The reason we got into the mess in Yugoslavia was because Europe has, since the second world war, been the most important geographical region for US security interests. Why? Because of capital transfers and trade. Also that business of a first and second world war. The goals of the US in Europe have been, historically, a policy of keeping another war from happening.
So why Yugoslavia? Well only reluctantly and after both the UN and the EU proved incapable of doing something about it. One can actually trace the break of the collapse of Yugoslavia to the German recognition of Slovenia, thereby setting up the collapse of Yugoslavia as an ethnically integrated state. I think the more accurate depiction of Yugoslavia was the ability of political leaders to exploit social divisions and fears for political ends (ironic that those kinds of politics work even in the US).
US intervention was primarily to sustain or create what little political order it could. Tanks to keep the borders intact, train the Croatian Army (through MPRI – Military Professional Resources International- an Alexandria, VA/Pentagon private military outfit), and force the Dayton Accords. Then latter to intervene in Kosovo- a situation which I don’t think is yet fully resolved. Of course that came only after a lot of blood got spilled and great reluctance on the part of the US.
Wooz said:
*Sniffs post*
Right, this is about the time for a conservative response. CCR, stop jerking off to Monica Belluci (by the way, you too, welsh) and post something.
Edited for typos. Damn typos.
Post? And give up Monica? Bah.
OK, quick answer- it helps to trace terrorist connections when you have the accounting books.
Let’s be thoughtful on this. Markets exist because governments make them. By governments are not inherently benevolent. They can make markets as they wish.
If you put a government under sanctions you basically allow the state greater power to define it’s domestic market- therefore it creates a monopoly. This was true in Iraq. It was also true in Serbia. I would bet you will find it true in most countries that have been under sanctions and might be one of the reasons why sanctions have so much trouble working.
Now, remember back in Gulf War 1 when Saddam was firing Scuds at the Israelis trying to egg them into the war. If you do, than perhaps you also remember the Palestinians on rooftops cheering on the fireworks. So for those of you thinking that Arafat’s death will change things in Palestine for the better, we need to think that maybe Arafat wasn’t that much in control to begin with and that there is a lot of social support for Palestinian rage at the Israelis.
So Saddam is somewhat isolated but wants to maintain some international reach- how to do it? Support terrorist groups financially. How, with the proceeds from oil. All you have is the Oil-for-Food policies? Well that will have to do, and why not? You already have a monopoly on your state’s economy. Slip the money through a few bank accounts to make the money trail murky and you’re in business.
And stirring up the money trail isn’t so hard to do in the Middle East. Back when I was working as an investigator in NY, one of our competitor companies had a nice juicy contract from Russia. The Russians were trying to track down some of the money that disappeared after the former communists sold out their state companies to foreign investors. This company, I think it was Kroll & Associates, tracked the money trail to bank accounts in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi. The Arab middle east bankers learned a long time ago when petro-dollars were being deposited in Citibank and the Bank of Zurick that bank secrecy laws were a great way to attract deposits.
If you want to fight the war against terror, a better way than sending in thousands of American troops into harms way might be through tracing the capital that flows.
That said, is Saddam’s payments to the families of sucide bombers “support for terrorism”- of course. But does that mean that Saddam was planning the bombings? If the guy was willing to launch Scuds at the Israelis, and the Israelis were willing to blow up his French nuclear plant, than is it a surprise that the guy is making payments to the families of the suicide bombers?
Is Saddam alone in this? Probably not. The difference is that we are seeing the bank books. If you were to peer into the accounts of the a number of Arab states you are likely to see more sinister acts. Iran’s and Sudan’s links to terrorism are a lot more substantial, as were the links between Libya. But note that we didn’t invade Iran and we’re good buds with Libya now that they have declared their WMD program dead and so the US can restore relations with them and get their oil (never mind that Qadhafi’s involvement with the Lockerbie tragedy). Oh and Sudan? We helped broker a peace treaty in that country to resolve the conflict between the Muslim North and the non-Muslim South, primarily because the oil fields exist in the South and the pipelines have to run through the North.
The official rational, best I can figure it, from Bush about Iraq was that the country most likely to give WMDs to terrorists was Saddam. But when Ambassador Kelly discovers that the whole “yellow cake uranium from Niger” theory is bullshit, they compromise his wife as a CIA agent.
That said, this isn’t the first time the US has botched it when it comes to responding to terrorism. The bombings of Libya that were meant to hit both terrorist bases and maybe take out Qadhafi were in retaliation to the bombing of a disco in Berlin frequented by US service men. But who was behind it- Syria. Oops.
So was this war really about terrorism?
Well if we were serious about terrorism we’d go after the countries that have a greater involvement in the terrorist business. But we don’t. Instead we make compromises we the countries that are more involved, and we spank those that we don’t like.
But maybe this whole “war on terrorism” business is a façade or justification for another war. For instance, although I have heard that Afghanistan was fought to assure an oil pipeline from Central Asia south, I doubt it. But then again, we did turn on Iraq pretty soon while we were still trying to finish the job in Afghanistan- a job that is still not complete though most of our commitment (money and man) is in Iraq.
Which begs the question- why Iraq?
Tone you might appreciate this bit as it comes from a military guy. This was on the Bill Maher Real Time show-
Wesley Clark states-
"The President has said he didn't have to explain why he does things... That's what he's told several people. It's in the Woodward book. And I think that when you get right down to it, when I went through the Pentagon right after 9/11 - I was in there about ten days after 9/11 - the generals called me into the room, and they said, 'Sir, we want to tell you a joke.' I said, 'You don't have time to tell me a joke.' They said, 'Oh, you've got to hear this one.' So I came in. They shut the door and said... '9/11: Saddam Hussein. If he didn't do it, too bad; he should have because we're going to get him anyway.'
And the war against terrorism? According to the political speeches ¾ of Al Qaeda leadership pre 9-11 has been killed or captured. Sounds good, right. How many people are we actually talking about? The number I hear is about 30 leaders and a few thousand rank and file.
And has it made a difference? Not really. What you are seeing today is the branching out of Al Qaeda into many organizations. Al Qaeda is not like a big hierarchical company but more like a franchise with little outfits being fairly autonomous.
Thomas Friedman on the Bill Maher show-
That’s right. And I’ve always said myself, you know, if you want to understand Al Qaeda, think McDonald’s. It’s a franchise organization. [laughter] Some of the franchisees are really smart and dangerous and they really know how to run the business.
Here's the full transcript if you're interested.
http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/print/t_hbo_realtime_102904.htm
And our policies are a big recruitment incentive.
This is not a war that will be won with guns and bullets regardless of how cool it looks on counter strike. It can only be won when the terrorists lack the legitimacy that make them appear to be insurgents or “freedom fighters” to some and more the criminals they are.
But of course that begs the question what really is a terrorist or what is terrorism-
Websters-
ter•ror•ism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear.
terrorism
\Ter"ror*ism\, n. [Cf. F. terrorisme.] The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized; a mode of government by terror or intimidation. --Jefferson.
Noteworthy is that terrorism is basically a form of coercive violence intended to illict a particular activity or instill fear. Thus the threat of nuclear war against densely populated targets is terrorism.
And so we come to Bob’s insights.
bob_the_rambler said:
i have had an interesting thought, the war on terror is a global terror knockout right? the war on terror is just that, saddam was supporting terrorists so he falls under the blanket of terrorist. i think to many of you have mistaken the "war on terror" to mean just a war with al-queda, its not, its a war on all terrorists period.
And like the war against drugs, it sounds better than what it is.
But Bob, what if we are the ones instilling terror. What if we are using incidents like Abu Ghraim to scare people into submission? What if we are using cruise missiles to target population centers as a means of coercive diplomacy. What if the US itself practices or supports acts of terror. Than what?
,
