Return to The Modern Tribune Home Page

The Winds of War: Democratizing the Middle East

Drawing the Line in the Sand

By D. LINDLEY YOUNG
The Modern Tribune - March 28, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. (3/28) - Will US go to more wars to democratize the Mid-east? The Bush administration has presented what is called the "Greater Middle East Initiative." The Bush administration has said it wants to make democracy-building a central part of the U.S.-led war on terrorism. After Introducing the plan  a State Department official told the Washington Post, “There is a belief that (Helsinki) contributed to bringing Europe together and played a significant role in tearing down the Soviet Union. In the same way, this idea would tear down the attractiveness of (Islamic) extremism.”

In November 2003 Bush said it was a “forward strategy of freedom in Middle East.” Bush has repeatedly talked about his answering the "call of history" and providing "God's gift of democracy" to the Middle East. Based upon what may be called the Bush ambition, there is no reason to believe he will let anything stand in his way. As put by Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage in the run up to the war on Iraq, "we will take them down one at a time" like in a "wrestling match."

According to a November 3, 2003 Secretary of State press release: To support this advance of freedom, U.S. policy rests upon eight "non-negotiable demands of human dignity": rule of law, limits on the power of the state, free speech, freedom of worship, equal justice, respect for women, religious and ethnic tolerance, and respect for private property, according to Powell.

"Dictators and despots can build walls high enough to keep out armies, but not high enough to keep those winds from blowing in," Powell said to students and faculty of City College of New York.

The plan and reaction

The Bush administration hopes to get support for the initiative during this summer’s G-8, NATO and EU summits. The initiative is loosely based on the 1975 Helsinki accords. That pact was signed by 35 nations, including the US, the Soviet Union and most of Europe. Although the initiative's priorities are set forth as promoting democracy and good governance, widening regional access to education and information, and expanding economic opportunities so far, the reaction by countries in the has not been good.

On a recent trip by Secretary of State Colin Powell to India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kuwait, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, a copy of the plan was leaked. According the The Sunday Times, "But when Arab nations saw a leaked copy of the plan, they were incensed and viewed it as another condescending imposition of American values without their prior consultation." The The Sunday Times quoted Mr. Harvey Sicherman, president of the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute: "In the Middle East, things have got to change. But do you just announce a lot of changes and then let people take it or leave it? I think that the important consulting phase had been left out." The Sunday Times concluded: "So the plan was scrapped and will apparently be replaced by a different version that seeks to bolster reforms already begun in the region. But the damage was done."

The New York Times recently reported Washington will "set aside its plan to issue a sweeping call for economic, political and cultural reform in the Middle East" because of "Arab objections that such a call would give the appearance that change was being dictated" from outside the region. According to the Times the reaction to the initiative has cause a little retreat by Bush. Now, the US will at the G-8 summit "instead proclaim its endorsement of reforms under way in the Middle East."

According to writer Zeyno Baran, Director of International Security and Energy Programs at The Nixon Center, a senior Jordanian official recently said at a workshop on radical Islamist ideology, “this whole initiative of democratic and economic development in the greater Middle East seems like a way out of dealing with the heart of the matter: unless the U.S. helps resolve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, whatever else it does in the region will backfire and will be perceived as insincere.” Anyone who thinks otherwise is ignorant of the region’s realities.

The line in the sand. 

The Bush "with us or against us" policy is compelling a division of the world. Bush administration insults have not helped. Calling the UN "irrelevant," the North Koreans "pygmies,"  Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, "axis of evil," Europe "old Europe," millions of global anti-war protests as a "focus group," etc. The Texas bravado is less than diplomatic: "Bring em' on."

Shortly after the war on Iraq started, Bush warned the world that those that are "wise" are with the US and against Iraq. The implication was that if you were not with the US you were not "wise," and, as it is evolving, the unwise will be targets in US war sites. 

Opposition to the US appears to be increasing from other countries. The reason is simple, they may be next.

Bush has a long list of "rogue" nations which probably grows as more and more express opposition to the Bush invasion of Iraq. It appears that all who disagree with Bush are "rogue" nations.  

The campaign for more wars is under way. Syria and Iran have already been put on notice that there will be consequences to them for supporting Iraq. In an unusual statement after the war on Iraq started, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld publicly warned Syria and Iran that their actions in assisting Iraq would be considered as endangering US troops and they would be considered as combatants. Rumsfeld may have signaled who would be the next US target: specifically saying Syria "will be held responsible."  

