On Oct. 6 President Bush described his war strategy in a speech before the National Endowment for Democracy. Bush began by stating what he sees as the essence of bin Laden's strategy. "They hit us, and expect us to run," the president explained. "They want us to repeat the sad history of Beirut in 1983, and Mogadishu in 1993 - only this time on a larger scale, with greater consequences." Al Qaeda's attack on the World Trade Center signified the following demand: Leave the Middle East or worse things will happen. Those who understand the psychology of conflict know that there is a natural impulse to contradict an enemy's expectations and block him from achieving his objectives. If enemy forces mass at a given point, friendly forces are massed in opposition. In the wake of 9/11 the president decided on military invasion and political intervention. In other words, "If you thought America was in the Middle East prior to 9/11, then you haven't seen anything yet."
President Bush believes that militant Islam wants to build a new totalitarian empire by toppling existing Middle East regimes. According to Bush, "the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governments." The Islamists threaten to trigger revolutions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan (as well as other countries). By invading Iraq, Bush has forced the Islamists to engage America in a contest over the future of one country. "Now they've set their sights on Iraq," Bush explained. When something vital is at stake, the moral and material resources of both sides are committed. A particular engagement escalates into a major battle. The war becomes fixated on a single decisive point. As Stratfor's George Friedman noted over a year ago, "This is not an unknown phenomenon in military history. During a war, a single campaign becomes bogged down, and rather than abandoning it, additional resources are thrown into it. Both sides keep upping the ante until the outcome of that particular campaign determines the outcome of the war. During World War II, Stalingrad became such a battle."
Here is what Germany's Field Marshal Erich von Manstein wrote in his memoirs: "The cause of [German] Sixth Army's destruction at Stalingrad is obviously to be found in Hitler's refusal ... to give up the city voluntarily." When a given objective is considered all-important the stakes grow larger and larger. The battle grows and feeds on itself. As President Bush explained, "the militants believe that controlling one country will rally the Muslim masses, enabling them to overthrow all moderate governments in the region, and establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia. With greater economic and military and political power, the terrorists would be able to advance their stated agenda: to develop weapons of mass destruction, to destroy Israel, to intimidate Europe, to assault the American people, to blackmail our government into isolation."
As Stratfor's George Friedman noted in his book, the invasion of Iraq wasn't decided on because of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush wanted to bolster America's strategic credibility and diplomatic influence in the Middle East. "On a strategic level," wrote Friedman, "the United States has actually done extremely well." Not a single Arab regime has fallen to Islamic militants. According to Friedman, "the United States was extremely effective [due to the Iraq invasion] at reshaping the behavior of [Middle East] regimes."
But despite positional advantages, the United States cannot end the war in Iraq. Furthermore, Syria and Iran remain defiant and al Qaeda continues to exist. The insurgency claims more lives, day by day. Even more important, anti-Americanism continues to prevail in the Arab world. According to President Bush, "The militants are aided ... by elements of the Arab news media that incite hatred and anti-Semitism, that feed conspiracy theories and speak of a so-called American 'war on Islam' - with seldom a word about American actions to protect Muslims in Afghanistan, and Bosnia, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq."
Why don't Arabs like Americans? Why don't they cheer the liberators of Iraq?
The answer is simple. The unifying theme of Arab politics is incitement against the Jews and, by extension, against an America that is supposedly "under Jewish influence." Hatred of Israel is imbedded in Arab politics. Belief in a Jewish global conspiracy is an essential element, as it was in the politics of Hitlerism. America's popularity in the Middle East would skyrocket if President Bush advocated the destruction of Israel. In that event, Bush would become the Arab world's favorite American president. But such an advocacy is inconceivable and would shock mainstream American sensibilities. And so President Bush will never win Arab approval.
It is noteworthy that the Arab American Institute sponsored a poll taken in 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq. According to this poll an overwhelming majority of Arabs expressed a preference for democracy while disliking the United States (due to its support of Israel). According to the Christian Science Monitor a more recent poll (also sponsored by the Arab American Institute) revealed that America's unpopularity remains about same as it was in 2002. Two-thirds of the people in the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Jordan and Morocco hold a negative view of the United States. This is hardly a mandate for President Bush's Iraq policy. If Arabs worldwide were allowed to vote on America's presence in the Middle East, they would overwhelmingly vote for an American withdrawal. It seems that President Bush's program for democracy as the key to winning the "Battle of Iraq" has collided with a hardened Middle East mindset that regards the U.S. as an imperialist power driven by Jewish interests.
