Contrary to the flawed geopolitical judgment of people like Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, the politics of the Middle East have changed in a fundimental way thanks to the toppling of Iraq's Saddam Hussein. Josh Manchester
comments at TCSDaily:
The 'big bang,' as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was
meant to reorder the nature of politics in the region. This has been
accomplished in a fundamental way. The idea of dividing an enemy force
into its constituent parts and then dealing with it piecemeal is at
least as old as Caesar's actions in Gaul. It applies no less to US
strategy in the Middle East. Every faction there has been made to
reconsider its relationship with every other. Rather than there being a
monolithic clash of civilizations, thus far the US is dealing with the
area in pieces -- in whatever way it sees fit to do so -- whether
making it tacitly clear to Syria that what happened in Iraq could more
easily happen to it, or threatening Iran on behalf of the region and
world, or seeking cooperation with the Saudis in hunting down al Qaeda.
Far from being a bit of belated triumphalism about the invasion, all
of this has immediate and direct consequences. While the success of
Iraq's democracy hangs in the balance from an operational perspective,
the strategic advantages created by the invasion of Iraq are working
very favorably for the US in the current Israeli-Lebanon crisis in very
tangible ways.
Were Saddam still in power, the Arab world would not feel nearly as
threatened by Hezbollah, the Frankenstein's monster of Iran's creation.
Instead, they would have sided with the Syrian foreign minister's
strong support for Hezbollah. Saddam himself might even have offered
cash rewards to anyone attempting martyrdom against the Jews.
Instead, they came to no consensus. The leading Arab League states,
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, call Hezbollah's actions
"inappropriate and irresponsible." This lessens the urgency of calls
from the international community, whether the G8, UN, or EU, for a
ceasefire. That lessened urgency creates something very precious
indeed: a moment in time and space wherein Israel has the most fleeting
of opportunities for decisive action against Hezbollah, an avowed foe,
a terrorist organization, and a constant threat to the security of its
populace.
Decisive action is what has traditionally been missing from the wars
of the Middle East. Land changes hands, blows are exchanged, and peace
eventually is negotiated. But the underlying dynamic never changes
because the sides are rarely faced with a decisive defeat, the only
condition that can force the most avowed of men to abandon the ideas
they hold dear.
Those who still see the Iraq War as a mistake have an obligation to explain how the dreadful pre-Iraq-War Middle East situation was better than what we are now seeing. Bonus points for explanations which do not demonstrate late-stage Bush Derangement Syndrome. I'm actually serious about this--I do not believe that opponents of the Iraq War have made an intellectually coherent case that what is happening today is worse than what would have been otherwise.
Another thought to meditate upon: War is not the worst of all possible political choices. Sometimes tolerating the intolerable is worse. Reference slavery and the American Civil War, or fascism and World War II.
Hat tip: Instapundit.
