|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reflections of Ken Towery
Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Whatever By R.K. Towery The war in Iraq is all but over, as we write this. The natural question, given all the rhetoric from High Places, is simply "What comes next?" Do the troops come home, now that their mission is accomplished? Or, are they directed elsewhere in the region? Or, even, out of the region? One thing that should be kept firmly in mind while we contemplate the question is the ancient Chinese saying that "You kill the chicken to frighten the monkey." The quote, as we understand Chinese history, originated during the warring kingdoms phase that led up to the First Emperor's reign, some 2,000 years ago. That particular phase of ancient history is not much different from the Middle East today. As far as America is concerned, Iraq was the chicken. The monkey can be any number of countries, beginning with Syria. There was never any question of the current war's outcome, once the decision was made to go in. The difference in power is simply too great to admit of any outcome other than a complete and total victory for American and British arms. The only real questions in the beginning dealt with the length of the war, and its costs, in terms of human lives lost, national treasure spent, and worldwide posture affected. On the level where most people live, that is, where the little picture becomes in fact the big picture, and where loved ones don't make it back from the battleground, the costs of war are measured in other terms, in terrible, terrible, terms. So now, what happens? Obviously, a rather large contingent of troops will have to be kept in Iraq for months to come. Stability will have to be restored, and that job, we think, will involve some problems not yet apparent in the giddy aftermath of victory. American understanding of the religious problems involved in establishing some semblance of governance in Iraq, considering the feelings of the Shi'ites toward the Sunnis, and the Sunnis toward the Shi'ites, bodes well for a long occupation, or democratization as it will be called. Beyond that, it is a matter of conjecture. The Syrians, next door to Iraq, have incurred the public displeasure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and his Deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, both of whom seem to think they now run the State Department, in addition to the Defense Department. Recently, even the President has been persuaded to take the Syrians to task for allegedly harboring those elusive weapons of mass destruction that were alleged to have been in Iraq. Too, the Syrians have long been on the "most wanted" list of the so-called "neo-cons", who dominate the roster of the Israeli lobby inside and outside the American government. Pressure on Syria from somewhere other than Israel might, the reasoning goes, cause Syria to give up its claim to the Golan Heights, grabbed by Israel during one of those interminable wars between the Jews and Arabs. Syria's obstinacy in not renouncing its claim to the territory occupied by Israel has long been a sticking point in relations between the two sides. With thousands of troops standing idle in Iraq, will the temptation to punish the perceived sins of Syria be too much to pass up. Or, what about Iran? A case can be made against Iran just as easily as the one originally made against Iraq…that we need a "change in leadership," lest they acquire "weapons of mass destruction" and use those weapons to threaten Israel. Or, what about North Korea? In the world of "threats", North Korea poses as big a threat as anybody around at the moment. They possess nuclear weapons, or are in position to make them. They have the rocketry needed to deliver those nukes a long way from their shores, and have demonstrated an ability to do so. Of all the crazy dictators in the world today, none surpasses the ruler of North Korea in terms of sheer unpredictability. We can understand why President Bush has sought to portray the Korean mess as merely a "regional" matter, unworthy of elevation to the status of Iraq, but his calling it that does not, in our opinion, make it so. Nor does it reduce the chances of another conflict. The realities of the region make certain that tensions will stay high until something happens to remove those tensions. If the North Koreans are allowed to develop their nuclear potential, the job of containing any potential conflict will become almost impossible. The North Koreans fought us to a political (and military) standstill in the 1950's with Chinese and Soviet help, at a cost of some 50,000 American lives. That war followed some remarks by President Truman's Secretary of State Dean Atchison also designed to downplay the Korean situation. Atchison had said something to the effect that "we will let the dust settle" in the squabble between North and South Korea, before enunciating any clear policy delineating the extent of American interests in Asia. The North Koreans took that as an indication that we had no clear policy, or interest, in what happened anywhere except Japan. So they moved, and it cost us thousands of men. The current crop of leaders in North Korea show no signs of having modified their appetite for power. We hope