Strategic Overview of a World-Wide Civil War

Throughout my business school years in the mid-nineties, the constant refrain coming from the mouths of my professors centered around how the world was getting smaller. They said it would be essential for the future businessman to understand the effects of technology's ability to rapidly bringing markets and people together with astonishing speed. The problems that would arise for the businessman in this world would, at their nature, not be technologicial, but cultural. Many cultures did not have the adaptive capabilities that primarily western driven technology did, and cultural clashes would result. The successful businessman would not only find a way to overcome technological obstacles, they would also find solutions to dicey, and more sticky, cultural issues.

This officially became an issue not just to the businessmen, but to all Americans on the morning of September 11, 2001. As four airplanes turned from passenger carriers to missiles, our geographical barriers were shattered by technology. Our own, home-built airplanes were literally hijacked by those expressing another "cultural viewpoint," which orginated half-a-world-away. Americans would have to face a world that would never be the same again--a world that would have to find solutions to these "cultural clashes" resulting from a shrinking globe. Now, the world is trying to decide what ideology it will embrace moving forward into the future.

Origins From the Cold War

The West was at "war" with itself post-WWII. During the Cold War, there were those who openly sympathized with the opposing, expansionist Communists in hopes to bring utopia to the world. In their view, capitalism embodied by corporations were responsible for keeping the poor down, while the hopes of the redistribution of wealth and the rise of the proletariate would bring "harmony" to an otherwise oppressed world. Soviet gulags, massacres of students in Tiananmen Square and the Khmer Rouge were just a handful of dreadful examples of reality belying ideology. In reality, all governments that embraced communism, would turn into the fat pigs that they so despised as illustrated in George Orwell's masterpiece, Animal Farm. Yet, there were still those in the West not living under such state sanctioned oppression, who continued to loathe the imperfect, but free world in spite of this reality.

Communism as a world force, crumbled in 1991 as the Soviet Union completely imploded. The result has been a gradual liberalization of previously oppressed countries, while former red-book carrying members in China have abandoned ideological communism for just plain totalitarianism, in order to keep the money flowing. However, even though Communism took a few nudges from the West, it basically imploded on itself. Western proponents of democracy saw this as a vindication of their worldview, while many western opponents simply burned with anger and believed that the Soviet Union simply screwed up a perfectly good idea.

Unlike the American Civil War, where the South bled and died for their faulty ideologies and had to face their humiliation after Appomatix, the Left didn't face any consequences to their's, and they continued to rage against the West. For a short time, they were "quieted" as they no longer had a single-unifying symbol to support. Many splintered symbols emerged: the far-left environmental movement (ultimately symbolized in Kyoto), various anti-globalization movements, multiculturalism and transnational progressivism. This is not an exhaustive list, but of those, transnational progressivism was the least offensive, and most inclusive refuge for those seeking a way to continue their opposition to Western ideals (for more background on the specifics of transnational progressivism, please read this post by Steven Den Beste).

The Islamic World - Post-Cold War

Technology was shrinking the world and Islamic fundamentalists and Middle Eastern dictatorships saw their grip loosen. The West was capable of projecting power, through rapid deployment, in strategically important locations throughout the world. The brutal oppression in Middle Eastern countries, which were previously covered under the umbrella of the heavy-weight Soviet Union, became exposed. The first major projection of power was displayed when the meglamoniacal Saddam Hussein miscalculated and invaded Iraq's small, but strategically important neighbor. The West rallied a coalition, using a transnational progressivist institution, to push him back. Middle Eastern leaders were terrified as the strongest Arab army in the Middle East was embarrassed in front of the world by the infidel's army.

Now, like all conflicts, there were some inherant contradictions in this battle. Self-preservation is rule number one, and the very existence of the Saudi Arabian government was threatened by Saddam. They knew that the West would not come in and remove them from power, but would instead use their military might to keep Saddam from destroying them. They reluctantly allowed the West to step in, but in turn risked the natural influences the western infidels would have on their region.

