This article in the National Review appealed to my views on how to prosecute the war on terrorism.

Who Needs the Arabs?
We can win by being winners.

By Barbara Lerner



olls show Americans are clear about the need to strike Saddam Hussein before he attacks us with weapons of mass destruction. But when it comes to means, clarity vanishes in the fog of "conventional wisdom" endlessly recycled by Western pack journalists. That wisdom is summed up in the self-defeating non sequitur that could be heard, hourly, on every newscast in America as Vice President Cheney toured the Middle East: To make war on Iraq ? repeat after me ? "We need Arab allies." There are two main problems with this journalistic clich?: first that it isn't true, and second that it's against our interests. Pack journalists offer four reasons for it: because without Arab allies, we'd be at war with the whole Muslim world; because we need military bases in Arab lands; "stability in the Middle East"; and Arab oil. All four are false.

Take military bases. To defeat Saddam, we need secure bases in friendly countries ? close enough to Iraq to help us launch and supply our forces. Pack journalists maintain that only Arab lands can provide them. Nonsense; look at a map. There, on Iraq's northern border, sits Turkey ? as staunch a NATO ally as Britain, because when it comes to terrorism, Turkey's interests are the same as ours. Muslim terrorism comes in three main varieties, and responsible Turks hate them all. Islamic religious terrorism is a threat to everything the secular Turkish Republic stands for. Nationalist terrorism of the every-tribe-must-have-a-separate-state variety is an equal threat. In the 1990s, Turkey fought a long, tough war against the Kurdish separatists of the PKK, a terrorist group responsible for thousands of Turkish deaths. And, of course, Turkey fears Saddam's weapons of mass destruction too. That's why Turkey joined us in the Gulf War and lent us Incirlik air base. It's why she'll help again, without making us compromise our interests or our principles. She has only three reasonable requirements: this time, finish the job; make no deals with Iraqi Kurds that might reignite Kurdish separatism; and please, make this war less damaging to the Turkish economy than Gulf War I was.

Why, if this good news is true, do we hear nothing of it? Why does our press ignore Turks? Partly, it's tradition. Alleged human-rights abuses aside, the Western press has ignored Turkey for decades. Partly, it's taste. All those hard-working, increasingly well-educated, pro-Western Muslims, making economic progress and maintaining a Turkish form of democracy ? boring. Arabs, by contrast, offer a transgressive feast ? millions of illiterate, impoverished Muslim victims of Western imperialism. And then, too, there's the ever popular "peace process." Besides, Arab leaders are eager to offer dramatic sound bites about the "catastrophes" an attack on Iraq will provoke; the Turks offer nothing comparable. The Teddy Roosevelt of the Middle East, Turkey speaks softly but carries a big stick. A nation of 66 million, she has long had universal male conscription, and an officer corps selected on the basis of rigorous merit standards. Some think it is the biggest, best army in the world, next to ours ? and it will be behind us, when we're ready. Until then, Turks won't put civilian lives at risk by poking verbal sticks in Saddam's eye.

Well and good for our launch-and-supply paths from the north, you say, but don't we need another ally to give us comparable bases in the south? Yes, we do, and we have one, but it's a secret. Arab propaganda has succeeded in making it not just unmentionable, but unthinkable. Well, let's break the taboo: Israel is close enough to Iraq's southern flank to provide excellent bases for our forces. "But, but, but," conventional wisdom splutters: "We can't do that. It would turn the 'Muslim world' against us." But of course, the Arab world is not the Muslim world ? much less its rightful spokesman. And Turkey will not turn against us if Israel is in our coalition. The Turks already work closely with the Israeli military: They've been doing it for years, because the terrorists who menace Israel menace them too. Turkey has big problems with Syria and Iraq ? but she has no quarrel with Israel or America, and none with Turkish citizens who are Jews or Christians. Turks of both faiths worship freely in this overwhelmingly Muslim country, and suffer no discrimination. So, too, do millions of loyal Turkish Kurds who eschew the path of separatism.