we are wrong, but truly the world does not look like a very safe place in the immediate future, no matter how much blood has been shed in the past century to make it so. We have long concerned ourselves with the situation in the entire Middle East. We have thought, and said, that no true or lasting peace can be achieved in the region until there is some sort of solution that will allow, or force, Jews and Moslems to live side by side without constant warfare. What happens to Christians in the area (the birthplace of Christianity) has long ceased to be a matter of much concern to most other Christians, especially the Revs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and of even less concern to Jews or Moslems. President Bush does not seem to share our concerns. More likely, he has other, overriding concerns. Bush is the leader of his political party, and, as such, has the responsibility of looking to its well being, just as Bill Clinton had the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the Democrats during the previous administration. It would not be politically wise, in our view, for Bush to irritate the American Jewish electorate prior to the next election. They are exceedingly small in terms of electoral numbers, but their influence in the media and Hollywood (and consequently in politics) far exceeds those numbers. They make up less than 2 percent of the American electorate, but when the Jewish lobby holds its Washington functions, the leadership of both political parties show up, asking what they can do to help. The answer is usually very simple. "Send money." Of course, the Congress does. All of which is to say that America is not the master of its own fate in terms of Middle East war or peace. The wishes of Israel must be taken into consideration on any policy affecting the region. President Bush long ago demonstrated his total subservience to the Israeli lobby within and without America on any issue remotely affecting the perceived welfare of Israel. An illustration could well be the recent flap over comments made by Congressman Jim Moran. The Virginia Democrat spoke the truth and had to apologize for it. Rep. Moran represents a northern Virginia District that at one time, and in a slightly different configuration, was represented by a Republican. The District changed. People who lived in the District of Columbia, and who usually voted Democratic, started flocking to the suburbs to get away from the black politics of the District. But they brought their voting patterns with them, and soon their Congressional representation changed as well. Mr.Moran was a high ranking Democrat, a "caucus leader" until he made the politically fatal mistake of speaking truthfully on a subject affecting the well-being of his party. Then he was stripped of his Party position and forced to apologize profusely. He had said, in so many words, that Americans would not now be in Iraq were it not for the extraordinary influence of the Israeli lobby over the affairs of this country's politics. Moran knows, or he ought to know. He's a long-time Northern Virginia politician and a leader in his party. He knows where the support comes from, and why. (His comments were made before Mr. Richard Pearle, one of the leaders in the Jewish group known as "neo conservatives", had to resign from his influential position as chairman of an advisory board to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for having tried, allegedly, to influence the Defense Department in favor of one of his rich clients, an international outfit called Global Crossing. Pearle, who is one of the "neo conservative" group long advocating war on Iraq, stood to make nearly a million bucks off the deal, had not someone blown the whistle on him, The Moran flap also occurred before the recent meeting in Washington of AIPAC (the American-Israeli Political Action Committee), a meeting that usually lures the top drawer of America's political establishment and hears promises of undying support for Israel from leaders of both political parties.) Most politicians, whether Democrat or Republican, are leery of speaking the truth in settings where their comments are apt to be recorded. Senator Trent Lott learned that the hard way when he told a crowd of Strom Thurman well wishers that folks in Lott's home state of Mississippi were proud of having voted for him when he ran for President many years ago. At the first hint of criticism (before the criticism swelled to a crescendo), Lott started backtracking and apologizing. Even that didn't save him. He had to give up his position as the Senate's Republican leader, so great was GOP fears that Lott's boo-boo might cost their Party some black votes they never had and probably won't get. The whole Moran affair would have been laughable , were it not so serious. He was completely right and truthful, of course, but truth brought into the public arena has a way of causing problems. The Democrats have traditionally had a lock on nearly 90 percent of the Jewish vote in America, and on a great deal of their money as well. Much of that support, in my opinion, derives from the actions of former President Harry Truman in speedily recognizing the creation of Israel. Truman did not hesitate to extend official diplomatic recognition to Israel after