Islamic fundamentalists went absolutely insane over this. They already saw the House of Saud as a corrupting influence of authentic Islam, and now they were actually letting Western infidels infiltrate their Holy Land to fight against a Muslim, Arab "brother." Osama Bin Laden declared Holy War against the West and the House of Saud for this violation.

A Storm Brewing

Anti-Western sentiment was brewing strongly as a residual effect of Western influence in the Middle East. Islamic clerics and fundamentalists raged against the West and fueled hatred, particularly aimed at America, throughout the Arabian Penninsula. Eventually Afghanistan fell to the fundamentalist Taliban, and mullah-contolled Iran already had its raison d’être of wrath against America. To rip off Mel Brooks--during the mid-nineties, it was good to be a fundamentalist.

Saudi Arabia, while diplomatically in good graces with the West, was seeking to placate and turn the raging population's ire away from them. As typical in Arab society, the House of Saud passively and quietly funded the Islamic Fundamentalists' revolution through bribes. As long as they could keep in good standing with the West, the money flowed to the opposition, and they remained "in control."

However, bribes only go so far, and their hopes were wrong when they believed that the Islamic Fundamentalists would be content with only controlling their existing pockets in the Middle East. Instead, the Islamic Fundamentalists truly believed what they were preaching, and with their faith in the will of Allah, decided to slug it out with the infidels. Western targets were attacked throughout the Middle East and the West recoiled. The Fundamentalists figured that Allah was delivering their heads on a platter, and decided to go for a big strike. Just as the West was able to project power across the globe, al-Qaeda shrewdly showed their ability to do the same on the morning of September 11th. Al-Qaeda hit America, on it's home soil, harder than she had ever been hit before.

Battle Lines Drawn -- Time to Choose Sides

Richard Fernandez (formerly Wretchard), beautifully articulates the crux of where the geopolitical world currently stands:

The phrase "Global War on Terror" may, in retrospect, turn out to be the least descriptive of terms to apply to the worldwide upheaval since September 11. Perhaps future historians will find a more appropriate phrase to describe the changes that have remade the political and attitudinal landscape not only in the Middle East, but also in the West. In that tale Iraq will play a strange part. Never an obvious strategic an end in itself, the campaign against Saddam's former dominion served as the vortex around which forces defined themselves, dividing into one side or the other, in the process of remolding the world. The effects of the decision to invade are still rippling through Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Europe. And the odds are that if there is a settling of accounts in Iraq it will not be the last country in which this happens.

I purposely ended the Islamic Post-Cold War section above with September 11th. September 11th is the true defining point where all sides began to dig in; Iraq was just the issue that caused people to entrench. Without September 11th, the United States would never have driven a full assault into Afghanistan or Iraq. Americans would of never had the will, nor would its leaders have the casus beli to drive such intiatives. There were a multitude of reasons given for the invasion, but they all would have fallen dead at Congress' feet if 19 terrorists hadn't taken the lives of 3,000 innocent civilians.

Richard hints that world opinion surrounding events Iraq is multifacited, and these events will determine the course of history for not only Iraq, America and her allies, but for the course of the entire world.

Iraq has finally given the Far-Left, who so loathed and battled the West from within during the Cold War, a unifying cause. They realize that American success in Iraq will result in a triumph of American values. In their view, the horror of this occurrance is much greater than a world where nihilistic, fascists blow up innocent people. They fear a world where a capitalist based United States once again emerges victorious.

Unfortunately for the Left, a policy of opposition immediately aligns you with your opponent's enemies. Where the Left mainly opposes the nationalistic and capitalist nature of the West, the Islamists oppose it for it's liberalism. If you listen to a rant from Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky on the "evil American Empire" and compare it with Osama Bin Laden and Abu al-Zarqawi's latest recordings, you'll hear the similarity in their goals--America, no matter what, must not be allowed to succeed. David Lazare demonstrated one of the best examples of this Leftist disconnect on Michael Medved's show:

David Lazare: ...I mean my point is that is that I’m critical of American power. Osama bin Laden is critical of American power. But our criticisms are worlds apart. I mean I have no truck with Osama bin Laden. Obviously, I was as horrified as you were by 9/11. And to somehow say because I don't like the way America conducts itself and he doesn't like it, that, therefore, we have a commonality – we have nothing in common, nothing. Philosophically, politically, in any way, we have nothing in common. And that goes for Leslie Cagan, too.