Still, all Arab states will be outraged if we use Israeli bases, and we can't have that, can we? That would vitiate another pack journalist's clich?: our need for "Stability in the Middle East." This, too, is false, and contrary to our interests. Stability here means the maintenance of the status quo in all the corrupt, despotic Arab states that repress and impoverish their subjects. Arab despots need it; it's what keeps them in power, and they maintain it in ways that hurt us. They use their government-controlled presses to spew forth a constant stream of hate propaganda, blaming all their failures on America and Israel, and they export Arab subjects whose violence can't be controlled, even in the police states they run. Omar Abdul Rahman, the man behind the first Trade Towers attack, is one such export; Osama bin Laden is another. Yasser Arafat, too ? he and his Palestinians have been kicked out of half a dozen Arab states. And, of course, there are thousands of less famous Arab exports abroad, busily fomenting new attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other "Stans," not to mention in India, Chechnya, Georgia, the Philippines, Africa, Europe, and the Americas. From an Arab despot's perspective, this makes sense: better blood in the streets of Kashmir, New York, and Jerusalem, than in Cairo, Riyadh, and Damascus. But we have no stake in helping despots avoid reform by diverting their people's rage onto us. Far better, for us, to see the Arab world destabilized than to stand helplessly by and watch Arabs destabilize the rest of the world, as they do today.

That brings us to reason four, Arab oil. What if Arab rulers retaliate by refusing to sell to us? Relax. This is 2002, not 1973. The Arab stranglehold on the oil we need is long gone. Much of our oil today comes from countries eager to sell us more, as Russia is. And when we take Iraq, we'll put a very big oil spigot in friendly hands. There could be a temporary supply disruption while we do that, but other Arab states will make up for it, like it or not. As Rich Lowry rightly insists, their need to sell oil exceeds our need to buy it. They have no other industry, and nothing else worth exporting. To get the cash they need to sustain their shaky tyrannies, they must sell their oil to somebody ? and there's nothing to stop those somebodys from reselling it to us, at a nice profit. Bottom line? A temporary spike in prices, but no lasting economic damage.

It's time to stop genuflecting to the Arabs, compromising our interests and principles on the absurd assumption that we can't do whatever we need to do ? attack Iraq, defend Israel, support freedom in Iran, and openly acknowledge the manifest superiority of the Turkish model for all Muslim nations ? without Arab blessings. Afterwards, relations may well improve since, as bin Laden himself put it, "People naturally prefer the strong horse," i.e., everybody loves a winner. We are the winners; let's act like it. We deserve to win, and so do our natural coalition partners: Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Christians who believe in freedom, progress, and tolerance. Let's all pray together that President Bush knows it too, and will act on it, boldly, and soon.

? Lerner is a freelance writer in Chicago.

There is a discussion about militant Muslim fundamentalism in The Rise Of The Islamic Empire And The Threat To The West by Anthony J. Dennis. To summarize: Islam makes no distinctions between secular and religious parts of life; Muslim fundamentalists view the west as wicked; they will not be satisfied until Western culture is wiped from the face of the Earth.

Also, the world is divided in us and them, Dar al-Islam (the community of Muslims, where ever they may reside) and Dar al-harb (the domain of war). There can no be no peace, only an uneasy truce-till the next jihad.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-04-02 21:45 ]</font>

Newscorp has some advice for Dubya. HTH


It seems they left out Axis partner North Korea's constant hatred of Israel for some reason.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-03 18:12 ]</font>

Virgil K. Saari.

You are a light to the world.

We are right to stop support of Zionist colony American State # 51 on the shores of the Mediterranean.

The Palestinians holding out against the colonialist Zionist are like the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto holding out against the SS. The brave Palestinian students, workers, and soldiers are facing down the Israeli Wermacht in their tanks. They may give up thier lives but thier heroic and revolutionary spirit lives on. The PA Policemen are the Palestinians' version of the Minutemen. They take thier own lives into thier hands to insure victory for the workers of Palestine. On to victory and liberation for all the peoples of Palestine including Christians, Jews, Muslims, and athiests alike. All will embrace the workers' cause in Palestine when the narcotics of Jewish and Islamic fundamentalism are replaced with workers' anthems for the workers of the entire Middle East. Zionists and Arab monarchs alike, we're coming after your asses.

On 2002-04-03 19:43, Sbarro wrote:
Virgil K. Saari.

You are a light to the world.

Thank you for the kind words. But, as I am not an Enthusiast or Utopian, I fear it will soon be: "Out, out, brief candle!" HTH

"Virgil K. Saari.
You are a light to the world."

Praised by a Socialist... Not even I, a fellow-traveler, of the Dewey School of Pragmatism, have had this "kind" distinction. :smile:

On 2002-04-04 07:06, Marc Lamb wrote:


"Virgil K. Saari.
You are a light to the world."

Praised by a Socialist...

Still it is better than having one's sanity questioned by a conservative Republican from fly-over country. Do admit.

