Bring on the Pax Americana!

April 3, 2003 5:29 AM

Is this World War IV, and is it for a just cause? Former CIA director James Woolsey says the U.S. is engaged in World War IV, to democratize the Arab world. It's not propaganda, but a reasoned argument that the U.S.'s long-term objective should be to give the people of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt the right to self rule. Self-congratulatory or visionary?
posted by darren (39 comments total)

Damn, I must have slept right through the third world war!

Back on topic I saw the British government coming out strongly against any suggestion that Iran (who were descried as an emerging democracy who we are in "daily contact" with) and Syria would be next. The sentiment was "As far as we know there've been no discussions, and if there were we would be against it"
posted by brettski at 5:40 AM on April 3, 2003

Sweet! I always was looking forward to WWIV back in the ol' BBS days.

Apologies to all non-ex-BBSers.
</derail>
posted by zsazsa at 5:42 AM on April 3, 2003

Man, am I glad we skipped WW III. That one promised to be a whopper!
posted by Dick Paris at 5:53 AM on April 3, 2003

It's self-congratulatory bullshit that would result in the death of many people, both here and abroad.

Democracy is great, I'm all for it, but only if that's what the people want. I don't think you can generally transition a country from imperial, communist or fascist rule in the long term unless the country itself wants it. If a significant enough percentage of the country does want it then the right way to do it is to enable the citizens to form their own country by overthrowing their government.

1776 worked because the American people sacrificed their own to make it happen. They didn't go it entirely alone, they had assistance from the French for instance, but the people sacrificed themselves for their view of a better government. Anything else and they would have gone from being subjugated by the British to being subjugated by the French (or whoever else chose to liberate the Americans).

Remember 1776 should be both a rememberance of how this country formed and the sacrifices involved as well as a warning cry to any power, foreign or domestic, that would dare take away American citizens hard-earned democracy. It would be a very different cry if 1776 were the date when America was forcibly molded into a democracy.
posted by substrate at 5:55 AM on April 3, 2003

Forced Democracy at gunpoint. What a great idea.

"Vote you Arab bastards!!!! Vote or die!!!"
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:03 AM on April 3, 2003

uh, 'cept in 1774ish, our tyrannical, tea-taxing government was one very slow ocean away. see, with iraq and such, there is active repression of what would be (properly) seen as treason against the ruling, local and current government. how do we go about gauging this "want of democracy by the country" in this context?

and who ever shouts "remember 1776!"??
posted by kid_twist at 6:08 AM on April 3, 2003

Is this "democracy" somethiing you'd have to be in Afghanistan to know about?
posted by signal at 6:12 AM on April 3, 2003

Woolsey also thinks that the Iraqis did the 1993 WTC bombing, and possibly OK City too
He is a Laurie Mylroie buddy (Dr. Mylroie must be working on a "Saddam killed JFK" book right now) and with his friend Richard Perle is board member of JINSA, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (quote from the Nation story: On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war--not just with Iraq, but "total war," as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it last year. For this crew, "regime change" by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative. Anyone who dissents--be it Colin Powell's State Department, the CIA or career military officers--is committing heresy against articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between US and Israeli national security interests) original Nation link here
posted by matteo at 6:13 AM on April 3, 2003

This is just the kind of tactful, diplomatic person who should be a "possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a post-war Iraq."

p.s. He counts The Cold War as World War III.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:25 AM on April 3, 2003

World War III is referring to the Cold War. The campaign to conquer and democratize the mid-east in a so-called "World War IV" was introduced by arch neo-conservative Norman Podhoretz in his infamous Commentary article: "How to Win World War IV"
posted by dgaicun at 6:29 AM on April 3, 2003

I guess the question to ask then is what is the alternative to the U.S. waging this war of liberation in the Arab world? Do we allow Islamic fundamentalist regimes and secular dictators to use their countries as incubators for anti-American rage through poverty and oppression (as we have largely done in Africa)? I know the idea of America democratizing the world sickens some here, but what are the other choices? I'd seriously like to here the alternatives.
posted by marcusb at 6:53 AM on April 3, 2003

You may be in favor of this sort of attempt to bring about democracy or against it. The real issue, I believe, is that there are those who feel that any attempt to close down terrorism world-wide must begin by stopping those states known to support it--and that includes Syria, Iran, Saudi Arbabia. No: not N. Korea. World-wide terrorism is now viewed as hiding behind statehood and thus keeping states paying for it out of the gunsights, but many now want to go to where the money and help and training comes from to end it.
That said, take a postion for it or against it.
posted by Postroad at 7:04 AM on April 3, 2003

Do we allow Islamic fundamentalist regimes and secular dictators to use their countries as incubators for anti-American rage through poverty and oppression (as we have largely done in Africa)?
Attacking a sovereign Arab country is the best incubator for anti-American rage all over the world. One could use the exact phrase "Poverty and oppression" as a perfect description of the kinds of outcomes that US foreign policy has produced these past 50 years throughout the developing world.