Michael Medved: But wait. There's a difference Daniel Lazare, with all due respect, there is a difference here. Let me cite for you something that happened recently since David's book, Unholy Alliance, came out, which is that in Chile when President Bush visited Santiago, the demonstrators there demonstrated with hammer and sickle signs and headbands, and someone was holding a very large sign that said, "Hang on, Fallujah." Now, do you think that – do you feel some sympathy for the so-called insurgents in Fallujah?

Daniel Lazare: Oh, absolutely yes, total sympathy, total solidarity.

...Of course, absolutely. The insurgents in Fallujah are repelling a foreign invasion. They have every right to do it. Now, I’m not going to support every last action by every last fighter there, obviously, but certainly they have a right to repel a foreign invasion of their country.

The results of an American success will be catastrophic for either side--the Left loses as America becomes stronger and unhindered; the Islamists lose as liberalism, not fundamentalist Islam, spreads through their homeland.

There is precedent here. In Viet Nam, the Left was able to whittle away at the American efforts. They offered no compelling alternatives for the people of South Vietnam and Cambodia other than "Hell no, we won't go." Ending the American military efforts was their goal. Unfortunately, the political and strategic planning of that war was so inept, the Left had an easy target. But even then, it still took more than a decade for them to finally triumph.

The result of the American pullout was a massive slaughter of "sympathetic" South Vietnamese and Cambodian "collaborators." To this day, the Left has yet to acknowledge that this happened as a direct result of the American pullout. But it doesn't matter to them, their goals were achieved and finished when America pulled out humiliated and weakened.

Today, in Iraq, the storm is raging, and yet again, the Left has no policy other than opposition. If the Left's efforts at subversion succeed, a slaughter of epic proportions that could make Pol Pot blush will occur. Islamists will continue to terrorize with the knowledge that Allah has their back as they continue to oppress, rape and kill.

Fortunately, even though there is a lot of work to do, it looks like the fledgling democracy in Iraq is holding up. Even though the terrorists are getting more deadly, the government backed Iraqi forces are getting stronger and stronger. While the terrorists murder civilians, the government forces hunt down armed terrorists and arrest or kill them. It is entirely feasible that they will get their country in control without an all out civil war.

If this is the case, has the Left put their last dollar on a gimpy horse named "Gluestick?"

No. They have succeeded in sapping enough popular will to do anything beyond Iraq. Clearly, something needs to be done about Syria and Iran, and it doesn't look like anything short of all out military intervention will do the trick (especially in Iran). But, through the efforts of well funded Leftist organiziations and the media, support for any action will be hard to come by. That is, until America gets hit again.

...and, if America gets hit again, especially if by a nuclear or biological strike orginating from Iran or Syria, a LOT of people are going to die.

Currently, America has taken the course that will cause the lowest casualties on both sides, but it also relies on the sustained support of its initiatives from its people. That support is weakening primarily due to Left's subversion, but also in a lack of understanding of the fundamental nature of this battle.

I have no doubts that America, and the West, will ultimately win this battle. But how many people are going to have to die in order for it to happen? That question, in my opinion, will depend on how many more people in the West continue to buy into the Left's canards about what is really happening in this war. This ideological battle is World-Wide, and the winner is far from decided.

In other words, the fate of a lot of people falls directly in our laps. It is up to us not to let the Left have their way. The 2004 election was a good start, but we can't just blame our leadership and President alone, as they will always make mistakes. We must continue to battle the Left from every direction in order to sustain this fight. That includes taking the initiative on the ideas shaping current policies.

The Islamists are committed to their cause, but are we?

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at July 29, 2005 07:15 AM | TrackBack