Back in August I wrote about where the invasion of Iraq might take us. I laid out my personal view of what the outcome would be if we stayed the course, and I expressed my hope that all in this country would support the effort that we had. Being for or against going into Iraq should have made way for a unified America working toward the goal of success. The potential for change in the Middle East was, in my opinion, enormous.
Later, in October, I wrote an imaginary history of this time. Dubya understands his own legacy will be written long after he is gone. I took some license.
The changes in the world dynamic were a direct result of America’s decision to end Islamofascism. Beirut is once again a thriving international city. Iraq has become the economic center of the Middle East with oil and food exports supporting the entire region. Jordan’s agreement with Israel to build a pipeline and desalination plant promises to turn the desert area east of Amman into a green zone. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are now having to make some tough decisions, and are moving more toward the model in Turkey. Iran has redirected its nuclear efforts toward energy generation, and now exports more oil than any country in the region while still providing adequate electricity for its own consumption and sale across borders to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria still struggles with no oil and little farm land, but is considering water importation through a pipeline to mimic Jordanian efforts.
I’ve not written anything about the events in Lebanon and Egypt, but have been watching closely. We send a lot of money to Egypt each year, still making payments on the agreement Sadat made with Carter. Lebanon is a sad tale–a once-thriving nation overcome by civil war and takeover by Palestinian terrorists and the Syrian army. Things are changing in both countries.
The Bush Doctrine. It is on the threshold. It can still fail. Some in this country and abroad–“allies” I think they are called–still want to see it fail. If it fails, the imaginary history I wrote will not come to pass. Instead, a much greater war will ensue. For those of you who are still anti-war, consider that potentiality.
I have no claim to prognosticative power. But, I hope I was right in my guess and assessment of the situation in both of those posts.
****UPDATE****
And now I find this. I think the answer to my question is “Yes.”
I fully expect the terror merchants to try to engage in a wider conflagration, which is why I think “your man” is a fool. He seems to have a very poor grasp of foriegn relations, the era of we the U.S., telling everyone else “it’s my way or the highway” ended about 1975, with the fall of Saigon.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — March 1, 2005 @ 6:44 pm
I think he has a far greater grasp of foreign affairs than most, and much better than people like you believe. The terror merchants will definitely try to engage in a wider conflagration. The real test will be whether others allow it to continue, or join us in trying to eradicate them.
Comment by Bunker — March 1, 2005 @ 6:59 pm
I got a real thrill reading this Mark Steyn article yesterday: The Arabs’ Berlin Wall has crumbled
Comment by Sarah — March 2, 2005 @ 12:16 am
Well Bubba, you’re probably right in your expectations that the terrorists will try to fan the fires of war. It is what they do after all. But, everything else you wrote is wrong. Maybe Bunker is right in being tentative about applying the sucess stamp to what is going on, but the progress that is being made is certainly encouraging. The dictators of the Middle East are being forced to loosen their control as their people see the possibility of democracy in their region, and in turn demand it for themselves.
Terrorists can survive even when the state does not condone them, but they can’t when the people don’t support them.
Either you are on the side of right or on the side of the terrorists. I don’t see much of a middle ground for you to stand on.
Comment by Cerberus — March 2, 2005 @ 11:22 am