I wrote
> the US looks at the moment to be gaining less than Iran has
> gained. This is the issue.
and "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded
I totally disagree:
1) The US has gained the peaceful strategic removal of its forces from
Saudi Arabia
That is true. However, unfortunately that is also a score for Al
Qaeda, for which a key goal was to get the US to pull out.
2) The US has gained the liberation of 38 million people from
utter oppression
That is true, at least for the moment, and I think this is a good
reason for the US invasion. (I have recommended this since I first
learned about Saddam Hussein round about 1969, before he gained full
power in Iraq.)
3) The US has gained the strategic security of knowing that Iraq
will never again attack Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or Israel, as it has
in the past.
This is true for the moment. The question at hand, however, is
whether we think it will be true in 10 or 20 years. The point about
the success of an Iranian intelligence operation against the US is
that the Iranians -- and not those we favor -- may be gaining power in
Iraq.
4) The US has eliminated a key source of funding for Palestinian
terrorists.
Again, this is true for the moment, but also again, the question is
whether Iranian influence will mean that a different set of terrorists
receive funding. Please remember, the Iranians have backed Shi'ite
terrorists.
5) The US has eliminated a key potential source of transit of
chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, as well as of
nuclear technology, to our various enemies.
Yes. One question is whether a country that has admitted it violated
its treaty obligations regarding nuclear technology has or is gaining
power in Iraq. A second question is whether the UN inspections that
the Bush Administration now favors will do the job.
6) The US has gained, by the end of this year, the largest free
elections among Arabs, *ever.*
Yes, this is good. Especially if the US makes sure that the voters
are not bought and that they have good choices, and that the choices
have enough funding to overcome the funding of various other
candidates. I presume you have looked into what happened when women
first gained the vote in Spain (in the 1930s, if I remember my dates
rightly). (Many women voted for candidates who hurt their gender,
because the new voters took advice from existing leaders, and the
opposition did not have the funds to convey an alternate view.)
Meanwhile, Iran has:
- been forced to come clean regarding three separate nuclear programs,
about which the outside world has been unaware. This information was
revealed by an Iranian dissident who only came forward after the war in
Iraq. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think not.
Yes, I agree, this is good. It is like the Libyan agreement. It
means that the policy of intimidation worked, either to intimidate
Libya and Iran or to increase the confidence of the Bush
Administration, so the Bush Administration could come out in favor of
UN action. I think this is a good outcome.
But the main question still stands: to gain this, did the US give a
great deal to Iran?
-Iran has lost substanital democratic legitimacy after its abysmal
recent Parliamentary elections. The establishment of free
elections in neighboring Iraq, will surely prove to be a direct
threat to the Iranian regime.
That is only the case if the elections in Iraq are seen by everyone in
the area as permanently free and as a good way to solve disputes among
clans and religious groups.
An unfortunate alternative possibility is that the elections will be
seen as a way to increase Shi'ite and Kurdish power, over the Sunnis.
An even worse alternative possibility is that Sunnis in Iraq and
elsewhere will see this as a `one man, one vote, once' type of
election in which their enemies, the Shi'ites, gain power. (They may
see this and subsequent elections as being like the elections in the
old Soviet Union or in old Iraq -- as a tribute to virtue that does
not act either as a way to change the people who make up the
government, or as a peaceful dispute resolution mechanism.)
I hope the elections are run well, especially the choice of and
funding for various candidates, the opportunity for them to convey a
message, and everything else that goes with elections.
Elections are a mechanism for political change that does not require
conspiracy -- they, when done right, are a big deal in a region that
historically has either had fake elections in which actual changes of
government either required conspiracy or external military
intervention, or did not have elections.
Coming back to the point, you have not said anything about Chalabi,
excepting that what he said is `n degrees to cavalier', with which I
agree.
Also you have not argued against the claim that currently the Iranians
are in a better position (over the next 10 or 20 years) than might
have been hoped or expected a year ago. You have only talked about
short-term US gains.
My two questions still remain: did the Chalabi-provided intelligence
mislead the Administration? (Perhaps the Administration saw the
intelligence as being as inaccurate as Chalabi now says, but used it
for purposes of persuasion. That would mean the Administration was
not misled. Or perhaps the Administration were fooled, and their
subsequent mistakes are an outcome of being fooled.)
And if the Administration was misled, did the intelligence come only
from Chalabi resources in Iraq or was it `planted' in some way by
Iranian intelligence?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