Questioning your sanity... on the Israeli v. Palestinian conflict??? Certainly I don't find it a bit odd that Socialists, and leftists in general, find themselves on the same side of those who throw human kiddie-bombs at fellow human beings (afterall, it's for the children). And yes, I question the sanity of those who see no difference between these so-called "freedom fighters" and the Israeli people. I mean, sixteen year-old "freedom fighters" strapping themselves with bombs in order to kill as many men, women and children as possible? Sounds worthy of "martyrhood" to me.

Ok, go ahead and remind me of American "imperial" designs, Dresden, Hiroshima, My Lai, and all the rest. I know it well... Americans are filthy, rotten baby-killers too.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-04 10:55 ]</font>

On 2002-04-04 10:53, Marc Lamb wrote:

Questioning your sanity... on the Israeli v. Palestinian conflict??? Certainly I don't find it a bit odd that Socialists, and leftists in general, find themselves on the same side of those who throw human kiddie-bombs at fellow human beings (afterall, it's for the children). And yes, I question the sanity of those who see no difference between these so-called "freedom fighters" and the Israeli people. I mean, sixteen year-old "freedom fighters" strapping themselves with bombs in order to kill as many men, women and children as possible? Sounds worthy of "martyrhood" to me.

Ok, go ahead and remind me of American "imperial" designs, Dresden, Hiroshima, My Lai, and all the rest. I know it well... Americans are filthy, rotten baby-killers too.

I guess that my Marxist self is no different.

And yes, there are suicide bombers. However, Israel has retaliated by killing people who are NOT engaged in violence.

<font color="blue">"Last night the Israeli Military tried to kill me. I'm staying in the Al Azzeh refugee camp, in Bethlehem, along with about twenty other international civilians. We're here to act as human shields, because we've heard an Israeli invasion is imminentOn the hill above the camp is a Israeli military sniper's post. The main street that runs down the village is in plain sight of the snipers' post. To get where we were staying in the village, most of us had to cross this street. It was a quick, low, dash across the street. As I ran, the sniper fired. I heard at least six shots fired in the short distance I ran, exposed. The shots began as I came into view, and stopped shortly after I made it to the other side. They were clearly aimed at me. And, by the sound of them, they were close. All night long, there was the sound of gun shots, as the military shot into our village. We stayed clear of the windows. Some of the windows were blocked with sandbags. The gun and bullets were, no doubt, paid for by my tax dollars. Which is, of course, why we are here."

" I am an American student from the University of Minnesota. I currently am in Ramallah. We are under a terrible siege and people are being massacred by both the Israeli army and armed militia groups of Israeli settlers. ..On Thursday afternoon, the Israeli army began sealing off each entrance to RamallahThose traveling in began desperately searching for alternative ways and traveling in groups, but the Israelis were firing upon them and everyone was running and screaming. Women carrying their children were trying desperately to flee from Ramallah, carrying infants and toddlers, and their young children were running along in the rain through the fields, slipping and falling on the rocks, trying to reach safety. Israeli jeeps were speeding across the terrain pulling up from every direction and shooting at the women and children, and also at me, as we ran in opposite directions. They were chasing down people, hunting them like that in the fields."

PHILLIPS: "I'm just curious, have you -- did you take the opportunity to say to Yasser Arafat, why not come and condemn what is going on, come out and make a statement in Arabic because that is what the President of the United States is just asking for?"

SHAPIRO: "President Arafat has done this repeatedly. I understand Arabic. I read the newspapers and I listen to the TV stations here. President Arafat, after every terrorist incident, every suicide bombing, after every action, has condemned this loss of life, of civilian lives on both sides. The Sharon government, sometimes will apologize after it kills an innocent civilian, but it does not apologize for raping the cities and for going in and carrying out terrorist actions, going to house to house much like the Nazis did in World War II, going house to house to house tearing holes through the walls, roughing up people, killing people, assassinating people."

"The fact of the matter is that three times as many Palestinians have been killed, and a relatively small number of them were really militants. Most were civilians. Some hundreds were children In the course of the last year, we have had Palestinian terrorism but we have also had deliberate, overreactions by Mr. Sharon designed not to repress terrorism but to destabilize the Palestinian Authority, to uproot the Oslo Agreement, which he has always denounced, in a manner which contributed to the climate, that resulted in the killing of one of the two architects of the Oslo Agreement." </font>

Taking sides in this battle is entirely fruitless, as both sides has both its innocents and guilty. On the Palenstinian side of the conflict, there are suicide bombers, and on the Israeli side, there is the military, and some private militias that are shooting at, and killing women and children.

A war against civilians?

http://www.counterpunch.org/ryterramallah.html

These reports that I have just dug up tell me that Israeli is fighting war not only against terrorists, but also civilians.

