| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| David Warren: Feeding the wave |
| 2005-03-09 |
| How many times have I had to tell you, gentle reader, to read anything President Bush says. There was a joke made by the louche webloggist, Wonkette, to the effect that the Bush administration has been sadly lacking in empty gestures. The President not only seems to mean almost everything he says, he seems to act on it soon after. This is, as my reader must agree, very eccentric behaviour in a politician. I'm not saying Mr. Bush utters deathless prose; I'm just saying read his texts if you want some clue to what is going to happen next. (Always archived at whitehouse.gov.) This instruction applies particularly to his address yesterday to the U.S. National Defence University in Fort McNair, near Washington. It contained several dozen hints that the U.S. would now be accelerating, in its engagement with the Middle East. It also contained one pregnant little dropped allegation of fact: that the U.S. government is convinced the recent terror blast in Tel Aviv was ordered from Damascus, not from the usual sources on the Palestinian West Bank. More was being said through that than meets the ear. Mr. Bush was not only telling Bashir Assad, the Syrian dictator, that he has drawn a bead on him. He was signalling beyond this that the U.S. is no longer interested in keeping what happens to Israel in a separate file from what happens elsewhere. He was thus subtly insinuating "peace with Israel" into the agenda of Arabs and other Muslims demonstrating for democracy in spreading waves throughout the region. Now turning to those, let's take three items I noticed in yesterday's news, glancing through the Internet: In Kuwait, the parliament is speeding work on a bill to give the vote to women, and allow them to stand as political candidates (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), while several hundred women activists hold vigil outside. From the pictures I've seen, few of these ladies were wearing the proper head covering. In Cairo, protesters for an opposition party are telling President Mubarak they are not entirely happy with his plan to let other candidates run in Egypt's next presidential election. This is because after reading the small print, they think any such election will be rigged. They think that, perhaps, if Mr. Mubarak and his anointed son were neither of them candidates in such a next election, it might have more chance of being free and fair. In Multan, Pakistan, several thousand women rallied in defence of the rights of Mukhtar Mai, a woman who was gang-raped, probably on the orders of a village council. There are many more reports, of demonstrations from Morocco to Pakistan, but I chose these three because I've now seen photographs. What struck me in each case was the mixing together of well-dressed, middle-class, respectable people -- of the type who normally calculate they have too much to lose by yelling in the street -- with poorer and more ragged people. And shoulder to shoulder, in the same causes. And each cause was, for its location, a direct affront not only to the powers-that-be, but to their most basic attitudes. I don't think any of these demonstrations would have happened without the extensive television coverage now spreading through the Arab and Islamic world of Lebanon and Iraq. Several of my correspondents in the region have pointed out, that Al Jazeera's "pro-terrorist" coverage in Iraq has backfired, because Arabs watching the footage of anti-government demonstrations take away a powerful impression that such demonstrations should be possible. The subtext is more eloquent than the text in these cases. For, yes, Al Jazeera often only covers people marching against America and her allies. But also, yes, the Americans and their "running dogs" also permit such protests. Viewers know their own dictators permit no such thing. Or rather, have only started allowing that sort of thing as a way to release pressures that their police forces tell them are building, quickly, everywhere. As I've said before, the reason the large, flag-waving, anti-Syrian demonstrations have been happening in Beirut is not because the occupying Assad regime has suddenly gone soft. It doesn't have the option of going soft; no dictatorship does. These people are rallying because, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they believe the United States Mediterranean fleet now offers them real cover. And they' re watching the Assad regime pulling back tanks and troops towards the Bekaa Valley and the Syrian frontier, chiefly because President Bush is publicly and plainly telling them to pull back. Many American flags have been waved among the Lebanese ones by the demonstrators. What Mr. Bush was saying yesterday, over the shoulders of his audience to the people campaigning for freedom and democracy across the Islamic world, was, in my paraphrase: "You are right to think you have the full support of my people, government, and military. The freedom bell is ringing, do not hesitate to rise." |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 The US army is between two nations. Iran and Syria. And the Head-bowlahz are between two armies, US and Israel.... Just a thought... |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-03-09 4:23:11 PM |
| #10 Ask Warren about the bag of smarties. One of the most moving pieces I ever |
| Posted by: john 2005-03-09 3:42:34 PM |
| #9 For a moment, I thought glenmore was talking about Democrats, hehe! |
| Posted by: john 2005-03-09 3:40:56 PM |
| #8 Verrrrry interesting, rjschwarz. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-03-09 2:12:27 PM |
| #7 The Sherman analogy reminds me of Liddy Harts analysis on war. Basically Sherman and others would march their army directly to the spot between two cities. The enemy could fortify one well, or both weakly. If they fortified one he'd take the other. If they fortified both weakly he could choose. Nazi's did a similar thing on the Russia front which is how they swept so far East so quickly. Now enlarge the scene. The US army is between two nations. Iran and Syria. Will Hezbollah split their forces or concentrate on defending one over the other. Hezbollah in Syria is not available to beat down Iranian protestors. Hezbollah in Iran is not available to beat down Lebanese. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-03-09 10:21:12 AM |
| #6 Nathan Bedford Forrest. "Keepin' up the skeer." Or the famous VDH on Sherman's march. The enemy had no idea what was happening because Sherman was always a step ahead. "Let's set up a defensive line here." "General, we just got word the Yanks are three miles behind us." |
| Posted by: Richard Aubrey 2005-03-09 10:16:49 AM |
| #5 Bush's strategy is even grander than Sherman and Grant's. Every move has used a new weapon. Afghanistan, SF, Iraq, regulars, Lebannon, media. In each case strengths were attacked directly, anarchic tribes, the fourth largest army in the world, al-Jezeera. He cannot realisticly do another invasion, politicly or logisticly. So the team in DC will come up with another idea to defeat an enemy by indirectly attacking its strength. They are being taken out one at a time, each in its own special way. Attacks Designed with the Enemy in Mind. What it reminds me of at the moment is the civil rights movement. Assad's assasination of Harari ranks up there with the murder of the civil rights workers in Philadelphia Mississippi in 1964. Dumb move, really dumb. Bush is providing the apparent cover but it is really media supplied public opinion thatos the cover. Al-Jezeera has been turned on itself. Bush really isn't in control of much because it is up to the indiginous population to decide to change things. So where next seems more a question of who's ready. Could be Viet Nam. Wouldn't that be sweet? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-03-09 8:46:32 AM |
| #4 Gives the slogan "the Arab street will explode if the Americans invade" a whole new meaning doesn't it? |
| Posted by: GK 2005-03-09 8:39:36 AM |
| #3 stay constantly on the attack, to keep the opponent backing up, unable to look where he is going, and to not give him time to re-organize That's not Sherman, that's classic Ulysses S. Grant. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-03-09 8:35:59 AM |
| #2 The Bush strategy in the GWOT reminds me of Alexander the Great, or maybe Sherman in his march through Georgia (without the sacking and pillaging). The plan is to stay constantly on the attack, to keep the opponent backing up, unable to look where he is going, and to not give him time to re-organize. It makes sense when 1) your forces are grossly outnumbered and 2) your logistical capability is strong. And, it's easier to spot the bad guys when they're moving than when they are blending in with the civilian population. So, as soon as Afghanistan was (more-or-less) under control, the fight was moved to Iraq. Now that Iraq, post-election, seems (more-or-less) under control, the fight will move ......??? Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Or, keep 'em guessing for now, and moving, and gather intel, and pick off a few key players. |
| Posted by: glenmore 2005-03-09 8:16:47 AM |
| #1 Warren hits a homer. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-03-09 3:39:27 AM |