| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq-Jordan |
| The Reasoning Of The Violence in Iraq |
| 2004-03-11 |
| Graham E. Fuller is a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA (This Guy at least has some credentials). This is not heavily edited for length. It appeared in today’s LA Times, which unfortunately requires a short registration to access entire article. Still, the salient point is...that the violence isn’t pointless, and what is most worrisome to me is that, just beyond the reach of my normal consciousness, this thesis makes some sense...and there is the worry that the war in Iraq will in fact result in a growing Hegemony within Islam...Which like the war itself, over time, may prove out to be good or bad for the West. It is simply too early to tell if a Hegemonic tendency will develop within Islam...but even if so, greater internal control could be beneficial. Though, all in all, I think that I prefer a fragmented Islam...lol As Iraq descends into ever greater bloodletting — mostly now visited by Iraqis and outsiders upon other Iraqis — it is tempting to describe all this violence as "mindless," a spasm of senseless nihilism. Yet, sadly, there is a fairly coherent rationale behind these ugly events and their ruthless perpetrators. And even though, fortunately, fewer Americans are dying these days, there can be no doubt that Washington itself is the sole focus of the campaign, regardless of how many Iraqis die. From day one of the American occupation, radicals — both secular/nationalist and Islamist — had two strategic choices. The first was to limit their targets to U.S. forces and facilities in Iraq, making it abundantly clear that the United States is the sole overwhelming threat to Iraq and the Muslim world. The second was to attack anyone and anything that facilitated any aspect of the U.S. operation, even if it was providing benefits to the Iraqi public. Thus the United Nations and the Red Cross became valid targets, not for their services but because they furthered the broader American game plan for power in the region. In the same vein, Iraqi-staffed police and security officials became part of the American infrastructure of power and control and now are being targeted. Clearly, this second strategy has prevailed — an astonishingly bloody-minded vision that says a lot about the current defensive state of mind of the region as a whole. But regardless of who the actual targets are, it’s clearly a message being directed at the United States. The bolder the scope of the U.S. master plan — quite bluntly described by top U.S. policymakers as a bid to "remake the face of the Middle East" — the harsher the response from the radicals. It makes no difference to them whether innocent Iraqi civilians pay the ultimate price for associating with the U.S. The whole point is to make sure that the U.S. learns that such interventionist projects are flights of dangerous folly. Radicals seek to drive home the point that Americans should never contemplate for even a moment the ambition of visiting American military force against the Muslim world ever again. If Iraq has to twist in the wind in tortured chaos for a year, so be it if that is what it takes to ensure that the U.S. will be permanently traumatized by messing with Islam. And this remains my real problem...Will the results of this Iraqi War limit the ability of the United States to act in the future? (You can say all you want that Kerry is a weasel, Bush is Strong, ect, ect, but these seeds are being planted now, in the manner this war was fought and way the peace, whatever that may be, is secured. Sadly, this entire rationale and state of mind may now be taking root across the region. If this happens, the radicals will have won a truly major victory. In their calculus, the price paid by a few thousand sad victims might be relatively modest if the long-range result is to crimp any future American plans for invasion and occupation of Muslim lands anywhere. What bigger victory could the radicals hope for? How many in the West, especially in the U.S., will be eager for a reprise of the Iraq experience? Once the United States is deterred from its efforts to control the region, then Muslims can set about dealing with their own regimes and building their own future. But in the radical view, the building phase can come only after the region is cleansed of foreign power, whatever the attendant human costs. Vicious and bloody-minded, yes, but this vision is hardly nihilistic. It represents a radical reading of the course of contemporary history in the Middle East. It helps turn fashionable debate over a "clash of civilizations" into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Few if any Muslims wish to perpetuate a Pax Americana in the region, even if they deplore the violence of Iraqis upon Iraqis. And even though discomfited by the ugliness of such radical tactics, nearly everyone understands the rationale for rejection of the invader. Sadly, Muslims don’t have to be terrorists to have some sympathy for keeping the U.S. out of their face, even if they flinch at the cost. It is still entirely possible that the interim Iraqi Constitution and government will hold good through the elections scheduled for early 2005. The elections may even go well and the violence will abate somewhat. I have been sympathetic to the "Cut and Run," arguments made against Bush&Co...but, I could be wrong, it may be time to exit as gracefully as possible and hope that the New Iraqi Government will not prove to be only a replay of the Weimar experience in Germany after WWI, (a weak Government only giving cover for the rise of a Virulent Fascism...which, heaven knows, Islam already has a marked tendency toward). |
| Posted by:Traveller |
| #11 Garrison - the US for now has to approach this war piecemeal...divide and conquer.....if we were to take all on at once then we would need the draft..could you imagine what the left would do with that... Zang - the cold war was to the overriding constraint in the 80's...... do not be fooled, especially with Bush re-elected, sryia/lebannon is next then iran..unless iran unleashes attacks unparralled...regardless of the what the un will say...actually sryia may prove to be the issue that re-unites the West..... |
| Posted by: Dan 2004-3-11 3:00:18 PM |
| #10 In response "We Will Not Falter, We Will Not Fail" |
| Posted by: GWB 2004-3-11 12:19:33 PM |
| #9 LH -- they're not waiting to see how the occupation turns out, they're waiting to see how the election turns out. If Kerry wins, they know they're all off the hook and everything outside of Iraq is back to pre-9/11 -- and the terror funding and support will go through the roof. If Bush wins, they'll know they have four more years of hard times to get through, and may make some real changes to improve their chances of survival. (Unfortunately, I think Syria, Iran, and the Saudis are going to try to destabilize Iraq no matter who wins.) |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-3-11 10:48:38 AM |
