The neo-con think tanks that have successfully conquered US politics
are quite frank on their strategies - however, they adorn their plans
of world domination with bigot rethorics on how to bring peace (by
war) and democracy (by coercion).
The spin doctors have successfully shifted public attention off the
fear of "WMD's given to terrorists threatening the US" to "Regime
change and democracy". Calling their seemingly easy victory a
liberation (which of course it is in one aspect) gives them
absolution for their war of aggression - meaning the reality of
killing an almost defenseless army and and more than 1000 civilians.
Next step in the US politics on Europe will probably be the classic
"divide and rule" approach - appease the Germans, buy or coerce the
Russians, isolate the French. Sharons apparent consent to take back
(some) jewish settlements is one of the "carrots" after the "stick"
they used on Iraq. Future will show if there is a real commitment by
the US and Israel to a viable peace plan.
(Sharon interview with Ha'aretz:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=283307&contra
ssID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
Norman J. Ornstein, in one of the more moderate articles recently
published on the website of the neo-con think tank Aemerican
Enterprise Institute (realm of Richard Perle et al) proposes US
diplomatic policies like this:
"There will be some who want to use the occasion to humiliate the
French and Germans, shame the U.N. Security Council, supplant the
United Nations in significant ways with a new NATO (with minor roles
for the French and Germans and a major role for the emerging
democracies in Eastern and Central Europe), punish the Russians,
Turks, Canadians, Mexicans and others who didn't back us, and more
generally reassert American primacy as the sole superpower in a world
otherwise filled with supplicants, subordinates and pissants. And
many will want to act quickly to show the other despots, tyrants and
corrupt leaders in the Middle East that their days are numbered.
I share some of those sentiments (particularly humiliating the French
and Germans, jolting the United Nations out of its complacency as a
body that could blithely put Libya in charge of human rights and
Saddamite Iraq in charge of disarmament, and sticking it to jackboots
like Bashir Assad). But the stakes here are much too high. We do need
to confront the challenge of the French, whose opposition to our
military action went far beyond tactical or moral considerations; the
French want to create a bipolar world, where they lead the
counterweight to American hegemony. On Iraq, they were able to craft
a broader coalition behind them. We need at minimum to recreate an
alliance with the Russians that moves them away from France; ideally,
we would do the same thing with Germany.
We need to incorporate the United Nations into a robust and
meaningful role in post-war Iraq, one that suits its skills and
strengths, dealing with refugees and reconstruction, things we can't
do as well--and should not want to do unilaterally anyhow. It is
clear from the way the war has gone that there will be need for a
substantial military presence throughout Iraq for a long time, to
deal with thugs, terrorists, fedayeen and other agents of Saddam
Hussein and evil who will try to melt into the cities and villages
and then re-emerge to create havoc. But it is far preferable for that
military presence to have a wide multinational representation, to
spread the risk, ameliorate the costs and avoid the image of an
American conqueror.
Some of that role can perhaps be played via NATO, as we work to
recraft its mission from mutual self-defense to a broader coalition
in support of democracy, markets and freedom. All of these things
should be done in close consort with our main man, Tony Blair, and
our prime ally, Great Britain, as a partner, not a secondary
sidekick. "
Source: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16907/news_detail.asp
Regarding the Middle East, the next probable target is Syria, as
apparent in the not only verbal attacks the US have given Syria
already. However, the current military, economic and political
situation will probably not allow a classic war of aggression as seen
in Iraq. This would alienate the US from their UK ally, hinder the
desired reconciliation with Europe and infuriate the Arab world even
more. However, we will most probably see a "military strike" on Syria
before the coming US elections.
Again, I would like to cite another one of the more moderate articles
from the AEI website, recently published by David Frum:
"For Syria, think Libya. In the 1980s, Libya was an audaciously
aggressive terrorist regime, just as Syria is now. After a Libyan
attack on a West Berlin disco killed three American soldiers and
wounded four dozen more, Ronald Reagan ordered a massive bombing
attack on Tripoli, the Libyan capital. The 1986 raid was followed by
a painful series of covert attacks on the Libyan regime that
shattered Muammar Gaddafi's nerve.
Syria has already suffered the first in a coming series of
U.S.-administered shocks. Last week, American special forces
sabotaged the oil pipeline that runs from Iraq to Syria. Through this
pipeline there used to flow up to 200,000 barrels a day of illegally
smuggled oil, which Syria resold at a large profit. The income from
smuggled oil was one of Syria's most important sources of hard
currency. Was--but is no more.
A postwar Syria will be surrounded on three sides by powerful
enemies: Turkey, Israel, and a Western-oriented Iraq. Isolated,
economically squeezed, vulnerable to terrible retaliation if it
misbehaves: Under those circumstances, the rulers of the Syrian state
may remain the same nasty bunch they are today. But it's a fair bet
that they will become much better listeners."
Source: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16895,filter./news_detail.asp
are quite frank on their strategies - however, they adorn their plans
of world domination with bigot rethorics on how to bring peace (by
war) and democracy (by coercion).
The spin doctors have successfully shifted public attention off the
fear of "WMD's given to terrorists threatening the US" to "Regime
change and democracy". Calling their seemingly easy victory a
liberation (which of course it is in one aspect) gives them
absolution for their war of aggression - meaning the reality of
killing an almost defenseless army and and more than 1000 civilians.
Next step in the US politics on Europe will probably be the classic
"divide and rule" approach - appease the Germans, buy or coerce the
Russians, isolate the French. Sharons apparent consent to take back
(some) jewish settlements is one of the "carrots" after the "stick"
they used on Iraq. Future will show if there is a real commitment by
the US and Israel to a viable peace plan.
(Sharon interview with Ha'aretz:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=283307&contra
ssID=1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y)
Norman J. Ornstein, in one of the more moderate articles recently
published on the website of the neo-con think tank Aemerican
Enterprise Institute (realm of Richard Perle et al) proposes US
diplomatic policies like this:
"There will be some who want to use the occasion to humiliate the
French and Germans, shame the U.N. Security Council, supplant the
United Nations in significant ways with a new NATO (with minor roles
for the French and Germans and a major role for the emerging
democracies in Eastern and Central Europe), punish the Russians,
Turks, Canadians, Mexicans and others who didn't back us, and more
generally reassert American primacy as the sole superpower in a world
otherwise filled with supplicants, subordinates and pissants. And
many will want to act quickly to show the other despots, tyrants and
corrupt leaders in the Middle East that their days are numbered.
I share some of those sentiments (particularly humiliating the French
and Germans, jolting the United Nations out of its complacency as a
body that could blithely put Libya in charge of human rights and
Saddamite Iraq in charge of disarmament, and sticking it to jackboots
like Bashir Assad). But the stakes here are much too high. We do need
to confront the challenge of the French, whose opposition to our
military action went far beyond tactical or moral considerations; the
French want to create a bipolar world, where they lead the
counterweight to American hegemony. On Iraq, they were able to craft
a broader coalition behind them. We need at minimum to recreate an
alliance with the Russians that moves them away from France; ideally,
we would do the same thing with Germany.
We need to incorporate the United Nations into a robust and
meaningful role in post-war Iraq, one that suits its skills and
strengths, dealing with refugees and reconstruction, things we can't
do as well--and should not want to do unilaterally anyhow. It is
clear from the way the war has gone that there will be need for a
substantial military presence throughout Iraq for a long time, to
deal with thugs, terrorists, fedayeen and other agents of Saddam
Hussein and evil who will try to melt into the cities and villages
and then re-emerge to create havoc. But it is far preferable for that
military presence to have a wide multinational representation, to
spread the risk, ameliorate the costs and avoid the image of an
American conqueror.
Some of that role can perhaps be played via NATO, as we work to
recraft its mission from mutual self-defense to a broader coalition
in support of democracy, markets and freedom. All of these things
should be done in close consort with our main man, Tony Blair, and
our prime ally, Great Britain, as a partner, not a secondary
sidekick. "
Source: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16907/news_detail.asp
Regarding the Middle East, the next probable target is Syria, as
apparent in the not only verbal attacks the US have given Syria
already. However, the current military, economic and political
situation will probably not allow a classic war of aggression as seen
in Iraq. This would alienate the US from their UK ally, hinder the
desired reconciliation with Europe and infuriate the Arab world even
more. However, we will most probably see a "military strike" on Syria
before the coming US elections.
Again, I would like to cite another one of the more moderate articles
from the AEI website, recently published by David Frum:
"For Syria, think Libya. In the 1980s, Libya was an audaciously
aggressive terrorist regime, just as Syria is now. After a Libyan
attack on a West Berlin disco killed three American soldiers and
wounded four dozen more, Ronald Reagan ordered a massive bombing
attack on Tripoli, the Libyan capital. The 1986 raid was followed by
a painful series of covert attacks on the Libyan regime that
shattered Muammar Gaddafi's nerve.
Syria has already suffered the first in a coming series of
U.S.-administered shocks. Last week, American special forces
sabotaged the oil pipeline that runs from Iraq to Syria. Through this
pipeline there used to flow up to 200,000 barrels a day of illegally
smuggled oil, which Syria resold at a large profit. The income from
smuggled oil was one of Syria's most important sources of hard
currency. Was--but is no more.
A postwar Syria will be surrounded on three sides by powerful
enemies: Turkey, Israel, and a Western-oriented Iraq. Isolated,
economically squeezed, vulnerable to terrible retaliation if it
misbehaves: Under those circumstances, the rulers of the Syrian state
may remain the same nasty bunch they are today. But it's a fair bet
that they will become much better listeners."
Source: http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.16895,filter./news_detail.asp