What This War Is All About
by
Patrick
J. Buchanan
by
Patrick J. Buchanan
June
28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to
Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a
day freighted with historic significance.
On
June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip
fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand
and led, five weeks later, to World War I.
On
June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied
starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to
march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War
I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied
triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster.
Thus,
it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss
statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls
the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war?
To
answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions.
What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is
the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for?
Since
9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution
for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run Al
Qaeda out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend
America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans
believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that
something has gone wrong.
The
nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall
rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views
and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world
of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence?
What
our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya
to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of
the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the
United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world
against the West.
If
this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S.
invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy.
Consider
what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic
fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Ba'ath Party
is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their
allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and
supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the
Americans.
The
destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun.
Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves
from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people.
Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western
investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart
Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
"There
exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region,"
Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some
people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred
toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented
hatred and the Americans know it."
This
longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe,
not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe,
in America, anywhere in the world." The war on Iraq into which his
neo-conservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited
the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the
president said he wanted to avoid.
Raised
to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of
her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting
tool Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi
soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq.
Of
late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our
presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when
this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis
rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the
modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American
Islamic revolution?
War,
Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other
means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice
of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule
whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now
rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of
Arab peoples.
This
is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States
needs to do three things that may go against the political interests
of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove
our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs.
We
Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are
invited, we would be invited more often to come and help.
June
30, 2004
Patrick
J. Buchanan [send
him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide,
is editor of The American
Conservative and the author of seven books, including A
Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright
© 2004 Creators Syndicate
Patrick
J. Buchanan Archives
|