From the linked article: Singling out Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and the leaders of Saudi Arabia, he said, "We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."
Is this guy serious? Has he asked any Egyptians if they want US help? Doesn't he know that a democratic Egypt would elect either an islamist (as Algeria did) or (best case scenario) a Nasserist nationalist government, both of which would not be American puppets like Mubarak has been? Or hasn't he even heard about Algeria?
Is being a completely ignorant idiot a requirement to be part of the ruling cadre in the US these days?
posted by talos at 7:35 AM on April 3, 2003

The alternative: pressure Israel solve I/P, stop funding dictators, use diplomacy, legitimize the United Nations and other international institutions instead of trying to break them, and treat terrorism as a crime instead of an excuse for World War IV. Stop being so scared of the world and use your power responsibly to do some small good rather than grand theoretical schemes which kill lots of people in reality. Then maybe other countries will support you.
posted by dydecker at 7:46 AM on April 3, 2003

"the right to self rule"

You can't give people rights. They either have them, or they don't. Rights are not bestowed. The may have a right they are being denied, but "bestowing" democracy doesn't give them that right, it only fulfills it.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:48 AM on April 3, 2003

"I'd seriously like to here the alternatives."

How about dealing with the root causes? Rather than overthrowing sovereign governments and inciting civilians to such a point that they feel the need to launch suicide attacks against us, how about if we deal with the cause *before* the effect?

The biggest issue causing hatred, and Islamic terrorism right now is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If we solve that problem we solve most of the problems. Yes, it's hard. So what? Tough, it's hard. Let's do it anyway. We just screwed our entire foreign policy, motivated millions to protest against us in the streets, and obligated ourselves to spend 200-300 billion dollars (which we'll need to borrow) to force the Iraqis to be Democratic. I think that would have been more productively invested in solving the Palestinian problem. Hmm?

Or how about if we stop setting up puppet governments which focus the hatred of the common man?

Or how about if we focus on real, credible terrorist threats rather than pinning that label on things so we can attack them? The people actually sponsoring terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt are giggling hysterically over the idea that we're invading Iraq to stop terrorism.

Bin Laden has stated, over and over, why he is at war with the US - Our troops in Saudi Arabia. How about if we pull those out?

In short - Why do we have to be so determined to make people hate us? Why can't we try, just a little even, to find common ground and solve problems without troops? Sure, our troops can, in a sense, solve any problem. But history has proved that this solution only breeds more problems.

Here's an alternative - How about if we just listen to what these people are saying? As in, lose the arrogance? How about if we stop *being* a bully.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:48 AM on April 3, 2003

An ambitious agenda, Mr. Woolsey's. First, there's that little problem of the urban combat required to subdue the major Iraqi cities.

The best thing the US could do would be to encircle Baghdad, Basra, and every major Iraqi urban center: build defensive line facing in to contain Iraqi troops inside, and airdrop food on a regular basis, to prevent mass starvation. This is not a solution per se, but is far better than the other available options.....

The other options?

1) Charge into Baghdad, guns blazing. As one US general suggested: "Saving Private Ryan multiplied one thousand times". Huge US, Iraqi, and Iraqi civilian casualties. Huge PR disaster (see below).

2) Reduce Baghdad to rubble with artillery as the Russians did to Grozny. Huge PR disaster (see below).

3) Obliterate Baghdad with nuclear weapons (see below)

4) Bring in the bulldozers, a la the IDF in the West Bank and Gaza......this 'solution' is very, very slow, and would grind on for months and probably years, which would create a world PR disaster of almost unimagineable proportions (see below).

Huge PR disaster ramifications (of top 4 scenarios): First, world outrage at the US reaches feverish proportions, ennabling Islamic Radicals to stage a succesfull coup against Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf, and they train Pakistani nuclear missiles on US forces.

Then, the real WW4 - not a feverish neocon wet dream. A real, and ugly war involving Nuclear Weapons, a war which might very well spiral completely out of control to become an actual World War.
posted by troutfishing at 8:14 AM on April 3, 2003

That first "best" option of mine assumes that the US would never simply end the war. y6y6y6 above, lays out the truly rational solutions which will, no doubt, be completely ignored. My "indefinite containment" option might be the only solution which the White House might perceive to be politically viable (wait it out, minimize loss of life) because, of course, for the US to admit defeat would be unthinkable.

Of course the US could "win" by obliterating Baghdad, but this would be a Pyrrhic victory and one with staggering costs: a new world assesment of the US - as a menacing moral monstrousity and a threat to the World at large.
posted by troutfishing at 8:23 AM on April 3, 2003

Ol' Woolsey almost has it down. But, really, how concerned are we really about rebuilding the middle east in our image?

