Muslim world is through either hard nose sanctions or pragmatic diplomacy with the stipulation that the West has the right to defend against blatant terrorism, and severe restrictions concerning Muslim immigration in nations of modernity. Of course, the obstacle here in establishing such a policy is that modern nations are beholden to oil, and OPEC nations are aware they hold this ace in the hole. Inarguably, US relations with Cuba would be entirely different if it had large oil reserves.
Aggressive overseas ventures undermine the progression of economic advancement in the nation. Far too much of our natural resources in talent and material are devoted to national “defense” because of our preoccupation with conditions overseas that are in part owing to our own indiscretions that leave us vulnerable to the horror of “the mouse that roared.” The best defense, charted in the Carter administration and foolishly abandoned, is energy independence and as a bonus instil pride in the advance of an economy that’s smart and not counterproductive.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: October 10, 2004.
http://stevendedalus.joeuser.com