One goal of the last 25,000 miles traveled was to think seriously about following up an article posted to Global Thoughts in 1998 titled “Foreign Policy Rethink” in which I tried to set forth a series of scenarios and considerations that would govern US intervention in foreign places. The article was controversial but it proved to be historically accurate in predicting what would happen in the world and how the US would respond to it. At this point, the necessity is to evaluate the major tests that have occurred over the past 2 years: 9/11 and the US intervention in Iraq, and to see if these two activities cause a rethink of the 1998 article. This is an important issue because the US has been intervening in other people’s affairs for almost all of its 227 years and because the US does not live in a vacuum; things that fester abroad come home to roost.

So far, the US has not achieved its objectives in its war against terrorism. The objectives are increased security, economy and stability. The US has tried to achieve these objectives by setting itself up as the world’s policeman, ever since George Bush Sr. called for a New World Order. Bush Jr. is viewed as a cowboy abroad, and US policy is viewed as expedient, hypocritical and inconsistent. At home, Bush’s approval ratings and support for the action in Iraq are dipping to levels of concern. We still haven’t managed to find the ace of spades in either deck of cards and I frankly have trouble believing we can’t find them. Even on a simple level, the price of oil is at an all-time dollar amount high (although still cheap if adjusted for inflation). If we were going to war for relatively cheap oil, we haven’t gotten it at the pump. (One faint bright side: the high price is increasing the amount of revenue Iraq is receiving over its budget projection in this industry, so in a way it lessens the amount of aid we need to provide, but this is a minor benefit compared to the overall cost to the world economy of expensive oil.)

This article talks about the future. Too many people right now are talking about the past. I refuse to get on the bandwagon of criticism of Bush and Blair for either exaggerating the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) threat out of Iraq or of giving hawkish interpretation to vague intelligence. After 9/11, we criticized them and indeed our entire government for not being hawkish enough with vague intelligence and it is unfair for the critic to have it both ways. These leaders are tasked with ensuring our security, the world was very traumatized by 9/11, and they had good reason to worry about Iraq under Saddam being part of an uncertain future, particularly when he was actively acting as if he had something to hide and making threats, and France, who said that even if he was in violation of the UN they would oppose retribution, was not a credible witness for the defense or of the virtues of patience after over a decade of trying it that way. If you woke up one morning and Saddam told you he had WMD and had 500 ICBM’s pointed at you, it would be too late, right? It is not right in my eyes for these same people who criticized the leaders two years ago to be saying the things they are saying today. It is too much opposition politics and not enough responsibility. And it doesn’t really put forth a plan for the future.

At least here on Global Thoughts, the prewar talk was accurate. It was made clear here that the intelligence concerning WMD was vague and might be exaggerated but that the post 9/11 alternative to hold the status quo was untenable, that the rebuilding of Iraq would be costly and time-consuming and that the oil industry of Iraq would not produce the dividends that people thought it would, at least not for the first few years. It took several years after 1991 to find out exactly what Saddam was up to and it may turn out that we won’t know what was going on this past year until Saddam is killed and people start talking. My guess is that he managed to conceal what he was doing during the months leading up to the war as the US delayed its timetable but this is a minor point; the major point is that it was known all along that the intelligence was vague and the CIA had consistently underestimated real threats and been caught with its pants down too many times over the past few decades (ie: Pakistan nuclear tests the previous year as an additional example). So considering that, from the Global Thoughts vantage point, there was clear-sightedness going into this project, hopefully there will be clear sight going forward.

The central dilemma in determining a tipping point for US intervention is that people on one hand say Yankee Go Home, but they also want the US to intervene to change the status quo and then criticize the US for abandonment if they do intervene and then go home too quickly. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea and Palestine as current examples. Trying to come up with a consistent policy here requires at least 25,000 miles travel but I spent a good evening walking the promenade looking at the Hong Kong skyline (still one of the world’s most stunning) and think I’ve stumbled onto a working hypothesis:

Better the US as the World’s Leading Citizen rather than as the World’s Policeman.

Sounds simple and obvious but the devil is in the details and the application, and the task here is to keep it simple so that it can be applied consistently.

The US has to intervene in situations and for purposes that will improve the life situation of the average Joe. Eradicating Evil as a tipping point is not going to work. The problem with Iraq is that the Evil as it was defined did not quite exist (WMD) and that the man in the street has not seen his life improve since the US deposed Saddam. (This last point is arguable, by the way, because I keep hearing detailed stories that say otherwise, but because the perception is so widespread that the last point is true and perception as reality is a major plank of foreign policy, I am going to accept it as fact for the purpose of this article.) There will be no security in Iraq as long as troublemakers get support from Everyman because they think that we are the evil occupiers interested only in colonizing Iraq, taking its oil and securing trade monopolies. The world has seen this before; the British took over Hong Kong in order to dump opium onto China to correct its trade deficit in the commodities of that time and era. It doesn’t take many people to cause lots of trouble (it’s only a few thousand in Iraq that are doing this and the 9/11 extravaganza cost less than $500,000 to produce and any one wealthy person could have written out a check to pay for it) but it matters most if they have the Street on their side. Post 9/11 offers us no security if so much of the world believes that American foreign policy is Evil and, if anything, US activity since 9/11 has reinforced this perception rather than alleviated it.

