So many pundits predict that it'll take thirty years
to win the war on islamic extremist thugs.
I think we can win it in five, no matter who wins
the White House or the Congress in 2004.
The formula is simple, on the face of it: simply stand
up to what we say. We say that we're for freedom
and rights and opportunity. I believe that it's true;
most ordinary Americans think that if the rest of the
world is set free like us, then there'll be no more wars.
The rest of the world is beginning to doubt that we
stand for these things. They are beginning to suspect
that we are using our win in the cold war to dominate
the world, economically and culturally.
If we want to prove the critics wrong, then we have
a unique opportunity right now. There are three
adjustments to our policies that would win the rest
of the world over, and blunt the fire and brimstone
coming out of many mullahs across North Africa and
South Asia.
First, on June 30th, 2004, American forces in Iraq
should move to camps within the country, but
surrounding it's borders. The remaining personnel
stationed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE states
should be moved into Iraq or onto boats or back home
by the end of July, 2004.
Second, we should state clearly our position on Israel/
Palestine once and for all. Do we support statehood
for Palestine, or do we support Israel's delaying tactics?
Simple question; a simple answer will do. I'm not saying
that either answer is the better or best, but having a
concrete stance would help out our friends and flush
out our enemies.
Third, we should cut off all politically-motivated foreign
aid and begin a (cheaper) program of spending $5 billion
a year, starting with the poorest nation in the world,
and adding a new beneficiary every year. Spend $1
billion on a country each year for five years, and then
eliminate that country from further aid for 15 years.
The excess in the first four years of the plan should be
kept as a floating investment pool, for encouraging
local developments in the countries we help out.
By such a program's fifth year, the pool would have
$10 billion, we would be finishing infrastructure and
communications projects in the first country, and we
would be hard to peg as a Great Satan in the other
four countries we are helping out, or in the dozens of
poor countries coming up on the list.
The first move is aimed at soothing the roots of muslim
edginess which contribute to some muslims going
over the cliff into extremism. If we hand back Iraq as
we promised, on time, and pull back to the perimeters,
we can see exactly what work needs to be done before
our final pullout in 2005. And by getting out of other Arab
countries, we can put a wet blanket on much of the street
talk in muslim communities. Actions speak louder than
words. We need to pull out from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait,
now that Saddam is done for and our premise to be there
is gone. To remain any longer is counterproductive to our
overall strategy of reducing islamist threats.
The second move would let the rest of the world get on
with their lives. If we say that we're with Israel, rain or
shine, then so be it. We should come out and say it.
If we're committed to a Palestinian state, then fine.
We should come out and say it. The ambiguity in the
US's policy fills folks with doubt, and makes them think
that they have to push our buttons to figure out where
we stand. That's bad. We gotta come out and say
what outcome we're willing to fight for, and let other
countries do what they will.
The third move will go a long way to reducing the
abject poverty that festers over into violence, and
would make the goodwill of the US people apparent
to the rest of the world, in a way that is now hidden by
the social and development programs of the UN that
we are the majority funders of.
The synthesis of these three actions resolves America's
image problem, and either defuses the looming culture
war with islam, or brings it to a speedy conclusion. I can't
tell which, not before seeing how we decide about Israel.
Our troops around the periphery of Iraq could be called in
to guard polling places during their first election, at the discretion
of the Iraqi National Council, but we should leave soon after
that. By leave, i mean leave a carrier group in the Gulf, but
remove all ground troops from the area. When they see that
America is really not a new Rome bent on conquest, or when
they see it in our actions via a pullout, then we will have
blunted half of the conspiracy theories rampant in islamic
schools. Our parting gift to Iraq should be two pieces of
advice: "elect your leaders to remain free", and "if you let
a butcher take over your country again, we'll invade again."
By helping build infrastructure in the poorest countries, for
clean water and regular power and communications service,
we also take a leg out of our critics' arguments, namely that
we're only trying to "economically dominate" the world. In fact,
we already do, and have for forty years. We have to start giving
back more openly, instead of donating money blindly to the
UN. Helping the poorest, first, is likely to get us the most bang
for the buck, in both a capitalistic sense and an altruistic
sense, so that's all good, and it benefits the US in the political
arena as well.
And by solidifying our public stand on Israel/Palestine, we
get the honor of defining how we fight what may be the last
great conflict in the history of human-human warfare. All we
need to do to win respect from rank and file muslims is to stick
to our current promises and get out of Iraq and other Gulf
nations by 2005. If we can do that, the muslims will respect
us or fear us, who cares which? If we can do that, then
drawing our own line over the mideast will encourage all
interested parties to either fight to the death or just let it go.
Either way, it's got to come to a head, and American ambiguity
on the issue only contributes to islamist conspiracy theories
and anti-western hate crimes in islamic countries (and here in
the US too!). To cut out the problem at its root, we have to
force a resolution for the Palestinians and Israelis. That either
means recognizing a Palestinian state, or it means pushing
them all out of Gaza into Egypt and out of the West Bank into
Jordan. There really is no halfway position on the issue; either
we want one, or the other. Either way, it's got to come to a
head before the rest of humanity can move on.
Let's get it over with already. We need to pull out of the
Gulf, force a peace in Israel/Palestine, and begin an effective
and politically-blind foreign aid program. Do we want to lead
the world, or respond to it? I say that the US should lead the
rest of the countries to a reduction of standing armies by
guaranteeing present international borders, and by focusing
attention on the other half dozen border conflicts around the
world one at a time, until they're resolved.
We believe in freedom, so let's not seek to conquer. We
believe in rights, so let's allow Iraq to elect awful leaders
their first time around. And we believe in opportunity, so
let's support the poor countries with aid, not the ones we
want favors from. We won the Cold War, so we don't need
to buy favors anymore. Anyone who wants to play ball has
to deal with us anyway, so we might just as well spend our
money on good public relations as on a couple new
planes for Kuwait.
Well, i'm probably wrong, so point it out when you see it.
how're we ever going to figure this all out if we don't try?
SL
.
|
