Middle East: The Realities By Charles Krauthammer Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A25 Amid the general media and Democratic frenzy over Niger yellowcake, it is Bill Clinton who injected a note of sanity. "What happened often happens," Clinton told Larry King. "There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. . . . . British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, 'Well, we probably shouldn't have said that.' " Big deal. End of story. End of scandal. The fact that the Democrats and the media can't seem to let go of it, however, is testimony to their need (and ability) to change the subject. From what? From the moral and strategic realities of Iraq. The moral reality finally burst through the yellowcake fog with the death of the Hussein brothers, psychopathic torturers who would be running Iraq if not for the policy enunciated by President Bush in that very same State of the Union address. That moral reality is a little hard for the left to explain, considering the fact that it parades as the guardian of human rights and all-around general decency, and rallied millions to prevent the policy that liberated Iraq from Uday and Qusay's reign of terror. Then there are the strategic realities. Consider what has happened in the Near East since Sept. 11, 2001: (1) In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government has been installed. (2) In Iraq, the Saddam Hussein regime has been overthrown, the dynasty has been destroyed and the possibility for a civilized form of governance exists for the first time in 30 years. (3) In Iran, with dictatorships toppled to the east (Afghanistan) and the west (Iraq), popular resistance to the dictatorship of the mullahs has intensified. (4) In Pakistan, once the sponsor and chief supporter of the Taliban, the government radically reversed course and became a leading American ally in the war on terror. (5) In Saudi Arabia, where the presence of U.S. troops near the holy cities of Mecca and Medina deeply inflamed relations with many Muslims, the American military is leaving -- not in retreat or with apology but because it is no longer needed to protect Saudi Arabia from Hussein. (6) Yemen, totally unhelpful to the United States after the attack on the USS Cole, has started cooperating in the war on terror. (7) In the small, stable Gulf states, new alliances with the United States have been established. (8) Kuwait's future is secure, the threat from Saddam Hussein having been eliminated. (9) Jordan is secure, no longer having Iraq's tank armies and radical nationalist influence at its back. (10) Syria has gone quiet, closing terrorist offices in Damascus and playing down its traditional anti-Americanism. (11) Lebanon's southern frontier is quiet for the first time in years, as Hezbollah, reading the new strategic situation, has stopped cross-border attacks into Israel. (12) Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations have been restarted, a truce has been declared and a fledgling Palestinian leadership has been established that might actually be prepared to make a real peace with Israel. That's every country from the Khyber Pass to the Mediterranean Sea. Everywhere you look, the forces of moderation have been strengthened. This is a huge strategic advance not just for the region but for the world, because this region in its decades-long stagnation has incubated the world's most virulent anti-American, anti-Western, anti-democratic and anti-modernist fanaticism. This is not to say that the Near East has been forever transformed. It is only to say that because of American resolution and action, there is a historic possibility for such a transformation. But it all hinges on success in Iraq. On America's not being driven out of Iraq the way it was driven out of Lebanon and Somalia -- which is what every terrorist and every terrorist state wants to see happen. And with everything at stake, what is the left doing? Everything it can to undermine the enterprise. By implying both that it was launched fraudulently (see yellowcake) and, alternately, that it has ensnared us in a hopeless quagmire. Yes, the cost is great. The number of soldiers killed is relatively small, but every death is painful and every life uniquely valuable. But remember that just yesterday we lost 3,000 lives in one day. And if this region is not transformed, on some future day we will lose 300,000. The lives of those as yet unknown innocents hinge now on success in Iraq. If we win the peace and leave behind a decent democratic society, enjoying, as it does today, the freest press and speech in the entire Arab world, it will revolutionize the region. And if we leave in failure, the whole region will fall back into chaos, and worse. © 2003 The Washington Post Company
I love it. Krauthammer simply declares "reality", a great victory all over the Middle East and that every day everyone in the Middle East loves us and cooperates with us more and more. Every day we are becoming safer from terrorism. I guess this declaration is enough for true believers like Heath. Others might be a tad more sceptical. I'm almost surprised Krauthammer didn't also just simply declare again that wmd have been found. However, I guess that old tactic won't work at this stage. Since we have such a glorious progress , we should not have to spend the $4 billion per month and the 1 to 2 American soldier deaths per day price anymore. Let's jsut come home and enjoy our victories. Four more American soldiers killed yesterday in Afghanistan. cite In a similar story. Taliban's Omar Orders More Attacks on US-Led Troops Omar and the Taliban
The Taliban's Omar did not order "more attacks", because that would infer he ordered limited attacks...We all know these deadbeat weasels want to attack to the maximum capability when they can...We will continue to fight terrorism on the offensive, the price is high, but will safeguard future lives no doubt in my mind!... Over 3,000 citizens were killed on 9/11 and we have learned the only way to fight terrorism is not to cower and take the beatings, (i.e. do nothing) it's not to be defensive since this tactic is futile...It's to be offensive and put the foot to the throat before the terrorist has time to breath and plot again!
There´s a thin line between terrorism and fighting terrorism on the offensive. There´s no such thing as an offensive defence, that´s just an offensive.
What a disgusting comment. . Right. Killing 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 is only "a thin line" away from attacking Al Queda's thugs and criminals who are trying to kill as many innocent westerners as they possibly can. Give me a break. You europeans have become a truly spineless bunch of American-haters.
Another brilliant piece by one of my favorite authors, Krauthammer. One can not overlook the tremendous positives that have arisen out of the War on Terror. It amazes me that hard-line left wingers like glynch can not accept that the Middle East was in need of a shake-up. The changes being brought on today by a more aggressive coalition strategy have the potential to turn a very depressed, volatile region into a region of great strength and stability.
