Resistance is the first step towards Iraqi independence

Nazar, I agree with you.

George Bush in a speech suggested a major paradigm shift in United States foreign policy. He said that the past United States` policy of appeasing illiberal regimes at the cost of personal liberty and democracy has not worked. It has not worked in the sense, that United States` security was not enhenced by supporting such regimes, but rather diminished.

This is a major addmission by an American president. United States has admitted, coyly, that its support of non-democratic regimes was the reason for the levels of resentment in Middle East against United States` foreign policy and against Washington in general. This was an oft-stated truth that Arabs/Muslims do not hate the United States as much they hate its support for regimes, which deny them their basic human rights and political rights.

This suggests a major change, because Bush also hinted in that speech that political change, or reform, has to be generated internally to be viable and can be not externally imposed. If this is the case, then it hints at a possible dilutation of the doctrine of regime change through military means and also implies that the United States is rethinking its unilateralist policies. In any case, this is a welcomed comment from Washington, because it offers the hope that the administration is moving towards the dynamics of diplomacy. This change, in the internal political rubric of the administration, protends that State Department and Colin Powell have re-emerged as significant players and the role of Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld has been down graded in the formulation of the United States` foreign policy. If this caveat is taken under consideration that a few weeks back the National Security Council and its head, Condi Rice, were given the responsibility of creating policy in Iraq at the cost of Pentagon, it means that civilian control over foreign policy is being reimposed and the influence of Pentagon in making foreign policy limited.

What ever happens, it was nice to know that the United States has admitted that in quest of its national security and economic, it supported the worst regimes in Latin America, South America, Middle East, Pakistan and West Asia (Iraq and Afghanistan). Credit goes to the United States for admitting a spade as a spade.

Ciao

nazar:
I agree with you. My comment ``joint defense against whom?`` was meant to convey that, just like Nehru in 1960, there wont be too many takers of this proposition among Pakistanis today, even among the elite at chowk.

ferozk:
``George Bush in a speech suggested a major paradigm shift in United States foreign policy``
I very much doubt it. Who is Bush`s big bad buddy these days? Isn`t it your own man in shining armour? Would he prefer MMA to Musharraf, even when Bush knows that MMA serves a very convenient raison d`etre for Musharraf? The basic policy remains the same and it was best expressed by Bush himself, ``You are either with us or against us``. Only the enemy has changed, the axiom remains the same!

Ferozk # 66

I think Bush`s so called policy shift is too little and too late. Now someone please tell me one good reason why would the current ``illiberal`` regimes in the area not want to keep US bogged down in Iraq. Why shouldn`t they send their rag tag fighters into Iraq and provide financial and militaristic support to those who are fighting americans in Iraq. It is their turn to be deposed right after America is done in Iraq; is there any other way to interprett Bush`s new policy shift? America now wants to turn Iraq into a beacon of democracy and freedom in the region; but people ask why it didn`t turn Israel into a beacon of hope and democracy first - a role model in the region. Instead Israel is the most hated country in the region alongwith US for their excesses and untold misery that they have unleashed upon the whole region - what to talk of a role model. I think it is a myth about the people of middle east that they hate their own governments more than US which US propaganda machinery disseminate to misguide its own people. I think the masses (and not the pro-US elite) know very well that if there ever will be a democracy in this region it will be without America and not because of it.

The same argument extends to Paksitan, wrt US`s unflinching support of military despots in Pakistan and the sitiuation in Afghanistan. Or Pakistan is an exception to US`s crusade for the rule of democracy around the globe? Or US is waiting until it is done with Iraq and Afghanistan first and then ``take care`` of ``illiberal`` regime in Pakistan?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Dost-Mittar # 67

You have made a valid point. I suggested a paradigm shift, because in a strategic sense it does signal a change of intentions. No American president has ever admitted to this truth in public even though they may have grudged their choices in the private. On the tactical level, your statement might be more appropiate. United States` support of Musharraf and its change of tune was made necessary by the events of September 2001.

