The basic problem is neither Iraq nor the Middle East.  Rather it is our engineered decline into the role of "World Guardian".  As opposed to the dreams of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, in the real world such a Pax Americana will not only fail, it will destroy us as a free nation.  The ultimate consequence of such a puerile over-stretch of our resources would be an appalling future for all people everywhere: something like a choice between George Orwell’s "1984" on the one hand, versus Ira Levin’s "This Perfect Day" on the other.  Just in case you haven’t read these books, no sane person with an IQ above that of a paperclip would find anything remotely like happiness.  Even the paperclip would be miserable.

The unprovoked attacks of September 11, 2001, called for an immediate direct response by the United States of America on the terrorist facilities in Afghanistan.  The obvious twin facts that (a) this was not done with devastating promptness, and (b) a declaration of war against the host country was not sought from Congress by President Bush remain devoid of any rational explanation that the current administration has made available to the people of this nation in an open timely fashion.

A variety of patently inadequate "justifications" have limped into the public arena, e.g., (1) "…we did not have the necessary forces ‘ready to go’….", (2) it was necessary to "consult with our NATO allies" before making a move, (3) "We needed to obtain a UN resolution….", (4) "It was necessary to move very carefully so as not to jeopardize our relations with the Muslim countries.", (5) "We had to build the necessary foundation so that the Afghan people would not think that we viewed them as our target and enemy", etc.

To (1): It has been bandied about that our armed forces are currently active in 130 countries outside the continental boundaries of the USA.  Obviously, far less dispersion is called for, as well as far less "peace-keeping", far less "building bridges between peoples", far less "humanitarian relief" and "environmental" assignments.  Our military should not be in the business of "nation building"; if anything, it should be in the business of destroying our proven enemies and directly protecting our borders.  Given the fact that so many of our troops including the National Guard are overseas, it is no wonder that our borders are so porous.  Apparently our homeland is not worth being protected against the officially admitted number of 100 illegal immigrants that come into the US every 24 hours, every day of the year!  A major reason why Rome fell was such indifference to unrestricted immigration.

To (2): Given the obvious perfidy of the 9/11 attacks, why not move first and report it afterwards?  After all, it was a direct assault on a member of NATO!

To (3): Forget about the UN.  It is little more than a well-paid debating society that still has not cleaned up after its "oil for food" program.  Even dealing effectively with the thugs running Somalia has escaped their competence.

To (4): This misplaced altruistic attitude on our part is nothing more than an indulgence for a "collective apology" that engenders no respect from any Moslem, especially Arabs.  If we really wanted to get started on something worthwhile that all Muslims would recognize, we might start on cleaning up our glaringly obvious social, economic, and ethical defects that are destroying the "beacon for the world" that once was the American Dream before it was redefined to mean "the good materialistic life and having a good time".

To (5): Intelligence agents that we had operating on the ground in Afghanistan before 9/11 had already forged tactical working agreements with district commanders of the Northern Alliance.  These people were actively fighting against the Taliban before NATO troops arrived on the scene.  Since many of our modern weapons are "smart" or capable of fairly precise guidance, it would seem that this "concern" is of secondary importance.  No war can be fought without collateral damage, be it however so regrettable.

With the exception of the very brief First Gulf War, and our initial appropriate "foray" into Afghanistan after 9/11, our nation has not really had a bipartisan foreign policy worth its salt since WWII.  A continuation of close votes in the Electoral College can be expected to reflect major sharp divisions between the American people on all matters of critical importance to our national destiny.  Political "log-rolling" and compromise are inimical to solving any problem, especially one involving foreign policy.

The 9/11 attacks were carried out by Islamic fascists inspired by a seething hatred of all the things that we mean by Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian, and Western Civilization—most especially, the American way of life.  This is what they have said about their core inspiration for their terrorist actions. Just like the aliens in "Independence Day" they are hell-bent on our annihilation.  Given their track record, "By their fruits, we shall know them."  We should not need "Dirty Harry" to point out that attempts to reason with such enemies is foolish nonsense and nothing more than "surrender on the installment plan."