There were early signs of the campaign for a possible widening of the war. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell demanded Syria decide whether it wants to risk supporting Iraq. In a speech to a Jewish group, Powell accused Syria of providing "direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein." Powell accented, "Syria ... now faces a critical choice." Powell stated, "Syria can continue to direct support for terrorist groups and the dying regime of Saddam Hussein, or it can embark on a different and more hopeful course. Either way, Syria has the responsibility for its choices and for the consequences."  

Syrian response was swift. Syrian Foreign Ministry made clear their choice by stating it hoped to "see the invaders defeated in Iraq." This was consistent with the position of Syrian leadership. Shortly after that,  Syrian President Basdhar Assad called upon Arab regimes to oppose the US-led war against Iraq and called for suicide missions against US forces in Iraq. Assad has indicated that Syria will not just sit back and wait to be "next." 

The pre-Syrian war justifications have been on the table for some time. The media has repeatedly asserted that it is believed Saddam has hidden WMD in Syria.

With respect to Iran, which Bush has denounced as a member of an "axis of evil" along with Iraq and North Korea, Powell said in his Sunday speech that Iran must stop its  support of terrorism against Israel and "Iran must stop its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to produce them.''  

Setting the stage

Bush has set the stage for his “I'll get you first” war policy and it is polarizing the world. This "you’re next" war flaunted by Bush is an incubator for creating enemies. It appears designed to alienate and to polarize in order to justify expansion of the war and most of the world knows this.  It is as though Bush is trying to provoke global conflict and is not stopping with Afghanistan and Iraq. Some argue that Bush is deliberately creating circumstances for a war that has far greater ambition than disarming Iraq. 

In the run up to the war on Iraq, Syria and Iran, other countries took strong positions. Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt the US as "very dangerous." Belgian RTL TV quoted him saying, "America, a power deeply injured, and has become very dangerous, and it thinks to take over the whole Arab world."  

To compound problems created by the "you’re next" Bush diplomacy; Bush specifically named seven nations last year to a "first strike nuclear hit list." Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and Cuba were among those included on the list of elite targets. The nuclear hit list cannot be forgotten by those on it.

The situation is at best volatile.

Those who may be "next" will stiffen resistance to submission to Bush dominance. This resistance will prove the "rogue" nature of the opposition to the new US policy of freeing the world and will provide the Bush war enthusiasts opportunities to expand the war. The US move for global domination under the guise of liberation is likely impacting the policies of certain nations as they are forced to determine when and where they will fight their war against the US. They must fight at some time or wait knowing they could be "next."  

The new American century is here. 

The new American century is here. Plans for expansion of the war have been on the table for a long time. (See, Project New American Century (PNAC), Letter to Clinton  dated January 2, 1998, Pres. Bush "Top Secret" Memo to Pentagon  dated September 17, 2001 ordering preparation for war on Iraq, Article entitled "Secret US plan for Iraq war"  from The Guardian dated December 2, 2001, "Might and Morality," A Strategy  for World Dominance by The Modern Tribune.) 

The world is well aware of US plans to pursue a Bush proclaimed call from God and history to rid the world of "evildoers." The search for evil is much more than the Salem Witch Hunts or McCarthyism. The world is its target. The plan is having results. 

The "you’re next" and "you are a suspect" approach to foreign policy and diplomacy will yield consequences. Bush has pushed the world into a corner along with Saddam Hussein. There appears no exit other than submission to Bush dominance – or unconditional surrender.  

Preventive war to create cycle of violence 

The preventive war doctrine of the Bush administration appears more a vehicle to create enemies in order to justify war than to protect America. It seems to be working. The world is clearly divided with an ever-widening global conflict unveiling. 

This week, the war and methods of war expanded towards a greater global conflict. The gap widens as the US vetoes UN condemnation of the assignation of Hamas spiritual leader Yassin and Spain's threat to withdraw troops from Iraq if the UN does not get involved.

Anyone that is aware of PNAC would be convinced that the setting for multiple wars in multiple theaters is no accident. America world "leadership" (domination) by "military means” has been a plan that PNAC has been patiently and methodically pursuing since 1997. The stage is set for the PNAC plan for multiple wars to provide, as Bush calls it, “God's gift of democracy to the world.”

Opportunity now knocks for the neo-con hawks. And like the monkey clinching the food through the hole in the gourd, they would rather be caught than let go.

| Home | Contact The Modern Tribune |