The comment was striking in the sense that Bush suggested that it was the lack of democracy and personal liberities, which encouraged terrorism and the United States was identified as the source of all the evil, because of its support for those undemocratic regimes. This is a radical change in the logical process of the United States as it considers the parameters of its future foreign policy. The United States`s support to Musharraf might exist, but the conclusion is that Musharraf cannot gurantee the United States` long term security; only a democratic Pakistan, where the supremacy of the parliament is supreme in a political sense. Within this framework or rationalization, what is is interesting is that United States is moving away from its idea and support of the Pakistani military as the bulwark of its interests in the region and seems to think that only democracy can protest its interests in the region.

This is good news for any one concerned about democracy in Pakistan and the role of the military in retarding the growth of political institutions in Pakistan through its interventions in politics. In the near foreseeable future, you are right that not much is going to change, but in the distant future, this could only mean good things for democracy in Pakistan.

Ciao

Good for Chowk for posting this piece by Mr. Ali! Perhaps some of our interactors will be forced to complicate their world views a bit...

re: arjun_m # 69

Arjun, this change is not going to be implemented immediately. In the last 100 years, there were some major ideas, which influenced United States` foreign policy. One was Woodrow Wilson`s idealism in foreign and another was Jimmy Carter`s idea of a foreign policy influenced by human right considerations. The changes, which resulted from these pronouncements did not happen over right, but they did evolve into a set of influences, which shaped the United States` foreign policy. Policy takes a while to formulate and it takes an even longer time to see the end results emerge.

As to the utility of this policy within a four year election cycle, the answer is that policy will work if it is accepted across the political spectrum. In the begining, the GOP was always taken to the task by the democrats for supporting dicators and now, GOP and its leader are admitting the failure of that policy. I am not certain if we can imply that policy statement suggests an end to realpolitik or not, but what is clear is that there is realization of past mistakes. Again, the final results of this policy will take a generation or more to emerge.

My statement/interacts were conditioned on what the situation might be 25-30 years from today if this policy is accepted and new policies are made under its strictures. I am thinking of the future and as far as the present is concerened, there will be no visable change in the United States foreign policy.

Ciao

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

ferozk #66 agree with you, and bush has no doubt has put money where his mouth is by seeking (at cost of much political goodwill in the congress and the taxpaying electorate) and getting $87 b. approved at a time of major budget deficits and next elections looming. of course no one, except Father Time, knows what the outcome of all this will be.

But one things is certain: bush has given the iraqis the best shot in six centuries any part of the arab world has had in moving out of the ``self-slavery`` mindset to which they had been reduced under the ottomans and other kings and caliphs and whatnots who basically stole from the muslims the gift of individual responsibility and self-respect that came with the original message of islam and reduced them to the Abdul that hamidm often refers to.

The big question today is: Will a true statesman emerge from among the iraqis, who will rise above the arab skepticism born of centuries of slavery to caliphs and kings, and realize the opportunity for iraq to become a modern, democratic and egalitarian nation that is being provided by bush on a silver platter? If such a man does emerge as national leader, the iraqis will be the first arabs to emerge from the Arab Dark Ages. So far, such a man is not in sight among the current sad bunch of the shiite mullahs, the expat carpetbaggers, the sunni recidivists, the local tribal chiefs, the kurd separatists.

If the iraqis fail and the US ends this big gamble and moves out before iraq has fully stepped out of the ADA (Arab Dark Ages), a new generation of iraqis will find themselves under another saddam or another wahabi or some other scumbag.

re: Urstruly # 68

Urstruly, if you will read Israeli newpapers, you will see articles/analysis, which do showcase this problem. Most Israelis commentors admit that it was the harsh policies of Tel Aviv, which fuelled the Palestinian reaction and made a bad situation worse. It was this concern, which forced the Israeli army`s chief of staff to sound the clarion call to the Sharon government about its non-compromising attitude and harsh policies in the occupied territories. Israel citizens are also concerened, because by 2010, the populations of the Palestinians and the Israelis will be at par; 6 million each and by 2050, Israelis will be a minority. There is an opinion in Israel, isolated at the present, but one which vocalizes that if the Jews are to maintain their identity, they might have to consider the idea of two nation states.

There was an article in the International Herald Tribune, by an American, who suggested that if the United States continues with its policy of blindly supporting Ariel Sharon`s government policy in the occupied territories, it will ironically be undermining Israeli security and harming American interests in the region. This is also the concern of the American-Jews and they have often stated this view point.