the Israeli state was created. A substantial amount of Jewish money was alleged to have flowed to Truman at the time. Whether or not the allegations were true, it is true that Jewish money, and Jewish votes, have been flowing to the Democrats ever since. It is only recently that we have seen, within the Jewish community, growth of the so-called "neo conservatives". The "neo cons" as they are identified in the media, are essentially a group of former liberal Democratic intellectuals who have defected (publicly) from their roots and adopted certain positions they call "neo conservative," meaning, we suppose, new or latter-day conservatives. The term helps separate them from old line conservatives, with whom they seldom agree. The one thing that seems to hold the neo cons together is support for Israel, whether that be more money in "aid" or in military support inside and outside Israel. While liberal Jewish groups have been open about their own support for Israel, the "neo-cons" have infiltrated various conservative groups and greatly influenced thinking in traditional conservative circles. It is not now strange or unusual to see articles in traditional conservative magazines take the position that support for Israeli expansion, for Israeli destruction of Palestinian homes, orchards and businesses, is now the "conservative" position. The neocons have been highly successful. Many have risen to positions of influence in this Administration, just as many Jews exercised power in various preceding administrations. So successful have they been that the foreign policy of the United States is now predicated on what is good, in the final analysis, for Israel. Israel's loyalists in the United States…people like Richard Pearle, a long time Washington insider and lobbyist for various Israeli causes, Paul Wolfowitz, a Deputy Secretary of Defense under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, William Kristol, editor of the Murdock-owned Weekly Standard, William Safire, op ed columnist for the New York Times (and a former Clinton supporter) or even Jerry Falwell, a self-styled spokesman for fundamentalist Christians.… see absolutely no difference in the short-term interests of the two countries, providing, of course, the long-term interest of Israel is recognized and maintained. They take the position that what is in the best interests of Israel is also in the best interests of the United States, and that by adopting the Israeli line in any international situation, one is opting for the best interests of the United States. Congressman Moran was completely correct in what he said, but saying it caused the political roof to fall in. Democrats condemned him for all sorts of political sins, not the least of which was "insensitivity" to a defined minority. Republicans, including the White House, condemned him as a way of showing their own sensitivity to that same defined minority, in the hope that political bread cast upon the waters might come back in the form of money and votes. We doubt it will work. What may very well work, however, is the determination of George W. Bush to change, by whatever means, the voting patterns of that community. He (Bush) no doubt remembers what that particular community did to his father, George Bush, when the elder didn't jump fast enough to meet Israeli demands for a $10 Billion interest-free "loan", or grant, following the first Gulf War with Iraq. Almost overnight the elder Bush's press turned sour, and his poll numbers dropped from the 90s to about half that. A t.v. media that had acclaimed "Desert Storm", suddenly found other folks to adore. The voting pattern of Jews (and of blacks) in the last Presidential election almost cost Bush the state of Florida and the election. Unless something is done to change things, that problem will still be there next time. And Florida is not the only state where those two voting patterns are important. California and New York, both sought-after electoral plums, are heavily influenced by their vote. Poll after poll shows that the voting patterns of blacks and Jews have not changed markedly and are not likely to change unless some fundamentally episodic event takes place affecting the way voters make up their mind. The black electorate, especially, does not seem to be overly impressed by U.S. successes in Iraq. Nor does the presence, within the Administration, of high ranking blacks like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice.. Bush knows this, and what is equally important, his advisers know it too. One of the things that might, and we emphasize the word "might," change things is a few kind words, a few well placed words, from Ariel Sharon, or whoever the leader of Israel is when American elections are held. And Mr. Sharon just loves the way things are going now. He has even indicated, in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Har'retz, that America ought to keep pressure on Syria, and that he might now agree to the creation of a Palestinian state. Providing, of course, certain Israeli demands are met. We suspect Mr. Bush will see the wisdom of Israeli suggestions. And if I were a soldier in Iraq, I wouldn't be packing my bags for home. I'd be packing them for a short stay elsewhere, maybe Syria, maybe Iran. Maybe somewhere else.
|
|
 |
|
