anitram said:
Many Middle East analysts have said that if regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, etc. were overthrown, the people would elect/install fundamentalist Islamic governments.
My question to you is that if the US wants a democracy in the middle east, and the result of democratic elections are such that a fundamentalist government is chosen, then what? Do the people not have a right to elect whomever they want? Or is it only a democracy insofar as the new government must toe the Washington party line?
I am not sure we can have it both ways. Either the people of the Arab world get to choose their representatives democratically (no matter how much you disagree with what these representatives stand for) or they do not. And if the latter is true, then there is no democracy we are bringing to them at all. These are not questions that will go away. Bush needs to ask himself what democracy in that region really means.
I think this war is about 30% about WMD's. 10% about freeing Iraqi's (can't tell me Bush has been losing alot of sleep worrying about the poor Iraqi kids). 30% about establishing a pro-US, yet democratic government somewhere in the Middle East - and everything that will mean. 30% about the political games we have seen over the last few months - US muscle flexing resulting in pretty much ruining the UN, possibly Nato, and the relationship between US and alot of the world.
If you look back at something like for example the Cuban Missile Crisis in regards to the Cold War now and its not so much the event that is important, but what it meant and how it changed the Cold War, and I'll bet we look back on this war not to the event itself (assuming something serious doesn't happen and it goes pretty much to plan) but will see it as a turning point, a spark that changes the makeup of how the world operates with each other. I think this is a very deliberate move by the US.
We'll forget the details of this war, but will know it was the point the US decided that there wouldn't be a world government (UN) but a world governer (US). "With us or against us" "It's time to show us your cards." Anyone who dares disagree with the US is out. Alliances are out. International treaties and agreements are out.
It's not about oil. But it is about power, and the thing that gives the Middle East power is the oil. Africa is f*ked. Dictators, terrorists, genocide, could easily be the next Middle East in terms of unrest, harboring and creating new bin Ladens etc, but it doesn't have oil, so there would be no power games over the US invading an African country. They could cruise right in. There would be no argument over Nth Korea, cos everyone agrees they're a threat. Iraq creates a huge argument, and the US wanted it.
All you have to do is read the US Foreign Policy plan, you can get it straight off the White House site, or track down info and articles about a plan written by Cheney and Wolfowitz back in the early 90's about how they thought the US should be in the post Cold War world, theres alot out there written on it. Pre-emptive strikes, no long term alliances - only those that are needed for short term purposes (the ones the US buys with aid in trade for bases, air space, keep your mouth shut), and make sure no-one else can become a superpower, including driving as many wedges as possible in Europe to stop the EU becoming too powerful.
I think this will get interesting once the war finishes and the fight starts over who controls Iraq. Today you have Tony Blair flying in to tell GW it should be the UN and GW saying no way, it should be the US, UK and Australia. There have been rumours the US wants it controlled by their generals for up to 8 years. I'm betting there'll be another US vs UN showdown and you'll see a bit more of everyones true colours showing.