Urstruly, democracies take a long time to reach a consensus, because of many differing voices, which compete in the market place of ideas and when they do, it is generally based on what the public thinks will serve its interests best. People can make the wrong choice in a democracy, but they also have the right to correct their mistake and in the case of Israel, if people think that Sharon and his policies has made them insecure, they will vote him out of office.

You said, ``why shouldn`t they send their rag tag fighters into Iraq and provide financial and militaristic support to those who are fighting americans in Iraq`` about the regimes who might be next on the American list. My question is this: if they do this, how are they serving the interests of their populations by picking a fight against Uncle Sam? For example, if Syria`s Assad does this to maintain his power and the United States imposes sanctions or takes a military action, how will the Syrians benefit from this? On the other hand, if Assad does this to maintain his power, then his government is not representative of the Syrians, is it? You can do this and try to keep the Americans bogged down in Iraq, but how long can you do this this?

Ciao

Ferozek #various: I think Bush’s, “admission” would have carried far more weight, if he had said it before getting bogged down in Iraq. Policies don’t just immediately change, 180 degrees, in one day. Just two days ago, it was pre-emptive regime changes in the Middle East, and now it is an admission that the US is responsible for many of those regimes.

I highly doubt it.

The US, itself, really has no issues with the Middle Eastern countries. The two should be strong allies. One side has oil that the US needs in abundance. And the other side has dollars and technology that the Middle East needs in abundance. They have no geographical conflicts, no historical conflicts and no ideological conflicts.

Yet they are in conflict.

All of this has occurred because of the Israeli/Palestine situation. This has brought the US in on one side and the Arabs on the other side. And now this has taken a life of its own, with the US and Arabs fighting each other. To the extent, that this new conflict is now much bigger than the original conflict (Israel/Palestine) that started it.

For policies/solutions to work, everything, and every involved groups’ interests have to line up. If they don’t, then the policies do not work; even if they are well intentioned. This is one of the reasons that the US invasion of Iraq is not working. The initial objective of removing Saddam had the US and Iraqi interests in one line. So he is gone. But, after that, the US and Iraqis interests are in opposite directions. The USA wants influence and control in Iraq, while the Iraqis want the USA to leave.

Similarly, the dislike of the USA in the Middle East, due to its support of autocratic regimes in the Middle East, occurs because the interests of USA, now, are not in line with the interests of the citizens of those countries. The USA wants friendly regimes, even if they are autocratic. While the citizens do not like the autocracy. The US only removes the autocratic regimes, when the regimes themselves become anti-USA (like Saddam). Otherwise, it does all it can to keep them in place.

So one would think that if the autocratic regimes are removed and real nationalism is allowed to come to the top, then the US interests would line up with those of the Arab people, and the two will become friends. However, I don’t think that will happen. Why? Because there is one more involved party..

Israel.

Arabs hate Israelis, with a passion. In fact, the Arab people hate Israel more than the Arab autocratic regimes do. Opinion polls show this. A recent opinion poll by the Economist showed that the three most hated non-Arab countries amongst Arabs are Israel, USA and UK. While the three most like non-Arab countries amongst Arabs are Iran, France, (can’t remember the third). If nationalistic Arab feelings show up through democracy, they will be backed by an extremely strong anti-Israel and anti-USA tone.

For example, a democratic Jordan would be more anti-Israel and anti-USA than a king ruled Jordan. A democratic Saudi Arabia will definitely be far more anti-USA than the Saud family. A democratic Iran is far more anti-USA than an autocratic Shah was. A democratic Iraq will remain anti-USA. A democratic Egypt will be far more anti-Israel and anti-USA than Hosni Mubarak is. A democratic Turkey, now, is not nearly as pro-USA as the Turkish Generals were. So on and so forth. In fact, a truly democratic Pakistan would be more anti-USA than the current Pakistan.

This would cause a lot of new problems for the USA. It needs its allied regimes in the region. The recent Iraq war involved the US using neighbouring countries like Qatar and Kuwait for logistic bases, much against the wishes of the people. The Afghan war used Pakistan for logistics, much against the wishes of the Pakistani people. It would have been much more difficult for the USA to win these wars without such logistical support. It is no coincidence that a democratic Turkey did not allow such logistical support.

