Where Next For War?

With the Bathist threat reduced if not yet dead and with Al-Queda reportedly ready to concede the fight by shifting resources away from Iraq I believe that the greatest part of the Iraqi phase of the war on terror is over. What remains is a cabal of criminals and psychopaths who more resemble a mafia than an insurgency. Which is not to say that we can not still lose Iraq to civil war or a new dictatorship. Nor is it possible to dismiss the possibility that Iraq will not become the subversive example of freedom we might wish it to become. That said it is time to think about where the next phase of the war will be fought. Given that this is an election year I will limit my prognostic horizon to November.

Saudi Arabia Probability 5%. Saudi is the Berlin of the War on Terror, where as we are still at the stage of pre-break out in Normandy. Iraq is useful primarily in showing the Arab world that we can strike anywhere we want to. The Normandy break out will have occurred once we demonstrate that Arabs, i.e. Iraqis are capable of living in a prosperous and relatively democratic / tolerant society. If this destabilizes the kingdom to the south so much the better. That said we are not ready to take on the Saudis. Our own state department and middle eastern studies academia are filled with people who have been bought off with Saudi money and that only now are we dealing with Saudi sponsored Wahabbi influence within our own borders. That said the first signs of Saudi power slipping may already be bubbling to the surface, 5000 Saudi princes will not be hanging from lamp post this year but their time is coming.

Lebanon I give this one a 30% chance. Hizbullah needs to be addressed, but does it need to be addressed before November? An Afghanistan style campaign using local militias and US Green Berets, backed by an Aircraft Carrier could do the trick. The Belmont Club provides more details. My experience with my Lebanese students is that they resent the Syrian occupation of the (relatively) fertile Bekaa valley and the attendant subservience of their national government to Damascus. The resentment in the local population is there for the Green Berets to work with. The Syrians are unable to hold that territory without the assistance of terrorist militias, especially in the refuge camps which they never even try to enter. The destruction of Hizbullah and sundry psychopaths directly threatens the Syrian occupation and what little regional influence they have left. While titularly ruled by Assad, the day to day running of Syrian is in the hands of a clique of army officers who were loyal to his father and are now only loyal to themselves. They are unlikely to be more reasonable than the junta which ruled Argentina during the Falkland's conflict. The prospect for direct confrontation between the Syrian army and US forces is very likely should we turn our attention in that direction. That said there are other places that the US is already occupied and the Jerusalem Post article it just a shade TOO jubilant on this possibility.

Pakistan (North West Frontier Province) Probability 100%. To this uninitiated this is the part of Pakistan that no one bothered to tell the locals that they were a part of. Effectively this is part of the non-nation state region that encompasses Afghanistan. The lines on the map which state that this is part of Pakistan are simply lies. Despite the protests of the Pakistani parities representing these areas, I would be surprised if we were not already operating in some limited way there already.
Instapundit found this tidbit (with other interesting links) about the possibility of widening the war to Pakistani tribal areas where the Taliban are staging their operations from and where OBL is expected to be hiding out. We have the advantage of having the resources already in the area, but not the permission to act. The Islamists have already tried to kill Pakistan's head of state twice and he has had some serious explaining to do to the US about the part played by his country in the spread of nuclear WMD technology to Iran, Libya, North Korea and Saudi Arabia. This could give us the political opening we need to go in officially and in force. I give this one a 100% because I don't believe that we are not already operating in the area.

posted by Y.H.N.  ¶ 6:26 PM 0 comments links to this post

  BBC and Tony Blair

What does it say about one of the most respected news organizations in the world when an independent inquiry in the UK (Huton inquiry) essentially tells UK citizens that their government is more trust worthy than the afore mentioned BBC? Link to BBC's own take on the issue. hattip to Instapundit

Update (30 Jan 04) : From the Belmont Club writing of the BBC and the hutton affair. Wrechard compares the BBC's response to the crisis to that of Saddam Hussein in his final days in power. ordering counter attacks by an army which had ceased to exist and alludes to an "organization in which information has absolutely ceased to flow." Could here be a more damning condemnation of this the most respected news organization in the world?

B.T.W. the man can write!

posted by Y.H.N.   ¶ 2:11 PM 0 comments links to this post

  A Critique of Libertarianism

Micha Ghertner posts on "The Economics of Cannibalism" in relation to the German cannibal case. The Libertarian discussion on this revolves around the voluntary nature of both "perpetrator," "victim" and the right of society through the state to impose its own judgments on the pair. There I've done it, by using those two labels I've exposed my personal prejudices on the matter and essentially disqualified myself from taking a credible reasoned stance on the matter. I am unequivocally opposed to cannibalism. This is part and parcel of my cultural prejudices and for which I seek no logically self consistent justification. I just feel this to be the right attitude on this position.

"Humm ..... Say there Mr. Notions is not the primacy of feelings over reason one of your primary criticisms of post intellectual (leftist) politics? " In that you would be correct, however in this case I recognize that I am unable to formulate a logical argument against this act AND be certain that my argument is not colored by what I regard as my personal prejudices. Reason has failed me or rather the rolling of my stomach has failed reason.

The straight libertarian would argue that as long as the act is consensual the state should not interfere. This is where Libertarianism fails the test that all ideologies fail. An ideology is a model like any other and its usefulness lies in the results it gives. If the result is clearly nonsense then the model has failed and answers must be sought elsewhere. Libertarian ideology will grow and adapt but we and they are not there yet.

Tomorrow I post my resolution to this dilemma, but I'll give you a day or so to think about it.

posted by Y.H.N.  ¶ 2:14 PM 0 comments links to this post