Our last adventure in Afghanistan to free those folks from repression and fear ended with the Bush regime forgetting entirely to include their aid in this year's budget. In an emergency effort, congress itself stepped in to throw a 300m dollar bone.

Of course, after bombing those peace-seeking, frightened Afghans down to a finer grain of dust left by the Russians, and killing more Afghan civillians than Americans who died on 9/11, this aid package is less than a third of that being considered for Turkey.

Who we didn't invade.
Who we didn't bomb.
Who we didn't occupy.
Who we didn't hand-pick a 'government' for.
Who we didn't promise to rebuild.

But of course, This Time, it will be different. Right?
posted by Perigee at 8:38 AM on April 3, 2003

So what happens when a religious party running on an anti-corruption platform wins the election? Does the government just annul the elections? Didn't that happen in Turkey and Algeria during the mid-late 90s? Doesn't that just stir up even more domestic unrest?

What happens if the country decides to nationalize an industry or makes a move antithetical to the world/US business interests? Is it okay to then just live with the consequences?

I thought the idea of the US founders was that education was a necessary component of a working democracy. How are countries in which wide economic disparities ever going to have a stable democracy?

I can't believe that the neo CONs (and it is a con IMHO) have dropped the idea of supporting business elites over favoring populist/democratic movements.
posted by infowar at 8:46 AM on April 3, 2003

I think that it must be said that our history of "liberation" has not been all that great. The fact of the matter is that liberation has frequently meant installing the party most friendly to current American economic and military agendas no matter how horrible. We have overthown democraticly elected reform governments twice (Chille and Guatamala), ignored elections at least once (Nicaragua), supported dictatorships repeatedly (El Salvador, Panama, Iran, Iraq).

Which again, brings me to the question that suporters of democracy by force refuse to answer. What happens if the democratic government we set up chosses an anti-American policy by popular assent?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:59 AM on April 3, 2003

Ha ha. Wat an out of touch looney. Any TRUE visionary knows that it's WWXII!
posted by HTuttle at 9:05 AM on April 3, 2003

darren: It's not propaganda, but a reasoned argument....

"Reasoned argument"? Kindly point to the "reasons", will ya?

A group calling itself "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism" sponsors the teach-ins, and the Bruin Republicans, UCLA's campus Republicans organization, co-sponsored Wednesday night's event.

The group was founded by former Education Secretary William Bennett, who took part in Wednesday's event along with Paul Bremer, a U.S. ambassador during the Reagan administration and the former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism.

Given such biased sponsorship, and given particularly the fact Woolsey's "reasoned argument" consists of merely repeating "we're gonna do this to these countries because by God we think it's a good idea", it's pretty clear darren has more than a little confusion about what constitutes a "reasoned argument", and what constitutes "propaganda".

Dumb post.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:03 AM on April 3, 2003

troutfishing: The USA may be about to use biological weapons in Baghdad.
posted by Bletch at 10:15 AM on April 3, 2003

The biggest issue causing hatred, and Islamic terrorism right now is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If we solve that problem we solve most of the problems

Of course, the 2 sides in that conflict have 2 very different opinions on what an acceptable outcome would be.

Bin Laden has stated, over and over, why he is at war with the US - Our troops in Saudi Arabia. How about if we pull those out?

Last I checked Bin Laden was/is not in charge of Saudi Arabia. So, we should leave those decisions out of his hands and just acknowledge him to be the criminal he is. I would think that with Iraq about to be occupied, that the Saudis will no longer want us in their country as the immediate threat to them will be gone.

In short - Why do we have to be so determined to make people hate us?

y6, I understand your frustration. If only your questions could be answered in a way to suit all parties involved things would be different. All too often though, what may seem reasonable to one side is not to the other. I doubt very much that Israel and the Palestinians are ever going to truly reach some kind of compromise, mostly because both sides refuse to accept compromise, or seemingly do.

The world is in for some interesting times. Stay tuned, I am sure CNN will cover it all, in depth.
posted by a3matrix at 10:31 AM on April 3, 2003

Sub-Commandant Marcos on the fourth world war. There seems to be some disagreement on what the fourth one is/will be.
posted by euphorb at 12:51 PM on April 3, 2003

In short - Why do we have to be so determined to make people hate us? Why can't we try, just a little even, to find common ground and solve problems without troops? Sure, our troops can, in a sense, solve any problem. But history has proved that this solution only breeds more problems.

Do you know the US Navy does this, good will, when they arrive in a foreign port? Voluntarily/mandatory, out of uniform, off the clock. It gives them a chance to interact with the country and get off the ship. Yet we don't hear of it, my guess they are not representing the Navy, but the USA.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:11 PM on April 3, 2003

The biggest issue causing hatred, and Islamic terrorism right now is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. If we solve that problem we solve most of the problems. Yes, it's hard. So what? Tough, it's hard. Let's do it anyway.