Suppose OBL stands in a free election in Saudi Arabia against a member of the royal family. Or a Wahabi religious leader, is in an election, against King Fahd. Who would win? What if OBL wins? Pro-Iran Shia clerics will win elections against pro-USA Chalabis any day, and twice on Friday. What if they come into power?

Not to mention the fact that the Arabs seem very possessive of their oil. They think their regimes are giving it up to the West. OBL has stated that the price of oil should be $300/barrell and not $30/barrel (may sound outrageous, but remember, it used to be $3/barrel at one time). Nationalistic Arab govts. will definitely be much more difficult to influence on oil prices.

In fact, the easiest way to become publicly popular in these countries, seem to be, by taking on the USA. Even if the citizens know you are a confirmed terrorist, like OBL, you can still be popular, if you take on the USA – which is considered an even bigger terrorists by many voters.

Hence, there are in-built dilemmas and contradictions in the USA’s stance in the Middle East, and in Bush’s recent statements. To get a pro-USA democracy or at least a neutral-USA democracy in the Middle East requires a settling of the Arab-Israeli conflict. That settlement requires an immense amount of pressure on Israel from the USA, to allow the Palestinians their homeland. This will then take the USA out of the conflict, thereby settling its relations with the Arabs into a stage of mutual benefit.

However, do you really think any US govt. is willing to put so much pressure on Israel? The Christian Conservatives in the Republican party and the Jewish Leagues in the Democratic party will ensure any US Representative who votes in that direction, doesn’t get elected again. Much like the NRA does.

So the epicentre of Middle East democracy doesn’t lie in the countries towards which Bush has pointed. It actually lies in Israel (and in Saudi Arabia). Two very staunch US allies/regimes. Until and unless the USA can get those two countries to reform their policies, any Middle Eastern democracy will be totally against US interests and will be very anti-US.

I don’t think any US govt. has the courage to get those two countries to tow the line. Until then, US foreign policy will be based on relationships with autocratic rulers in the Middle East. At least in such scenarios, the Arab populations may dislike the USA, but many of the kingdom govts. of these countries are pro-USA. With democracy in the region, without the solution of Palestinian issue and reform of the house of Saud, not only the people will be against the USA, the govts. they elect will be against the USA also.

And that will make it much more difficult for the USA to get oil from there, and much stronger opponents for Israel. Hence I wouldn’t read too much into Bush’s statements. There are too many conflicting interests in the area.

ferozk #75

You can do this and try to keep the Americans bogged down in Iraq, but how long can you do this this?

If I were an Arab despot I would do it until the US Election next November. I, as a despot can see that what I am doing in Iraq is working and it is dimminishing Bush`s chances of re-election. I also know that some democrats have approached me and promised me that if I keep Bush bogged down until election I will get to keep my despot status if Democrats win the elections. It is the same game that Republicans played during the Iran hostage crises when they asked Iran to keep holding the hostages until Jimmy Carters elelctions.

There are two things that I cannot control i.e. US strikes against my country despite being bogged down in Iraq, but I know that these strikes at the most will be aginst my infrastructure and military installations. It cannot be followed by a ground invasion as long as there is resistence in Iraq. Though I know that even that will work in favor of me because the people in my country and in the whole region are quite pissed off by the relentless bullying and lawlessness of US and Israel and they hate both to the core of their bones. The other thing I cannot control is an act of mass terrorism inside US territory which will bolster Bush`s position in the election. In that case I have contigency plans to retreat to my personal island somewhere near Bahams from where I plan to send audio cassettes to Al-Jazeera.

re: Arjun_m # 72

I will try to answer your questions.

You have to see the policy in a long term sequence to realize its value. In the case of Pakistan, Carter did not favor Pakistan due to the martial law in 1977 and it was the Soviet Union`s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, which made him reconsider United States` policy with Pakistan. Reagan and Bush supported Pakistan`s military rulers due to their interests in Afghanistan and as a result of that policy, Pakistani society was rendered more intolerant and more polarized. Zia-ul-Haq`s concept of Sharia was tolerated by the Americans, because of Zia`s support for American policy aims in Afghanistan. You are too astute an observer to be told how Zia`s sharia affected Pakistan and its politics. After Bush, Clinton down graded American ties with Pakistan and through his eight years, maintained a working relationship but not close ties with Pakistan. He did not favor the coup of 1999. After him, for about 18 months Bush, Jr. did not make any entreaties towards Pakistan till September 11, 2001. The United States foreign policy has oscilliated between pragmatism and idealism, but now the pragmatism seems to be converging with idealism.