| #8 Graham Fuller's bio: Graham Fuller is a former Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation in Washington D.C. and former Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA. In 1982, he was appointed as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia at the CIA. While working for the CIA he was responsible for long-range Intelligence Forecasting. In l986, Mr. Fuller was named Vice-Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, with overall responsibility for all national level strategic forecasting. In early 1988, Mr. Fuller joined the RAND Corporation; his primary work was on the Middle East, Central Asia, ex-Soviet nationality affairs, Russian-Middle East relations, Islamic fundamentalism and problems of democracy in the Middle East. He is also the author of various books, including Islamic Fundamentalism in Afghanistan: Its Character and Prospects and A Sense of Siege: The Geopolitics of Islam and the West. I wonder if Fuller was behind the analysis that the US should not retaliate against Iran for the Marine barracks bombing that killed over 200 US servicemen. This was the decade that saw hundreds of Americans killed by Arab and Iranian terrorists, even as Reagan, with a few exceptions, appeased their Arab and Iranian sponsors. The '80's were not a good decade for American deterrence vis-a-vis terror-sponsoring Muslim nations. Was Fuller partially responsible, with his appeasement-oriented policies? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-3-11 10:08:06 AM |
| #7 Traveller - your general point is good - If the Arab "street" percieves the US as deterred by the aftermath of the war, that could represent an AQ victory. OTOH Im not sure that the steady build up of the new Iraqi state, accompanied by 20-50 American deaths a month, accomplishes that. In Afghanistan they showed the Soviet Union as defeated, because the Soveits failed to remake Afghan society, withdrew, and saw the pro-Soviet regime collapse shortly after said withdrawl. As others have said, not likely to happen in Iraq. In Kosovo, OTOH, the US won. But without a single American casualty. Which AQ proclaimed as evidence of US weakness, an unwillingess to take casualties. Paradoxically, by taking casualties in Iraq, we are putting the lie to AQ's assertions. I agree that the admin has been deficient in public diplomacy, etc, and these are points we should be making and probably arent. I dont see evidence that the Arab street now is moving in the direction you fear - at least not yet. They WERE impressed by the conventional victory, (which led to movement on reform, and Arab-Israeli peace in the months immediately after the war) now they are waiting to see how the occupation plays out - with resulting stalemate in many areas where there had been signs of progress. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2004-3-11 10:01:55 AM |
| #6 I wouldn't jump the gun. There other Arab States which need to be watched, even acted on in the near future, but if you take a look at the map, we've just split the Islamic World in 1/2 by taking Iraq and the reason the Arab world is complaining so loudly is their really just scared sh*tless of the US's awesome power and most are not sure of our intensions. A year later, we're fortify our new terrority and building up the Iraqi economy and democracy. Things look good. If we start the war machine too soon, we'll never hear the end of it, but the Iraqi people know our intensions now and word-of-mouth spreads quickly to other parts of the Middle East. Not possible if we took over Syria and Iran in one big swoop because we'd be too busy fighting the whole world politically and trying to secure conquered land. Also I wouldn't worry, Germany and Japan were protected by natural borders and proxy countries, in Iraq these problematic Arab states are next door, we've got them in CHECK! We can handle the Arab world. God Bless America! |
| Posted by: CobraCommander 2004-3-11 8:53:03 AM |
| #5 The problem is the USA is going after the enemy a tiny piece at a time. Taking out the Iraqi regime while leaving Syria and Iran unmolested, is the equivalent of having waged WWII by going after Italy -- the weakest Axis power -- while leaving Germany and Japan to the diplomats, the League of Nations and the will of God. Every Islamic Fascist regime, Islamic theocracy, wahhabist madrassah and radical mosque must be pacified. |
| Posted by: Garrison 2004-3-11 6:08:50 AM |
| #4 I think that we are talking at cross-purposes here. I don't see the article as being one concerning protracted guerilla war, or even killing civilians, (though of course that is part of the practical effect), but rather by at least bruising the American Psyche, the US decides to stay out of the Muslim East. And here's the really deceptively tricky part...the American Psyche need not even be bruised...it can be triumphant in the United States, even generally so seen in much of the West...It is the perception within the Muslim World that America has been bruised that counts, and this need not even be true to be effective for the Jihadist... And this is what so far so irritates me in our approach to Iraq...it is my understand that we still don't have a large Media outlet, TV & Radio, opperating out of Iraq and beaming a signal all across the Middle East. I believe that the funding was cut for this essential project upon which so much hinges. It is the Arabic perception that America had a hard time that they are trying to control. Or that's how I read the article. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-3-11 5:11:04 AM |
| #3 I'm with SoT on this. The notion that protracted guerilla warfare primarily killing civilians can bring down a state is just recycled marxist phantasies. I am quite certain Iraq is well past the point that they could trigger chaos. There may well still be civil war in Iraq but the Jihadis won't be the cause. The cause will be good old fashioned ethnic rivalries. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-3-11 3:40:30 AM |
| #2 Okay, I'll grant you that I did take the, as you so nicely put it, "jihadi fantasy," to the next level...But I still think that the signifigant question is, "Is this what is going on in their heads?" Or, or even more import, "Is this what is going on in the heads of the general Iraqi Population?" even as some vague thought in the back of the mind? I take it...reading again your response that your answer would be, "No," doubled or cubed. |
| Posted by: Traveller 2004-3-11 3:39:42 AM |
| #1 oh please spare me--the blowback from this jihadi fantasy will crush them--a co-opted "new iraq" mukhabbarat will clean their clock --the quietist school of shia political thought from the howza will alienate the salafi/wahabbi dingbats who will have the influence of bin laden in a cave over the future of iraq--don't buy into this moongod baba ganoush |
| Posted by: SON OF TOLUI 2004-3-11 3:22:03 AM |