Latest US Strategy: Jump-start the Economy

[Guest]

"There is no way to militarily lose in Iraq. There is also no way to militarily win in Iraq": such a cryptic rendering of the strategic dilemma facing the US does not come from some study-center Cassandra, but from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. Every reputable military strategy is based on clear political policy, so once Saddam Hussein had been toppled and American policy in Iraq was designed to bring democracy to the country, the aim of the military occupation was to beat the Baath guerrilla offensive and flush out Al Qaeda infiltrators. Now, in this difficult election year, post-war events, the prison torture scandal and reconstruction problems are reducing George W. Bush's plan into an occupation in which political power is delegated to UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, to Sunnite president Ghazi al Yawar, and to Shiite prime minister Iya Allawi. In the towns contended by the guerrillas, from Sunnite stronghold Falluja to Najaf, the citadel of Shiite leader Moqtada al Sadr, US military tactics first took a Somali-type turn: as in Mogadishu, where an attempt was made to capture the popular leader Aidid in order to beat the guerrillas, the capture of al Sadr and the murderers of the American technicians impaled on the bridge would have been a symbol of victory.

But a shift was made towards a truce - armed coexistence in Najaf, punctuated by further killings - and delegated powers of control in Falluja to parts of Saddam's former apparatus. Yesterday the New York Times announced a new stand on Iraq, with the army being used more as an engineer corps to bolster the economy and help in reconstruction than as an system of military repression. But that is nothing new: Baghdad Command has always put the emphasis on rebuilt schools, reopened hospitals, and even on the sports facilities and kindergartens renovated by the engineers. The dilemma facing Myers is the eternal passing of the buck from the generals back to the politicians: we'll do our duty - you just tell us where to go.

In the view of historian John Lewis Gaddis, president Bush's general strategy of attempting to promote democracy in the Middle East, with pre-emptive war on terror if necessary, and unilateral action if the allies do not follow, could still be valid, but its tactical application in Iraq has proved to be a disaster: "I supported the war", said Gaddis in an internal seminar organized by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, "but the execution has been bordering on the wretched". Gaddis is one of the finest historians of the Cold War, which he defined in one of his essays as "the long peace", and he is fully aware that there can be no victory without the strategic patience applied in the case of the USSR. In the immediate postwar period, diplomat George Kenna unveiled the plan to "contain the USSR" without nuclear conflict, and from then until the fall of the Berlin wall half a century later, eight presidents were entirely consistent and never changed their minds.

Bush, however, pressured by his election prospects for November, which put him on a par with Democratic rival John Kerry, is speeding up the handover set for June 30, and clouding the democratic hope so dear to neo-conservatives, aiming for a status quo that might help him towards re-election, but putting the army under stress. When Gen. George Casey, who will be taking over from Ricardo Sanchez, who was caught up in the prisoner-abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, takes control of his marble fortress in the heart of Baghdad, his second-in-command, Gen. Thomas Metz, will suggest he concentrates on getting the economy moving again. And if the great ayatollah Ali Al Sistani manages to put the muzzle on Moqtada al Sadr and Saddam's former generals, convincing their gangs to put down their arms, in order to "change everything so that little need change", possibly the summer will be less chaotic than the spring.

But the problem depends on what the enemy is really like. A "War on Terror" does not identify the enemy, but just the way he fights, as though the Second World War had been declared in response to Pearl Harbor, or to General Guderian's blitzkrieg. And the enemy's strategy is changing. Iraq seems to be becoming the second front, after Saudi Arabia. While cunning and ingenuous observers in Europe continue to confuse Iraq with the war on terror, Al Qaeda has opened up a second front in Saudi Arabia with remarkable clear-headedness. The greatest oil producing country is also the only one with sufficient strategic reserves to keep the lid on the market. Security experts talk of a "terror premium", an eight-dollar hike per barrel of crude up to 50 dollars, if fear of a full-blown attack in Saudi Arabia spreads through the markets.

How safe is this languorous country run by the Saud monarchy? Extremely, in the view of Nawaf Obaid, advisor to the royal family, who wrote in an article for Jane's Intelligence Review that a terrorist attack on Saudi oil installations would be very difficult, considering that the security budget, including 30,000 guards, computers and planes, amounts to 5.5 billion dollars a year. The CIA's best Middle East agent, Robert Baer, is not quite so sure. In his book Sleeping with the Devil, he considers the Abqaiq oil complex to be "the most vulnerable point and the most spectacular target in the Saudi oil system".

Baer writes that an attack with a submarine, a pirate plane or a boat filled with explosives, could slow down production "from an average of 6.8 million barrels a day to one million barrels..." soon costing America and the world more than the entire OPEC embargo of 1973. The Saudi idea that money buys security is rather fragile. If the raids in Saudi Arabia remain sporadic and Obaid is right, then the dilemma facing Gen. Myers remains Iraq. But if Baer is right, he is also going to have to keep an eye on Saudi Arabia, the country where the mere presence of the US army has generated Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. The country where the terrorists who brought death and fear to the Khobar oil installation melted away among the people. Fish in the waters of the War on Terror.

Gianni Riotta http://www.corriere.it

[rainstorm]

its already being won!!

[streetsoldier]

According to the much-quoted (by me) Mansoor Ijaz, FoxNews Middle East expert, Al Qaida's worst (or best, depending on your sympathies) attack scenario is not the US or Saudi Arabia, but the UK...an attack there would certainly topple Tony Blair's Government, split the coalition, and result in a Kerry victory here in November...which would please Al Qaida no end.

Bush has shown himself to be a tough adversary, whilke Kerry would return the US to a Clintonesque "containment/law-enforcement" policy under a UN blanket; which is precisely what the terrorists WANT, as it would leave them free to attack anyone they pleased without fearing retaliation.

Any questions?

[j]

" he is also going to have to keep an eye on Saudi Arabia, the country where the mere presence of the US army has generated Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

What is this BS? I Know you didn't write this paolo...but tell me you don't think this is true?

Is something lost in the translation ?? "generated"

[Guest]

" he is also going to have to keep an eye on Saudi Arabia, the country where the mere presence of the US army has generated Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

What is this BS? I Know you didn't write this paolo...but tell me you don't think this is true?

Is something lost in the translation ?? "generated"

It's true. Osama Bin Laden is a production of the regent family, that side of the Saudian monarchy that want all foreigners away from Saudi Arabia and exploi the oil by themselves. Osama decided that if he was good to beat russians in Afghanistan, why not doing the same in Arabia?
Or do you really believe the presence of US troops/bases has been always appreciated there???

[Stephanie]

I think that al Qaeda is going to try to do everything in it's power to disrupt the world's economy. Oil is one way to do the trick.

[Guest]

I think that al Qaeda is going to try to do everything in it's power to disrupt the world's economy. Oil is one way to do the trick.

Oil is the only one...

[GalvestonDuck]

Lemme guess Paolo -- you recently read "House of Bush, House of Saud?"

[Guest]

Lemme guess Paolo -- you recently read "House of Bush, House of Saud?"

Not at all Galv