Yes, I do have faith in the intentions of the United States, because I share its idealism: life, liberity and the pursuit of happiness and in the ideals of ``we the people...``

I agree with you on the score that the United States` policy towards Israel makes for good domestic politics, but as my post to Urstruly suggests that policy is being reconsidered. You are right on the account of the American treatment of Saudi Arabia with gloved hands. Arjun, that policy of appeasing Saudi injustices for a handful of dollars did not serve American interests did it? After it was Saudis who flew those planes into the Pentagon and the WTC in New York. Again, the basic paradigm is being reconsidered. I do not know, which president is going to risk his/her second term for such a policy, but this is not about second terms; its is about consistency of policy regardless of party politics - it is about the United States of America and not about the Democrats or the Republicans or the Greens or the Independents.

In the end, I agree with your conclusion that democracy in Middle East will come despite American intentions. It will come, because the people will realize that that fate rests in their own hands and if they stand up for their rights, the oppressors will not have the support of the United States. Once the shackles of mental slavery are removed, all other freedoms follow accordingly.

Ciao

Romair,

Are you saying that ALL Arabs hate Israelis? And is it Israel that ``all`` Arabs dislike (i.e. Orthodox, settlers, progressives, etc.) or is it the policies being implemented by the current Israeli govt?

Saminasha #79: ``Are you saying that ALL Arabs hate Israelis? And is it Israel that ``all`` Arabs dislike (i.e. Orthodox, settlers, progressives, etc.) or is it the policies being implemented by the current Israeli govt?``

In a purely mathematical sense, I suppose all Arabs do not hate all Israelis. No mathematical ALL hates any other mathematical ALL. By all, I mean the majority view in all the Arab countries. Once again, this is indicated by any survey in the region. Any talk show that takes place, any commentary on the subject. Any world event that takes place.

The dislike (or hatred) of Israelis, amongst the Arabs, is different from the dislike between, say, Pakistanis and Indians. Pakistanis and Indians have a lot in common also. And we have mainly a geographical conflict, which after its just and fair resolution, should result in normal, and probably even friendly ties. We do not have any cultural conflicts, and really not even any ideological conflicts (not counting the Indian views on Pakistan`s interpretation of TNT). In addition, Pakistan, though smaller and weaker, hasn’t been routed by India, and can generally hold its own to defend itself, economically and militarily. Hence, while Pakistan, ``dislikes`` India, it does not feel frustrated or humiliated by it.

In case of Arabs, they are frustrated, humiliated, and defeated, with respect to Israel. Israel, a country the size of Lahore-to-Gujranwala, has completely and thoroughly routed 22 Arab coutries, with 45 times the population and maybe 100 times the land mass. Can you imagine the frustration and helplessness in Pakistan, if an airplane from tiny Maldives or Dubai, could fly over Pakistan, anytime it wanted, and bomb any place it liked, and then return, without a problem. Maldives (or even India) cannot do that. But Israel can and has done that, anytime it wanted (West Bank, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, even Egypt - if we look at the 67 war). It is this frustration that eventually gets into the Arab views about the USA, and their views about their own regimes also (though that has many domestic aspects to it, as well).

As for the hatred of the Israeli regimes vs. the hatred of the Israelis themselves, I really don’t know. I have always assumed that hatred of regimes is really tied into the hatred of the people who support those regimes. There are, of course, voices on the Israeli side that oppose their own govts. But they are in a minority, and can never win an election. 60 Minutes showed an Israeli opposition candidate (retd. General) who is quite popular in the Arab neighborhoods of Israel. The guy had a policy that would ensure peace in Israel/Palestine in a day. I think it was almost a direct replica of the 67 borders policy that the Arabs have accepted. I assume the Arabs would like him and his voters.

But he loses to Sharon, again and again.

So, I suppose a more accurate statement would be, “According to all surveys, an overwhelming majority of Arab citizens in every single Arab country dislike Israeli govts.’ policies. This implies that they dislike the Israeli people who support such govts., which happens to be a clear majority of the Israeli population. However, I assume the Arabs like any Israeli who opposed such policies and voted against them.”