The changes being brought on today by a more aggressive coalition strategy have the potential to turn a very depressed, volatile region into a region of great strength and stability. Ah now we're back to being cheerily hopeful and visionary. Of course we were lied to, by the neocons, if this was really the reason for the war. However, let's consider the utopian vision of a Middle East that is as secular ,as say the Christian Rightist Ashcroft, embraces fundamentalist economics without taxes or government services, has a privatised oil industry run by Americans and supports an Israel with borders beyond UN resolutions. One reaction is if you want to be utopian cheery while Americans die in a great experiment n social engineering, shouldn't you volunteer? Why not have Bush Twins or at least one of them replace Jessica Lynch in the humvee? But I guess this is just class envy. I guess it is also possible that the world as a whole, the Arab world and the US electorate will stand by while the experiment succeeds. My prediction. The longest length of the experiment can possibly last is until Iraqi oil is no longer needed. However, before Iraq can pumped dry, the American electorate will get tired of sending their children (not the chickenhawk's) and tax dollars for the neocon vision. Already I see one of the biggest Arab hating necons, Daniel Pipes , is now calling for a quick pullout. pipes
glynch, you are a clown living in your own little warped circus. I have to question the relevance of your demagoguery involving privitazation and fundamentalism. You really are creative in your ways of introducing highly irrelevant mud slinging into discussions. There is no question that oil is central to the world economy. A stable Middle East benefits all participants in the world economy through cheaper energy costs and a higher standard of living. Consistently citing oil as an irrational reason for heightened participation in the Middle East is ridiculous, as are the bulk of your arguments. A stable Middle East benefits the world in so many other ways both politically and militarily. To have continued to let this region deteriorate into chaos would have been an extremely dangerous decision to make. I applaud President Bush for displaying the courageous leadership necessary to evoke change in an area which desparately needed outside intervention.
My question to you, Glynch, is what would you have us do? Bend over, clutch our ankles and say "do your worst?" The only thing those jerks understand is strength, be it Saddam or us. Otherwise, if we appear weak as we have for the last eight years under the Clintonistas, the terrorists will be putting their hands on our shoulders and whispering BOHICA, BOHICA (Bend over, here it comes again) in our ears. We depend on oil as does the rest of world. It is in our VITAL national interest to have a stable Middle East. Why are you looking for a conspiratorial theory in everything the Bush admin does? And on the subject of finding those WMDs, better safe than sorry. So what if we invaded a country that was unfriendly to us? You have enemies, you defeat them. You don't try to make friends with them, understand why they hate you. You destroy them and render them powerless to defeat you.
It's funny that in your little rant you never mention the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. We have been under threat from Middle Eastern terrorism for a long time now, and it was only getting worse, as evidenced by 9/11 and the growth of technology such as biological weaponry and dirty bombs. The American people understand the need to go after terrorists aggressively. Why is it so hard for you to understand?
My question to you, Glynch, is what would you have us do? Bend over, clutch our ankles and say "do your worst?" The only thing those jerks understand is strength, be it Saddam or us. bamaslammer andIt's funny that in your little rant you never mention the security of the United States and the safety of the American people. We have been under threat from Middle Eastern terrorism for a long time now, and it was only getting worse, as evidenced by 9/11 and the growth of technology such as biological weaponry and dirty bombs. The American people understand the need to go after terrorists aggressively. Why is it so hard for you to understand? Mr. Clutch In a way these two points are the same and have caused me some thought. Like most people I value the safety of myself and family. (BTW this includes people like Sadam and Iraqis, too.) I must admit that I have never felt in the slightest that Sadam or Iraq was a real threat to me or the US. Now one could imagine possible ways in which he could theoretically do so. Apparently Bush, Condoeeza and the neocons did and repeated these ruminations often in their speehes in order to scare people to support their war"vials of posions", "mushroom clouds" and the like. So why haven't I had any fears of Iraq? 1) When Sadam was much stronger we took him out in 100 hours in Gulf War I in a duck shoot. 2) In Gulf War I he either did not have the weapons Bush kept scaring you all about or was afraid to use them. Either way not too scary to me, having lived through the Cold War. 3) Sadam showed that he valued his own survival and was not rationally acted on that basis. Blanket statments that he was insane and so therefore past behavior to future actions just struck me as not credible. 4) The CIA, British Intelligence and French Intelligence etc. never viewed him as responsible for Al Qaeda and 911, nor as a terrorist or other threat to the US. 5) I considered them much more credible than the neocons motivated by oil, money making, Israel, maintaining a "positive issue environment" as Rhove put it or whatever. 6)Of course it is always possible the Neocons believed some of their own rhetoric, but the way they kept changing their story and the documentation that came out about how they were following a script devised in rightwing Jewish think tanks 10 years before also effected for me their credibility. On top of all the foregoing Iraq is a small country about 1/20th of the US. As seen with 9/11 Russia, China, all of Europe, Japan and any country of significance backs us against terroism of the type you all and Bush keep trying to scare the public with or somehow tie to Iraq without any credible evidence. I always remained confident that the US backed by essentially the whole world could deal with Iraq, if needs be. You just don't get that much safer. You just can't invade any country that you can dream up that might assist some people with box cutters or other small weapons. Similarly we can deal with Al Qaeda, and invading countries that have little or nothing to do with them, just doesn't defend us against the threat from them. Who knows if I bought the Neocon claims that Sadam was an immediate threat (remember the 45 minute claim?) to the US I might have joined you all in calling for an invasion of Iraq.
(1) In Afghanistan, the Taliban have been overthrown and a decent government has been installed. Methinks the author is very confused about the meaning of the word decent. But hey I suspect that after a couple of rounds of tax cuts Afghanistan would be decent.
Those are some serious drugs you are taking. You might want to consider cutting back or joining a 12 step program.
