From: "Adam Flinton" 


"William F. Zachmann"  wrote
in message news:3e92c6eb{at}w3.nls.net...
> Adam,
>
> I think we are much more in agreement than not.  I think the real test of
> the relative 'goodness' of real US/Brit intentions will come after the
> present war.  I have no doubt that part of the aim here is to have a
greater
> influence in the Middle East and to make it clear to other potential
> opponents the US/Britain mean business and a prepared to take care of
> business.  Creating conditions for the establishment of a reasonably
> enlightened, reasonably democratic government in Iraq would certainly
drive
> a major wedge into the heart of the territory and give us substantially
> increased leverage in the area.
>

It will also make clear to all the non nuke countries that the only real
defence against the US is H bomb tipped ICBM'es. Don't know how that
"meshes" with the US views on non proliferation.

> Where the test comes is in how that leverage is used.  If it is used
> exclusively against the more bellicose (toward us) and 'fundamentalist'
> Islamic elements in the area then I would say that your concerns might
very
> well prove justified.  That would not, however, necessarily follow.
> Realpolitik does work to a considerable extent and even amoral force does
> sometimes have the intended effect as well.  Such a scenario, however,
would
> not support the notion that US/Brit motivations here have been
particularly
> moral.
>

It's not just a matter of vs the Islamic fundamentalists. It's about the
aim to democratise the Arab world. That means avowedly non Islamic regimes
too (like the remaining Baathists in Syria, the Egyptians etc). Look at
that ex.CIA chief  Woolsey  & his comments re "World War IV".
What I think the US underestimates is the ability of Arabs to vote for
people the US /UK may not like. i.e. even with the Neo-con agenda satisfied
& a totally democratic middle east the Arabs (& Persians) may still
be anti-israeli & anti-US.


> If, however, that leverage is applied to Israel as well, then I think a
much
> improved set of outcomes becomes increasingly possible.  There is really
no
> mystery about what the appropriate ultimate resolution of the Arab/Israeli
> conflict must be:  1) the Arab states must accept the existence of Israel
> and actively put an end to aggressive actions against Israel; 2) Israel
must
> accept the creation of a Palestinian state and permanent borders for BOTH
> entities (Israel and the Palestinian state); and 3) guarantees for all the
> above must be provided by the international community, preferably through
> the UN (but with teeth).  The rest is details.
>

Yup. It will be 1967 borders +- a little. The problem is going to be making
the Israeli right come to it's senses & give up eretz Israel &
admit that it's been building lovely houses/apartment blocks for
Palestinians.

> Balanced leverage post Iraq War II would be to press all parties (most
> explicitly INCLUDING Israel) strongly enough to bring about such a
> resolution.  US/Brit success in Iraq and fear of further action against
> other nations in the area (e.g. Syria, Iran) will help pressure the Arabs
to
> accept and actively guarantee the permanent acceptance of Israel.  It will
> also help to pressure Israel to accept international guarantees and to
cease
> efforts to expand territorially.  Willingness to exert equal pressure on
> Israel will complete the circle.  One-sided pressure against only the Arab
> nations, however, would justify criticism of US/Britain as merely Israeli
> mercenaries/surrogates and make the outcomes that concern you far more
> likely.
>

I agree entirely. However I wait to be surprised. Can the US admin bring
itself to bring that sort of pressure onto Israel? & Congress?  Most
Arabs I know are in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp.

They see the US wandering round the place decrying "Weapons of Mass
Destruction" while oddly not noticing the Jericho rockets, dimona etc.
Again will Bush even raise that vs going to say the UN & demanding that
Israel disarm itself of WMD?

Maybe having such deep links into a major arab country will change the US
mindset. E.g. all those Patriots deployed in Jordan & Iraq could give
Iraq , Jordan & Iran immunity / a shield against the Israeli rockets.
Will the US propose that? Ring Israel with Patriot & put a couple of
Aegis ships off the coast  to help persuade them that WMD'es are a mistake
for a small power?

What you see now in the arab world is a simple disbelief in almost anything
the US says. Part of the reason why the Iraqis haven't said hooray the US
is here is because they just don't believe the US. It is the std Arab
position. Look how often the US Pres & his people (& indeed the UK
people) have had to repeat that they're there till Saddam is gone, that
they're not there after the oil, that they don't want to take over the
country or install their stooges. The reason they have to keep repeating
this is because the Arabs have seen words like this again & again &
again & again & yet these words have always fallen at the fence of
a resolute Israeli "no". That's what they're expecting now. Their
basic postion is "you can't be betrayed if you never believed them in
the first place".

 The US could force the issue & the reality is that the Israelis would fold.
Equally both the Israelis & Palestinians could be let into NATO or some
sort of defensive alliance with the US thus addressing all their defence
needs. However once more.......what's the betting that only Israel would
get that offer? & If the Palestinians did & the Israelis launched
an "incursion" then....would the US really put aircraft over Tel
Aviv?

Most Arabs I know would hoot with laughter at the idea. I suspect that now
& in the future that will include most Iraqis.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4