A young Arab woman, Brigitte Gabriel, spoke at Columbia University last March in an attempt to explain the Arab mind to Americans. "I am an eyewitness and a victim of the indoctrination of hate education, racism, intolerance, intimidation and fabricated lies," she explained. "This indoctrination was for one purpose: To eradicate the newborn state of Israel; to foment hatred and wipe out Jewish presence in an Arab dominated world. For Arabs, the simple existence of Israel was viewed as a catastrophe...."
The policy of the Bush administration expects "democracy" to bring positive, moderating influences to the region. President Bush envisions peace between Israel and the Arabs. Unfortunately, peace between Jews and Arabs is unlikely because there is no propaganda of Jewish-Arab reconciliation to be found in the Arab world. "From television programs, to national songs, hourly radio newscasts and newspapers, our citizens were fed a steady diet of lies," Gabriel noted. "The only time we'll have peace in the Middle East [according to Arab broadcasts] is when we kill all the Jews and drive them into the sea." Gabriel said that an entire generation of Arabs has been molded into "misguided weapons; some willing to be martyred in the name of Islam or Palestinian nationalism." She further observed, "Where is the objectivity in the Arab world when they claim that the destruction of the World Trade Center was a CIA/Mossad plot?"
Against the irrational beliefs and political hatreds of the Arabs, President Bush is helpless. He cannot win Arab hearts and minds in Iraq because he will not sacrifice Israel to Arab hatred. "We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave and intimidate the world," Bush noted. "No act of ours invited the rage of the killers - and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder." But this characterization doesn't merely apply to the Islamic militants. The entire Arab world favors the eradication of Israel. In this event, we are not only facing a radical ideology but a radicalized population that has absorbed a doctrine of hate. If Bush ignores the reality on the ground, how can he expect his strategy to produce a positive outcome?
"Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims," Bush explained. "Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery."
These points are true enough, but how does the administration propose to fight radical Islam?
President Bush listed four strategic priorities: (1) Prevent terrorist attacks "before they occur." (2) Deny weapons of mass destruction "to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation." (3) Deny "radical groups the support and sanctuary of outlaw regimes." (4) Deny the "militants control of any nation, which they would use as a home base and a launching pad for terror." As Bush further explained, "The terrorist goal is to overthrow a rising democracy, claim a strategic country as a haven for terror, destabilize the Middle East, and strike America and other free nations with ever-increasing violence. Our goal is to defeat the terrorists and their allies at the heart of their power - and so we will defeat them in Iraq."
To those who question the durability of democracy in Iraq, President Bush gave the following, answer: "They underestimate the power and appeal of freedom." He further stated that "democratic federalism is the best hope for unifying a diverse population, because a federal constitutional system respects the rights and religious traditions of all citizens, while giving all minorities, including the Sunnis, a stake and a voice in the future of their country." This is an optimistic assessment of a paper constitution, which may not take into account the psychology of Iraq's Shiite majority. Furthermore, how does the president's plan relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict? And how might the Arab-Israeli conflict endanger it?
Some believe that terrorism feeds on Arab poverty and backwardness. But terrorism in the Middle East is more obviously due to a political culture of hate. It is this culture that American policy must break. In outlining his war strategy President Bush reveals his intention. He seeks to gradually break the culture of hate by forcing the Arab masses to a decision: freedom or bin Laden. As long as American troops remain in Iraq the United States is undefeated and al Qaeda has its back to the wall. The Arabs have the option of reversing their culture of hate. From its bases in Iraq, American forces can support regional allies and attack regional foes. America cannot win the Arab street, but it can hunt al Qaeda to ineffectuality. Whatever the president's errors, however unrealistic his base assumptions, American military power gives Washington a degree of regional influence and power that increases the chances that future terrorist attacks will fail.
The opponents of this strategy have yet to propose a viable alternative.