Again, the Israel/Palestine problem goes to the heart of the Arab problem. The current Palestinian leadership aren't just upset about settlements and self-rule. They object to the entire existence of Israel in the first place. They, and those like, are not willing to negotiate that position. There's a fundamental religious hostility at play in the Arab Muslim world that isn't like what we dealt with during the Cold War in the Soviet Union. Those who hate America will not be satisfied until Israel and America are destroyed. How do you solve that problem?
posted by marcusb at 1:21 PM on April 3, 2003

If you're exactly dead on target, marcus, there is only one solution. As a matter of fact, it's been called "The Final Solution" before.

It's called genocide.

USA! USA! USA!
posted by Perigee at 1:28 PM on April 3, 2003

The biggest issue causing hatred, and Islamic terrorism right now is the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

No. It's a symptom, not the disease; an effect, not the cause. It will only be the "biggest issue" while the Mideast is a sewer of backward, undemocratic countries and tyrants.

The Arab/Israeli "conflict" should be about #24 on the Arab Hit Parade. That it's an obsession, or at least portrayed that way, shows how fucked-up the Arab/Muslim Mideast is.

Thankfully, the United States sees the Palestinian issue for what it is: a bullshit issue; a distraction that allows Saddams big and small to stay in power and oppress millions of people in the Mideast.

50 Dinars says that with Saddam gone, and Syria about to get scared, the terror will taper-off in and near Israel.

Dear President Bush:

Since the War is going better than expected, how about allocating a few Cruise Missles to decapitate the "leadership" in Syria.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:38 PM on April 3, 2003

In short - Why do we have to be so determined to make people hate us?

The fact that people who are uneducated, significantly illiterate, who live under the influence of tyrants, and oppressive religious cultures hate us is, while not to be celebrated, is more a badge of success than failure. We, as a culture, threaten them. It's "they" who have to, and will change, not "us."
posted by ParisParamus at 2:25 PM on April 3, 2003

It's "they" who have to, and will change, not "us."

Attaboy, Paris - get those sandy bastards to tow the line!
posted by Perigee at 2:51 PM on April 3, 2003

"This is just the kind of tactful, diplomatic person who should be a "possible candidate for a key position in the reconstruction of a post-war Iraq."

And what do you know... he is.

"The all-important Ministry of Information will definitely be kept, although who will run it remains unresolved. James Woolsey, a former director of Central Intelligence in the Clinton administration, is a favorite of the Pentagon for that job..."

"State Department officials say they suspect that some of the more ideological Pentagon officials, including Douglas J. Feith, the undersecretary for policy, are seeking to fill the slots with like-minded former officials who have strong views about what a new Iraq should look like. Some at the Pentagon have pressed for those who have led the charge for the overthrow of Mr. Hussein, including R. James Woolsey, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency."
posted by SenshiNeko at 3:06 PM on April 3, 2003

In the pipeline: More regime change
posted by homunculus at 4:39 PM on April 3, 2003

Paris. I just have to ask. Have you signed up for military service yet?
posted by yertledaturtle at 5:09 PM on April 3, 2003

Have I signed up? No. I am not disciplined enough to make a good soldier.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:59 PM on April 3, 2003

Attaboy, Paris - get those sandy bastards to tow the line!

Hey look. They're system(s) objectively, are utter failures. Why shouldn't we have such an attitude? Why shouldn't we do for Irak/q what we did for Japan and Germany? Because Islam won't allow it? Then jettison Islam. Or the version of Islam that doesn't allow it. Time to put the place into a time machine and have them go five or six centuries forward.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:02 PM on April 3, 2003

Why shouldn't we do for Irak/q what we did for Japan and Germany?

I think that I would be wonderful if we did for Iraq what we did for Japan and Germany. However with the current regime in the White House we are more likely to get Post WWII Iran, Guatamala, El Salvador or Chile.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:28 PM on April 3, 2003

We can't even do for Afghanistan what we did for Germany and Japan. Even though we promised them we would. Bushy didn't ask for dollar-one for Afghanistan in his budget. The damned congress had to throw 'em a bone.

A Small one. Less than one-third what we intend to give Turkey.

So - we invade, and leave countries leveled without rebuilding. THAT is now the proven international policy of the Bush regime. We're a big fricken' bulldozer.

Or, at best - by your own accounting - the American Eagle has become a buzzard, picking the bones of the weak "failed systems" of the world. If we were consistent with that policy, we'd be occupying the better part of half the world.

I can't say that the picture makes me want to stand up and sing the National Anthem...
posted by Perigee at 7:54 AM on April 4, 2003