I would say that Sharon should be tried for war crimes in the killing of civilians in 1982 in Lebanon AND in this current war. A new leader should be ushered in, and an independent Palenstinian state, with all of the rights, duties, and privileges of a sovereign state, should be quickly implemented.

Funny, Mr. Reed, I don't recall you sounding like this when America "retaliated" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But maybe you did sound such a concern and clarion call for innocents back then... perhaps I'll just go back through the popular 4T threads, from back then, and see for myself.

Do you wish to come with me, Mr. Reed? :smile:

On 2002-04-04 11:22, Marc Lamb wrote:

Funny, Mr. Reed, I don't recall you sounding like this when America "retaliated" against the Taliban in Afghanistan. But maybe you did sound such a concern and clarion call for innocents back then... perhaps I'll just go back through the popular 4T threads, from back then, and see for myself.

Do you wish to come with me, Mr. Reed? :smile:

First of all, the American military was targeting the Taliban (or, at least that's what we were told), and not the civilians themselves. When news of civilian deaths started pouring in, that's when I began to second-guess the war.

But perhaps, you don't know the difference between targeting terrorists, and specifically targeting civilians to kill.

Uh, Mr. Reed, I don't think the sixteen year-old Palestinian girl was a member of the Palestinian Army. In fact, she, like her bomb-laden, baby-killing friends, was dressed just like an Israeli so as not to be suspected of anything untoward, and thereby spill the most innocent blood.

Furthermore, Mr. Reed, war is hell, otherwise we might actually grow to like it, worship it, live day to day, year after year, decade after decade with a continueous diet of it. Innocent life is often caught in the crossfire. But, if you actually believe that our military are "targeting" innocents, you as so out of touch with reality as to be perfect "useful idiot" as Lenin used to call his dupes.

It might come as news to you, Mr. Reed, but Clinton and Barak offered everything (all pre-1967 ground) to Arafat and his bloodthirsty brothers in arms back in late 2000. He told them to stuff it (which is why Sharon is back in the drivers seat).

It is clear that Arafat wants nothing... except every Jew in Israel dead.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-04 12:40 ]</font>

On 2002-04-04 12:36, Marc Lamb wrote:


It might come as news to you, Mr. Reed, but Clinton and Barak offered everything (all pre-1967 ground) to Arafat and his bloodthirsty brothers in arms back in late 2000.

I do not think this ALL pre-1967 ground is accurate...perhaps you have a map to link to Mr. Lamb. This is news to me. Do advise.

On 2002-04-04 12:36, Marc Lamb wrote:

Uh, Mr. Reed, I don't think the sixteen year-old Palestinian girl was a member of the Palestinian Army. In fact, she, like her bomb-laden, baby-killing friends, was dressed just like an Israeli so as not to be suspected of anything untoward, and thereby spill the most innocent blood.

And that justifies the <big>execution</big> of civilians? Specifically targeting men, women, and children to kill is justifiable? I'm sure that even you would know that there are better, less violent, and more effective ways of handling such a situation.

Furthermore, Mr. Reed, war is hell, otherwise we might actually grow to like it, worship it, live day to day, year after year, decade after decade with a continueous diet of it.

Sure, war is hell, but is it really necessary to round up and target civilians for death?

Innocent life is often caught in the crossfire. But, if you actually believe that our military are "targeting" innocents, you as so out of touch with reality as to be perfect "useful idiot" as Lenin used to call his dupes.

Why not? Perhaps, should I refresh you on the activities of the CIA since the end of World War II? Or perhaps, I should refresh you on sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children? Am I to believe that Bush is so much more moral and godly than the other presidents in the past 50 years that have participated in these "un-American" activities?

It might come as news to you, Mr. Reed, but Clinton and Barak offered everything (all pre-1967 ground) to Arafat and his bloodthirsty brothers in arms back in late 2000. He told them to stuff it (which is why Sharon is back in the drivers seat).

So, this makes the rounding up of civilians and killing them, acceptable?

It is clear that Arafat wants nothing... except every Jew in Israel dead.

This is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is the rounding up and murder of civilians.

Final American and Israel Proposals-December 2000-Maps.


No all in sight. HTH

_________________
"I often think it odd that [History] should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention." Catherine Morland in Northanger Abbey, Chapter XIV

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-04 13:39 ]</font>

On 2002-04-04 10:53, Marc Lamb wrote:

Questioning your sanity... on the Israeli v. Palestinian conflict??? Certainly I don't find it a bit odd that Socialists, and leftists in general, find themselves on the same side of those who throw human kiddie-bombs at fellow human beings (afterall, it's for the children). And yes, I question the sanity of those who see no difference between these so-called "freedom fighters" and the Israeli people. I mean, sixteen year-old "freedom fighters" strapping themselves with bombs in order to kill as many men, women and children as possible? Sounds worthy of "martyrhood" to me.

