A Possibility From Iraq?

[Annie]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008702

Shaken and Stirred
By liberating Iraq, the U.S. set the stage for the destruction of Hezbollah.

BY JOSH MANCHESTER
Wednesday, July 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The U.S. invasion of Iraq has so shaken and stirred the Middle East that some exceptionally strange things are happening. More importantly, these things unequivocally favor the U.S. in influencing the outcome of the Israeli-Hezbollah War now taking place in Lebanon.

What sorts of strange things? Well, consider an Arab League meeting in Cairo over the weekend, where a fight of sorts broke out. Jed Babbin described it best:

This meeting began with the Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action, supporting Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means" . . . The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means." . . . The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hizballah. But an historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism.

The Saudi foreign minister, al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was " . . . criticizing the guerilla group's actions, calling them "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts." Faisal said, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them." . . . The Arab leaders are frightened that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next."

These regimes would most certainly not be afraid of what Iran may do next if Saddam Hussein still ran Iraq, providing for the Arab world a deterrent against Iran.

In fact, this leads to the second strange event of late: Saddam's own comments, as reported in Deutsche Presse-Agentur, about the war in Lebanon:

Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian leadership "not to go too far in its alliance with Iran," blaming Tehran for the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam's defence team claimed Tuesday . . . "I am convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil," Duleimi quoted Saddam as saying.

This is a man whose prized dictatorship was overrun by U.S. forces, who was captured by U.S. forces, and who as a result is on trial for his life. He blames Tehran primarily for the current flare-up, not some Zionist-U.S. conspiracy in the standard rhetoric of the region. Remarkable.

In fact, Saddam is quite astute when he notes that the Arabs are placed between the U.S.-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil. Before the U.S. invasion, Iraq was the geostrategic pivot of the Middle East. All of the fault lines in the area's politics converge there. The Sunni-Shia split; the Arab-Persian split; the Ba'athist-Wahhabist split; and the Muslim-Israeli split: each of these ran through Iraq via its ethnic and religious makeup; its geographic location; and its former interests, alliances, and enemies.

The "big bang," as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was meant to reorder the nature of politics in the region. This has been accomplished in a fundamental way. The idea of dividing an enemy force into its constituent parts and then dealing with it piecemeal is at least as old as Caesar's actions in Gaul. It applies no less to U.S. strategy in the Middle East. Every faction there has been made to reconsider its relationship with every other. Rather than there being a monolithic clash of civilizations, thus far the U.S. is dealing with the area in pieces--in whatever way it sees fit to do so--whether making it tacitly clear to Syria that what happened in Iraq could more easily happen to it, or threatening Iran on behalf of the region and world, or seeking cooperation with the Saudis in hunting down al Qaeda.

Far from being a bit of belated triumphalism about the invasion, all of this has immediate and direct consequences. While the success of Iraq's democracy hangs in the balance from an operational perspective, the strategic advantages created by the invasion of Iraq are working very favorably for the U.S. in the current Israeli-Lebanon crisis in very tangible ways.

Were Saddam still in power, the Arab world would not feel nearly as threatened by Hezbollah, the Frankenstein's monster of Iran's creation. Instead, they would have sided with the Syrian foreign minister's strong support for Hezbollah. Saddam himself might even have offered cash rewards to anyone attempting martyrdom against the Jews.

Instead, they came to no consensus. The leading Arab League states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, call Hezbollah's actions "inappropriate and irresponsible." This lessens the urgency of calls from the international community, whether the G8, U.N., or EU, for a ceasefire. That lessened urgency creates something very precious indeed: a moment in time and space wherein Israel has the most fleeting of opportunities for decisive action against Hezbollah, an avowed foe, a terrorist organization, and a constant threat to the security of its populace.

Decisive action is what has traditionally been missing from the wars of the Middle East. Land changes hands, blows are exchanged, and peace eventually is negotiated. But the underlying dynamic never changes because the sides are rarely faced with a decisive defeat, the only condition that can force the most avowed of men to abandon the ideas they hold dear.

Israel now has the chance to destroy Hezbollah. Only time can tell what Israel will do with the opportunity it possesses. Opportunities forsaken are opportunities lost forever, as Douglas MacArthur was sometimes rumored to say. But let there be no mistake: this moment would not have been possible without the invasion of Iraq, and the destruction of Hezbollah is very much in the interest of the United States and that of any other nation that abhors terrorism.

 

[dilloduck]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008702

None of this counts because Bush didn't state this as a reason to invade Iraq early enough. Since we didnt find the "golden bomb" in Iraq we have to return to "GO" and start all over.

 

[Annie]

None of this counts because Bush didn't state this as a reason to invade Iraq early enough. Since we didnt find the "golden bomb" in Iraq we have to return to "GO" and start all over.

Sometimes the 'unintended consequences' aren't really unintended. Might not be able to forsee all, but 'a democratic Iraq would change things' sort of fits as a reason.

But you are correct, they naysayers will say, 'Nay.'

 

[dilloduck]

Sometimes the 'unintended consequences' aren't really unintended. Might not be able to forsee all, but 'a democratic Iraq would change things' sort of fits as a reason.

But you are correct, they naysayers will say, 'Nay.'

If you are unwilling to take risks, postive unintended circumstances can't even happen. There was more strategy to this invasion than merely looking for WMDs. Unfortunately the war was sold and is rebuked over the main selling point. A very limited vision of a much larger purpose.