Sunday, December 31, 2006

The Bigger Picture

As the body of Saddam is transported to Tikrit for burial, the right wing blogs can hardly hide their glee at what has transpired, nor their rage at anyone who questions what has just taken place. This example from Gateway Pundit is not unusual:

There is an enemy in America- Powerful -Shrill- Self-Hating - It has never been more obvious, it has never been more open... than it is today- mourning Saddam!

It is not a fringe element.

It is not a minority.
It is the voice of today's American Left.

The evil mass-murdering Saddam Hussein was hung today and the American left mourns... Their America-hating sickness has never been more glaring.
However, what the right wing blogs seem to be missing is the fact that Saddam's death represents a failure of almost thirty years of US foreign policy regarding Iraq and Iran.

The reason that the US supported Saddam during the Iran/Iraq war was to prevent Iraq falling and Iran establishing itself as a superpower in the region. Indeed, the invasion of Iraq was - according to neo-con logic - supposed to send shockwaves throughout the Middle East and set off a domino effect that would bring country's like Iran to the brink of democratic revolution.

As Saddam hangs and Iraq burns so too does over thirty years of US foreign policy.

For the real beneficiary of the US invasion is Ahmadinejad's Iran, which now enjoys a superpower status in the region without ever having had to fire a single shot.

The careful balance between the two nations that Reagan famously hoped would end in "stalemate" has been decided by George W Bush very much for the side that Reagan opposed.

Washington was under no illusions about the brutality of Saddam's regime. But as Tehran gained the upper hand in the fighting, he came to be seen as the lesser of two evils - a vital bulwark against domination by a radical, anti-Western Iran of the strategically vital Gulf region, with its colossal oil reserves.

Quietly, the US delivered the technology, weapons and logistical support to prevent Iraq's defeat. Its policy was symbolised by the cordial meeting in Baghdad in December 1983 between Saddam and a certain Donald Rumsfeld, then President Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East. Two decades later, as Secretary of Defence, he would plan the invasion that toppled Saddam.

American assistance often took the form of dual-use technology that had legitimate civilian uses, but which Washington was well aware could (and would) be used on the battlefield. US intelligence also provided Iraqi commanders with crucial information on Iranian troop movements.

American backing grew ever more explicit. In 1982, the administration ignored objections in Congress and removed Iraq from its list of countries supporting terrorism. By November 1983, the National Security Council had issued a directive that the US should do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent an Iranian victory.

This victory has now been handed to Iran by an American president who publicly berates Iran whilst seeming oblivious to the part he has played in Iran's victory.

Of course, it was all supposed to play itself out differently. Iraq was supposed to emerge from the invasion as a democratic beacon that would light up the Middle East and herald the end days for autocratic regimes in the region. That was always a fantastically optimistic - and, I would say, unhinged - outlook almost devoid of any trace of realism. But I'm sure it's proponents were sincere in their beliefs, no matter how misguided they turned out to be.

However, now that their plan has manifestly failed, only a fool would not have a second look at the board and ask themselves where the chips now lie. For every action there is a reaction. For every failed policy, there are consequences.

The consequence of the US's failed policy in Iraq is an emboldened Iran whose main rival - Saddam - has just been hanged by the US, leaving them no regional rival and guaranteeing them regional superiority.

This was not Bush's plan, but it is undeniably the result of his failed policy.

Bush has undone thirty years of US planning. And, from the tone of his rhetoric, he has no plan to replace the one that he has just ripped up.

Those same right wing blogs who are falling over themselves with glee at Saddam's death seem hideously unaware of the bigger picture.

tag: , , , , ,

No comments: