The Long War
As I peruse the depressing headlines about Iran and the dilemma it presents our governments with, I am reminded of an issue that presented itself a couple of months ago when the Pentagon presented its Quadrennial Review (for a good perspective on this see this story in The Guardian). In this paper which is published every four years, the US Department of Defense envisages something it calls "The Long War" going on for.....the forseeable future. Ostensibly the enemy is radical Islam (in the same way that expansionist Communism was the enemy in the Cold War) and it is slated to be not only the conflict of our current era but of the next era or two as well (depending on how you define "era"). The first thing that worries me about this is that these things can easily be self-fulfilling prophesies in that if you keep treating people like criminals, they will have no choice but to act like criminals. Of course there ARE dangerous radical Islamists in this world just like there are any number of other categories of dangerous people that we need to be aware of and protect ourselves against. However, given the level of illiteracy and institutionalized control of information that exists among so many Muslim populations, it is soooo easy for them to be manipulated into thinking that it is we in the West that are out to get THEM instead of vice versa . And hence these people can be expected to be our enemies for as long as we may care to call the bastards that control them our enemies. Well this can go on forever, hence the "The Long War."
I have to ask this question, "Who benefits from the Long War?" Does it truly make you and me safer in the long run? I think it's debatable.....or have we completely given up on our Enlightenment roots and decided not to bother debating things anymore?
And what the heck is all this Iran news supposed to result in? All of the power of the Anglosphere (U.S., Britain, Australia, plus their hangers-on) has been brought to bear on one, small, mostly flat, socially fragmented, demoralized artificial state (Iraq) with what can only be called disappointing results for all concerned. What the heck does anyone think is going to happen if this kind of fight is taken to a highly nationalistic, fairly cohesive, mountainous country (Iran) that has three-times the population of Iraq and is three times as big geographically? It seems to me that we need to use the carrot and not the stick with Iran. And carrots can work. Why not pre-empt the oil-as-weapon thing by telling the Iranian leadership that the EU and US will stop buying their oil in one year if they don't back down on their weapons program, will additionally stop providing economic aid to anyone that buys their oil, and will pressure both India and China to fall into line too.
Any other answers out there?
I have to ask this question, "Who benefits from the Long War?" Does it truly make you and me safer in the long run? I think it's debatable.....or have we completely given up on our Enlightenment roots and decided not to bother debating things anymore?
And what the heck is all this Iran news supposed to result in? All of the power of the Anglosphere (U.S., Britain, Australia, plus their hangers-on) has been brought to bear on one, small, mostly flat, socially fragmented, demoralized artificial state (Iraq) with what can only be called disappointing results for all concerned. What the heck does anyone think is going to happen if this kind of fight is taken to a highly nationalistic, fairly cohesive, mountainous country (Iran) that has three-times the population of Iraq and is three times as big geographically? It seems to me that we need to use the carrot and not the stick with Iran. And carrots can work. Why not pre-empt the oil-as-weapon thing by telling the Iranian leadership that the EU and US will stop buying their oil in one year if they don't back down on their weapons program, will additionally stop providing economic aid to anyone that buys their oil, and will pressure both India and China to fall into line too.
Any other answers out there?
Posted at 3/09/2006 04:37:00 PM UTC
Permanent Link
2 Comment(s):
Iran - the tough nut to crack.
There was a time when it seemed that changes from within were strong indicators that the youth in the country would rise up and turn the nation into a peace loving, western friendly nation.
Are we seeing the last throes of the U.S. Embassy Hostage era, a force to be sure, but perhaps a fleeting one?
Probably not.
Iran has few neighbors equal in stature, power or wealth in the region. They are clearly the dominent nation there, and no nation is ever satisfied with playing second fiddle.
They want what they wants and gets what they wants, and a nuclear weapon just helps them do so faster.
I can't see the EU or US seriously boycotting Iranian oil or those that deal with Iran. That's easier to do with a smaller country, but not with a country the size of Iran.
Here's another slant: would a war with Iran happen so near to the end of a US administration, or would we wait until the next team came in? Silly as it sounds, I'm willing to bet decisions to go to war with a nation like Iran would be delayed or put off because neither replacement is likely to be as hawkish.
Just a thought.
Who benefits from a long war? The industrialists, naturally.
All the events happening down in the Middle East and Asia are about control. Controlling oil, controlling industry, trying to thwart the next potential superpowers and developing countries. That is why India gets a nuclear agreement, but Pakistan doesn't, not enough industrial clout. That is why human rights abuses are tolerated in China, but not Iraq.
Speaking of nuclear issues, any one heard the US/UK administration mention North Korea lately?
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.