perfidy

The dictatorial leaders of Iran and Syria have both publically announced that they intend to do everything possible to prevent the emergence of a free and prosperous Iraq, and to attack the United States wherever their puny weapons can reach. Syria's Assad proclaimed that Lebanon would be the model for his nation's campaign against the coalition. Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei said that America's presence in Iraq would be even worse for Iran than Saddam, who waged a bloody decade long war against Iran. Iran has gathered terrorist and guerilla forces on its border, and Syria may already have sent terrorists across its border.

The threat of a free Iraq has led these two nations to move from rote propaganda condemnations of the "Great Satan" to the verge of actual hostilities. For those who are already uncomfortable with the fact that America is at war, this will be disturbing. But for a Jacksonian like myself, this is good news. America as a whole is slow to anger, and we have absorbed hundreds of small attacks with little or no reaction. (And, of course, this likely encouraged further attacks.) The attacks on the WTC and Pentagon finally woke people up to the fact that there is in fact a threat, and in fact a rather serious one.

Now that the war is started, I'd like to see it actually finished, not left festering like back in '91. And, as events unfold, "finished" might include Syria and Iran. Iran's population openly loaths the regime - it is likely that the mullahs will be toppled with only minimal effort on America's part. Syria, like Iraq a Baathist dictatorship, might require more effort. Once Iraq is settled, Syria is stuck between Iraq and US naval forces in the Med.

The prospect of further conflict in the Middle East is not something that should be approached recklessly or, god forbid, with glee. I do not relish the idea of more American casualties, or of more civilian casualties in Syria or Iran. Would we have stopped fighting Nazi Germany after liberating France? I think that a similar issue confronts us in the Middle East. The United States has reluctantly undertaken a War on Terror, not just against Al Quaida. We have declared that terrorism, of all kinds, is a target. Syria and Iran are the two largest state supporters of terrorism. When we consider the intersection of two things - direct threat to American citizens by way of Syrian and Iranian sponsored terrorism, and the plight of the citizens of these two repressive governments, I believe that we have an obligation to act, just as we did in Iraq.

We have liberated Afghanistan. Iraq is not far behind. If we can encourage the hundreds of thousands of democracy activists in Iran (brave, brave people - they protest in a nation where protests can get you killed.) to overthrow the mullahs, and depose Assad's facsist government, and encourage reform in Pakistan - we will have helped to create a stretch of free Islamic nations from the Europe to the Indus river. Coincidently, this is roughly the extent of Alexander's Empire. But unlike Alexander, the United States clearly has no imperial aims. We do not plan to incorporate these nations into a new American empire. The US has been taken up the mountain, but we have refused to be tempted. Now some might argue that these new regimes will be part of America's global hegemony - but no more so than France or Germany, who are world famous for toeing the American foriegn policy line. American (and British and Australian) companies will win contracts from the new governments. But is the fact that an American company can make some money dealing with a freely elected representative of the Iraqi people worse than the shady deals that TotalElFina made with Saddam with the collusion of bribed French officials?

If these experiments in liberty amongst the Mohammedans are as successful as Turkey, or South Korea, American national security will be enhanced. We will have helped make hundreds of millions of people citizens of responsible governments - similar to the effect on Eastern Europe after we won the cold war. (Sadly, Russia does not seem to be going far in that direction - perhaps that extra thirty years of communism was too much.) If they could be as successful as Japan, the example that these nations will set might set off reforms in other Islamic nations.

The most crucial of these will be Saudi Arabia. With the largest reserves of oil in the world, Saudi Arabia has a influence on the world economy all out of proportion to the skill or education of its people, its industry or economy, or its contribution to world civilization. Saudi Arabia is a primitive tribal culture sitting on top of a gold mine. It is a perverse welfare state for the rich. Despite the vast amounts of money that oil brought, the Saudis have made no effort to develop an economy. Since the Saudis don't work, over 70% of all jobs in the country are held by foriegners. That percentage jumps to 90% when private sector jobs are examined. And Saudi Arabia undergoing a demographic explosion - half of the population is under 18, and the nation has the highest birth rate of any country outside Africa.

This nation also supplies vast amounts of money to fundamentalist Islamic groups in Saudi Arabia and around the world. We all know that a majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. Most of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi. These young Saudis, well educated, entering their twenties and entering an economy specifically designed to not provide jobs for them, are perfect targets for the Wahabbis. Somehow, this must be fixed. Hopefully, it can be fixed without further American intervention. But we won't really be safe from Islamic terrorism until the last sources of funding have been cut off. And that means Saudi Arabia.