Can a war be won against such adversaries?  Of course, but it depends upon the uncertain outcome of a protracted struggle with a victory somewhere off in a dimly seen future.  We would be required to slough off "cherished errors of belief and action" and embrace "unwelcome truths".  We must remember that history shows what people have done in the past, not what people are capable of doing in the future.  After compounding their eleven-volume masterpiece, "The Story of Civilization", Will and Ariel Durant summed it all up thus: "Civilizations are born stoic, they die epicurean."  This writer suggests that today, especially in America, their conclusion must be modified to read: "…they show a penchant to die while enjoying an uninterrupted good time regardless of the future consequences!"

If the 300,000,000 people officially living in the United States today—illegal immigrants would probably swell this count by 10%—cannot muster the requisite "…patience, self-restraint, bureaucratic agility….", suggested by Professor Bacevitch^†, it would provide an updated validation of James Burnham’s warning expounded in "Suicide of the West".  Originally written during the Cold War, this excellent book, as well as other relevant works by Revel and Solzhenitsyn, amply documents the problems that contemporary "democracies" must solve when facing both external and internal enemies who are inimical to their very survival.

All human civilizations cannot escape four indisputable facts of natural law: First, nature, itself, is amoral.  Second, nature requires all forms of life to struggle in order to survive.  The alternative to survival is extinction.  Since there are no guarantees of success, a struggle is mandatory.  Third, only after the survival requirement is satisfied is it possible for any form of life, or a civilization, to "reproduce itself" in any way whatsoever.  If America specifically, and Western Civilization in a grander sense, cannot muster its resources adequate to defeat the terrorist challenge, either internal or external, it will not only not survive, it will not deserve to survive.  Fourth, however we define the word "flourish", its appearance on the scene depends solely on the outcome of the struggle for survival and reproduction.  No war of any significance has ever been won by following "politically-correct rules of engagement".  We can aspire to "win the hearts and minds of our enemies", but common sense dictates a lethal approach: No compromise, no vacillation: Kill more of them than they do us; collateral damage is to be expected—an omelet cannot be made without breaking eggs; the last person standing can write the historical record.

We are facing a state of affairs equivalent to a deadly game of chess wherein one contestant, in clear violation of all internationally agreed upon "rules", reserves the option of suddenly killing his adversary.  To be bound by such "rules of engagement", so as "not to descend to their level", is tantamount to a death wish.  Pacifists who will not "dirty their hands" with a reasonable policy of preemptive self defense must not be allowed to determine the destiny of the braver people who can read the handwriting on the wall.

The "solution" to a given state of war depends solely on the material and human resources of the combatants; if all other factors are less important, always critical to the eventual outcome, one element of primary importance remains dominant—the abiding will-power to do whatever it takes to achieve victory.

What has been described as today’s "clash of civilizations" involves three historical "forces of history": two proselytizing religions which are mutually exclusive and a destructive competitor—Christendom, Islam, and Secularism.

Today, however we define Christianity, after many centuries of fratricidal conflict, Christian nations have evolved into a separation of church and state. This amounts to a modes vivendi between the sacred and the secular, allowing some form of liberal equalitarian democracy to exist and a reasonable facsimile of free-market capitalism to function.  Despite all of its imperfections in practice, life in the Western World has proven to be a better bet for more people than any Muslim-dominated society anywhere on the Earth.  The empirical evidence for such an assertion rests in examining how people "vote with their feet" whenever they are able to do so freely.

Conversely, as it was originally revealed to Mohammed, the only valid government in the eyes of Allah can be Islam; all other possibilities must inevitably bend their knee to this one true faith.  Muslim countries are usually governed by some form of autocracy; civil liberties as they are known in the west are limited, and the material standard of living for the vast majority of the people is low.  Such unpleasantness is normally charged to their historical experience with colonialism and "other oppressions" which can be dated back as far as 1492 when the Moors were driven out of Spain.

Secularism threatens both Christendom and Islam.  The main weapon in this threat is the abiding desire, entertained by most people, to live at an ever-improving material existence in this life; heaven and paradise await later contemplation.  To muddy the waters further, the supreme hedonistic representative of secularism is its aberrant child—the "American way of life".  To many fundamentalist Christians, and all devout Muslims, this state of affairs is the spawn of Satan.