Ok, go ahead and remind me of American "imperial" designs, Dresden, Hiroshima, My Lai, and all the rest. I know it well... Americans are filthy, rotten baby-killers too.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-04 10:55 ]</font>

Marc, for your information, many members of Beth El Heberw Congregation vote left of center (i.e. for Democrats) and are hardly members of Ariel Sharon's fan club but are with you on this issue! Not all liberals love those lovely little terrorists! :sad:

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-04-04 14:00 ]</font>

Ms. Genser, do you know anything about this ALL that Mr. Marc Lamb is posting as an offer of the entire West Bank for the Palestinian State?

On 2002-04-04 13:03, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

On 2002-04-04 12:36, Marc Lamb wrote:


It might come as news to you, Mr. Reed, but Clinton and Barak offered everything (all pre-1967 ground) to Arafat and his bloodthirsty brothers in arms back in late 2000.

I do not think this ALL pre-1967 ground is accurate...perhaps you have a map to link to Mr. Lamb. This is news to me. Do advise.

Virgil is technically right. Israel, even under Barak, was not willing to cede all of the parts of Jerusalem controlled by Jordan pre-1967, which includes some very sacred sites that Jews were denied access to pre-1967. Also, there may have been a strip of land that Israel wanted to keep for security reasons.

However, Marc is essentially right in that Barak was willing to give the Palestinians about 95 percent of the land controlled by Jordan prior to the 1967 Six Day War. And Arafat said "phhht!"

After Oslo, I hoped that Arafat had changed, prefering to be remembered as a statesman rather than as a leader of terrorist thugs. The failed Camp David meeting with Barak in August 2000 and the subsequent intifada was very disillusioning to me and other American Jews who long to see a peaceful two-State solution come about in the Middle East.

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-04-04 14:08 ]</font>

I'm not at all sure what your maps were supposed to show. It looked to me as if Arafat turned downed a lot of dark grey and striped ground in Camp David 2.

But even more puzzling is your observation, Mr. Saari, that we, in this country, are committing "suicide" (recent email). I mean just about everybody here (even Ms. Genser I would guess) are pretty much in agreement with you, Sbarro and young Mr. Reed on this "terrorist" thing, which is to say that America, like Israel, is the real Imperialist thug in this matter. And with Bush getting on the Colin Powell board today, in basically pooh poohing Arafat and demanding Israel cease and withdraw in the face of terrorism, I would say the world is a very beautiful place right now.

Kissy, kissy, can't we all just get along? All we are saaaaaaaying is give peace a chance!

I did predict, back in October, you paleos (and neo-libs) would win thing thing, didn't I? :smile:




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-04 14:13 ]</font>

Dear Mr. Lamb,

Please show me where I might see those maps of all the West Bank was offered to Mr. Arafat?

Sorry, Ms. Genser, I was writing as you were posting your postion. :smile: I must say I'm pleasantly surprised. But, I'm not sure what to really make of it. :???:

On 2002-04-04 14:12, Marc Lamb wrote:
But even more puzzling is your observation, Mr. Saari, that we, in this country, are committing "suicide" (recent email). I mean just about everybody here (even Ms. Genser I would guess) are pretty much in agreement with you, Sbarro and young Mr. Reed on this "terrorist" thing, which is to say that America, like Israel, is the real Imperialist thug in this matter.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-04 14:13 ]</font>

Marc, don't put words in my mouth. Just because I don't favor cutting taxes for the rich doesn't mean that I view the USA as an imperialistic world criminal. We have our faults, but we've got a heck of a lot of freedom. Plus, people from all over the world are trying to get into America.

On this board, I am MUCH more in accord with your posts than Sbarro's. Surprised? :???:

_________________
Why does it have to take a disaster to acknowledge the beauty of being alive? -- Maharaji

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jenny Genser on 2002-04-04 14:18 ]</font>

On 2002-04-04 14:17, Marc Lamb wrote:
Sorry, Ms. Genser, I was writing as you were posting your postion. :smile: I must say I'm pleasantly surprised. But, I'm not sure what to really make of it. :???:

And I was posting my angry rebuttal as you were posting your apology! :lol:

I guess I've become more hawkish in my middle-age. And appreciative of the freedoms and opportunities that living in America affords me. Including the freedom to disagree with you and others about taxes.

:smile: