2003 Year in Review

The War on Terror and Mideast Peace

President Bush’s initiative to stabilize the relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is part of his plan to carry the war on terror to its home base. As long as the Israeli – Palestinian conflict continues, the Middle East will provide a seed bed for militant Islamic activism. In a significant respect, Bush’s Israeli – Palestinian policy is part of a broader initiative to combat terrorism and extend American influence in the Mideast beyond that gained after the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq.

If one accepts the Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell-Rice (BRPR) view of the new world order, then it is disingenuous of the opposition to suggest that the U. S. should not have ventured into the war with Iraq. The BRPR view allows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and would make such weapons available to anti-American terrorist groups. The view also supposes that the Saddam regime actively supported Hamas in its terrorist operations against the state of Israel, thus keeping the likelihood of a peace in the region remote. It suggests as well a link between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’eda, the terrorist organization responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

The BRPR view further illustrates the old adage that ‘the best defense is a good offense.’ The Bush camp knows, as does the opposition, it is impossible to defend the United States against all terrorist infiltration or from American citizens recruited to the terrorist cause. But, if the U. S. can disrupt terrorist activity and decimate the terrorist leadership at its base, then the national security will better be served by pursuing an active campaign against terrorism on foreign soil than at home.

Afghanistan is a viable base for U. S. operations in the Middle East. It serves to position American forces to the east of Iran, a country roughly four times the area of Iraq, to balance its forces on the west in Iraq. With American and allied forces on the east and west and with U. S. naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Iran is effectively at the mercy of American military might in the case the U. S. must exert extra-diplomatic pressure on the fundamentalist Iranian government. To be sure, Iran’s precarious situation has not gone unnoticed by the Iranian leadership.

Iraq is central to the U. S. effort to stabilize the area and take the war against terror to the terrorists themselves. While Iran is a cause of concern, Syria and Lebanon are home to several terrorist groups, and a haven for terrorist leaders. It is unlikely these states will voluntarily take steps to reduce the terrorist groups within their borders until the U. S. undertakes punitive action against them. Thus, the new American bases in Iraq will facilitate quick and accurate action when the need arises.

The U. S. will not vacate Iraq regardless of the inner turmoil and the calls for the Americans to ‘go home.’ Its vital interests dictate otherwise. Iraqi oil will flow, and it will flow to the advantage of the United States by providing an interrupted and uncontested source of petroleum. The revenues will also help to allay the debt incurred in financing the war. Equally important, the oil will flow to the advantage of the Iraqi people and whatever government it eventually has. Oil will infuse the Iraqi economy and provide jobs for the Iraqi people.

Democracy in the Western sense is unlikely to flourish in the region; BRPR has no illusions about that. But through the use of such rhetoric the U. S. will gain support of a broader spectrum of the American public and of its European allies, especially those of the ‘new Europe,’ countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic.

‘Take the war on terror to the terrorists themselves’ has been a catchphrase for the Bush administration since 9-11. Under this doctrine, Iraq and Afghanistan offer proximity to countries that foster terror and places U. S. forces in a position to strike at the heart of terrorists’ camps and training facilities. The new war necessitates that the U. S. strike quickly to quell possible strikes against its interests at home and abroad, and to quickly retaliate against those who perpetuate violence against American interests. The new war does not allow for the ponderous buildup of overwhelming forces when occasions beg for immediate, swift and decisive action. With forces situated in the region itself, armed and ready to move, the U. S. has the capability to root out and destroy the militants’ camps and reduce the ranks of the fundamentalist terrorists, if not the leadership of the groups themselves.

Bush has now brought American prestige and power into play to broker an Israeli – Palestinian peace deal. If a deal is made, then the region may move toward less violent resolutions to other problems that vex it. Regardless of the outcome of the Arab – Israeli initiatives, the U. S. will resort to force whenever necessary to subdue internal discontent with an American presence as it has done in Afghanistan and is doing in Iraq. No, the United States will not occupy these countries in the old imperialistic sense. Rather, by its presence at ‘friendly’ bases, it will insure the safety and security of ‘friendly’ governments and the safety and security of American interests at home and abroad.

by William Driver, Guest Columnist
June 6, 2003