Unfortunately for the tranquility of all concerned, this abhorrent offspring has been allowed to become wildly popular among far too many young people all over this planet.  Muslims keenly recognize this threat to their culture as it pervades their sacred soil, this is supremely true when foreign troops move in. The fanatical ones resort to the optimum weapon available in their arsenal: Terror.  Collateral damage is never a deterrent since their version of the faith tells them so. It should be noted that in past centuries, "Christians" have also behaved this way shouting Deus volt!

Unless there is a sea change in the competing systems of values in the minds and the behavior of Christians, Muslims, and secularists, we will continue on our path to lethal clashes.  The outcome is more likely to be determined by extensive prolonged wars of attrition, than by any efforts involving negotiation and compromise.

Whatever a person may say about his beliefs and their guiding values or principles in this life, although his words may give us a window into his mind, the way he actually behaves must be the sole criterion of whether he is a friend or foe.

In order to survive, values must be defended. Jews recognize the truth of this dictum as a consequence of their historical experience.  Today, vastly outnumbered by enemies who spout a determination to "drive the ‘Crusader Colony’ into the sea", the escalating use of tactical nuclear weapons, in extremis, cannot be excluded by Israel in the defense the land granted to them by the UN and the victorious Allied Powers after the Second World War.

This writer agrees with Prof Bacevich that "the global war on terror is unwinnable as currently conceived".  However, he has specific points of disagreement with his fellow professor on what is to be done to correct and comprehensively reverse the situation.

Twelve alternative strategies relevant to our current deplorable situation in the Middle East will now be elaborated.

A Foreign Policy for Americans

(1) In order to meet its already declared war-fighting responsibilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and for the defense of our southern border with Mexico, America must immediately begin a phased withdrawal of all ground personnel elsewhere throughout the world, unless they are obviously required for the immediate safety of actively on-going air, naval, and intelligence duties.  The bias must be directed toward a definite phased redeployment of all units, both combatant and non-combatant, regardless of their presently stated duties, e.g., in South America fighting in the "war on drugs", Somalia, Bosnia, Korea, etc.  This redeployment should be completed within six months.

(2) The war in Afghanistan is winnable.  Hence troops must be supplied from all of the NATO states, regardless of their individual idiosyncrasies.  Their mission is to wipe out the Taliban once and for all.  This must be done regardless of any Pakistani objections concerning infringement on their sovereignty or disruption of trade.  The border with Pakistan must be sealed off against significant infiltration by Taliban supporters.

(3) If the Iraqi parliament does not vote affirmatively for a three-state federation within 60 days, we must immediately provide the Kurds with whatever direct military and economic wherewithal that they need to establish a secure independence; in order to allay concerns that Turkey has with regard to an independent Kurdistan, she must be drawn into this process to her satisfaction.

(4) Move out of Baghdad within 12 months and turn it over to the Iraqi police and military regardless of who emerges victorious.  If necessary, act like General Tanz in "The Night of the Generals", surround and seal off the capital until the smoke clears.  A reappraisal of the state of affairs may be made at that time.

(5) In all events, with the exception of the Kurdish region, Allied ground forces should be out of Iraq within 18 months.  Economic assistance of any kind should be turned over to the UN regardless of the consequences.

(6) The existence of the state of Israel is clearly the most difficult problem for any alternative strategy to solve.  This writer is convinced that in face of the "intransigence" of the two sides, regardless of the merit of the arguments proffered, i.e., by the Arabs or the Israeli, no satisfactory resolution exists. As a consequence, if "the world" has any interest in this matter, then any effort toward "a war of annihilation" on the part of the Arabs, or their current but non-historical ally Iran, or recourse to nuclear weapons on the part of Israel, must be averted.

The Jews rather understandably do not want to abandon their tiny nation which they have so heroically and effectively defended since 1948, and the Palestinians equally rather understandably do not want to abandon their "right of return" with "acceptable reparations".

The writer suggests that a virtually impregnable cordon sanitaire, containing a very large "free-fire zone" be established around the entire border of Israel anywhere that infiltration by terrorists is a problem.  This zone must be manned by a small army supplied by troops from the European sub-continent west of the Urals—not just NATO.  In a moral sense, the Holocaust was in large part a consequence of the policies and practices of the Christian churches for roughly two millennia.  When these latter despicable factors are added to the disastrous Peace Treaty of Versailles, the predictable advent of Hitler, World War II, and "the final solution to the Jewish problem,"  it can be seen that greater Europe must accept a continuing significant responsibility for the ultimate consequence of resettling Europe’s Jewry in Palestine.  Thus, the writer make his recommendation for the primary guarantees for the security of Israel.  Any contribution by the United States should be the result not of Presidential guarantees, but by the result of a direct vote by the American people.  Either an initiative or a referendum is constitutionally appropriate.

(7) The vast federal deficit requires significant phased reductions in "American largesse", a.k.a. "foreign aid", with its eventual elimination altogether. Recipient nations should be able to adjust to a 2 to 5% annual decrease in real or inflation adjusted terms.  It is suggested that countries deemed less critical in the direct prosecution of "the war on terror" be on the higher end of the cuts.  This new policy should include both Israel and all of the (currently) friendly Arab states around Israel who have remained that way because of our past generosity.  Should any of these client nations topple into unfriendly hands, the present correlation of forces and the entire balance of power may be threatened; however, such contractions in our aid programs are long overdue.

(8) In the absence of a patently unprovoked obvious overt major hostile "incident", any preemptive attack on Iran by either the USA or Israel could not be rationally interpreted as an act of honorable power.  Destabilization of the entire region would ensue, as well as anathematization of this country, Israel, and any of their Western allies who had the temerity to support us, in the already angry eyes of the peoples of Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia.  Jordan and Turkey would be hard-pressed to maintain diplomatic relations.

(9) Our constitutionally mandated legislative authority to declare war must be re-established.  Usurpation by successive presidents of this authority must cease.  This latter impeachable offense is the practical equivalent of "executive orders", and has kept us in a state of "perpetual war" since 1940—an unending demand for our blood and treasure.  We are not the "New Romans".  We are supposed to be a republic, not an empire fueled by imperial hubris chasing the mirage of "A New World Order".  The American people must become aware of the danger to our sovereignty and our independence that has arisen since the advent of the Wilsonian quest for a New Global Order: One World under one World Government.  Beginning with the doctrine published by Carroll Quigley in "Tragedy and Hope", through the briefings given recently by Thomas P. M. Barnett to high-level military officials and policy-makers in the Pentagon, successive American administrations have continued this policy unabated.

(10) This writer agrees with Bacevich with regard to his initiation of "…a new Manhattan Project to develop alternative sources of energy, thereby increasing US freedom of action and reducing the flow of wealth to the Persian Gulf, wealth that ends up subsidizing the Islamist cause."  Apart from "seed money", no other direct federal subsidization should be necessary.  Instead an "enlightened" policy of taxation would work wonders in our economy.

(11) Again, this writer agrees with Bacevich with regard to his recommendation for our involvement in "…police action, in collaboration with our allies," as well as a redoubling of our "…efforts to dismantle the organizations comprising the radical Islamist network."

(12) The CIA and all of the other appendages of our intelligence services do not need to be reorganized; they do need more funding, improved and increased HUMINT [human intelligence] resources, and much less "micromanagement and other variations of biased pressure" from their bosses in the executive branch of our national government.  The so-called "failure of our intelligence" in the case of the WMDs in Iraq was something entirely different.  From the day that George W. Bush took office, he and his neo-con crew had determined to oust Saddam Hussein from power.  All they needed was an excuse, so they interpreted the intelligence available to suit their purposes.  End of story!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

*William Scot Morrow is a retired professor of Chemistry at Wofford College in Spartanburg, SC with a life-long interest in the military history of ancient and modern  civilizations. †Andrew J. Bacevich is professor of History and International Relations at Boston University and the author of "The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War " (Oxford University Press).  The professor's original statements are quoted in underlined blue type above.

 

RETURN TO VALUES PAGE