The US needs to invest much more money building up Iraqi infrastructure, educating its young and creating opportunities and emphasize putting power into the hands of Iraqis for Iraq. Ditto for Afghanistan. The lopsided budgets for military expenditures (including such items as $50,000 per prison bed – just for the bed!) is nuts and is a testament to the dangers of having Bechtel subcontracting out the country’s reconstruction when Iraqis could do it with much less money funneled directly toward end-users. Paul Bremer is still appearing to be heavy-handed with his Iraqi council and the people around him do not appear to be savvy to the natives although as I said in last month’s article, there is a learning curve and it is not for nothing. Noticed less news of pipeline sabotage these days? The Americans started paying off Sunni tribes that live along the pipeline. Saddam suffered from pipeline sabotage too except when he made protection payments to the tribes. When he was ousted, the payments stopped and the sabotage started again. Get it? This is not necessarily evil; the tribes want their fair share of the national treasury and Baghdad was tending to get more of Saddam’s attention than the periphery and all eyes today are on Baghdad (although I do understand that the reasons the lights and phones are still out in 50% of Baghdad is that more attention is being given to the periphery these days with regard to utilities and school renovations). Even if the entire $87 billion budget for Iraq went to reconstruction and none of it to military, it would be smart money spent here and elsewhere. 9/11 cost $300 billion and forced all sorts of changes and hedges that are going to cost money into the indefinite future.

Same deal as to Palestine. We must intervene to crack heads to bang out a deal that will improve the life of Israelis and Palestinians. Everyman wants peace; they just don’t believe it’s possible because their respective leaders have convinced them that the Other Side can’t be dealt with and because their respective leaders don’t want to deal with the Other Side to the extent necessary to reach a lasting agreement. If the US forces the issue and puts money in, people will believe in it. The role of enforcer can be used to punish troublemakers who destroy the peace (ie: let the Japanese and Fijis set up a prison of exile on an island in the Indian Ocean for those who do).  Retain the right of hot pursuit for each side to not have to trust the other side to extradite or punish its evildoers (an inherent flaw in Oslo, as I have always said). As in Iraq, it is best not to go about these things alone. Bring in other countries to share the wealth and the burden because, if not, US companies will have all the exposure to insecurity, meaning that in my view trying to get a monopoly is an inherently unsafe bet.

Iran is a country that needs a new attitude in this regard. Everyman wants his life bettered and over half the population wasn’t alive when the Shah was overthrown; we are fixated on Evil and Security issues. Admit that we helped create the Islamic fanatic revolution by pushing the Shah dictatorship upon Iraq and realize that Iran is a great power on the map in a hostile region that cannot be neutered and must by nature become a nuclear power. It would be more clever to begin working to produce positive change in Iran from the inside rather than trying to isolate it from the outside.

North Korea is the toughest test for this policy. Asia wants us in because they know they will all be in an arms race if we don’t eliminate the WMD from Korea. Here we know there is a problem, unlike in Iraq where we thought there might be a problem. But really, the South Koreans don’t want reunification because it will cost oodles of money and they’re not sure their lives will be improved by it and they’re afraid that if we start up a war they will suffer all the casualties and be the Turks of the Gulf War of 1991 who got shit on and left to fend for themselves afterward (and ultimately gave us the finger last year in a painful way because they knew from experience not to trust our word that going to war against Iraq would improve their lives – a perfect illustration of the consequences of not following this policy). Just ask Germans what they think of reunification a decade later as they still pay the bills. China fears waves of refugees; nobody in Asia actually fears WMD from North Korea raining down upon them. So again, dealing with Korea demands getting Koreans to believe that reunification would better their lives. As in Iraq, they ultimately think the WMD thing coming out of North Korea is a bluff and of course we are all worried because by the time we find out for sure if it is a bluff it will be too late.

Syria is a good example of why the “Evil” linchpin of our declared policy fails. I’ve been to Syria and talked to Syrians in Damascus and in the middle of nowhere, in sealed elevators and private cars and places where I trust what I hear. Syrians by and large are not unhappy people and most don’t feel on a daily basis that they are under a dictatorship. Walking on the street in Damascus you see one of the most chummy carefree societies on the planet and the television and radio are downright festive; it is not like the grey Warsaw of the 1970's. Most don’t have political ambitions. They are sure that the US and Israel are evil, that the Israelis are barbarians, and have been told since they were kids that whatever Syria says is right. It is not going to work to have die-hard Republicans define Security as being against Evil when many reasonable people differ as to what Evil is. You can get Syrians (and Iraqis and Palestinians, etc.) to agree to Life Betterment – the problem in Syria is that you have to work 14 hours a day for 3 months to buy a refrigerator.

We need more Bill Gates kinda people – money to fight malaria and AIDS (which is a very good investment on his part) and road accidents (which kill more Israelis every year than terror) and to do good things to get people to love America as much as we do. Besides, if more people love us, we will love ourselves even more. Today America still represents the best idea in the world; its government is despised but its ideas rule. Even more so than the British a half century ago. The key is to get policies that promote these ideas and that make people want to help us achieve security, stability and economy for both themselves and us. Make the various players into partners, not fearful servants under suspicion. Make their lives better, and ours will be too. This is not just about people in Pakistan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. This is also about Arabs sitting in Michigan who are being rounded up for interviews and hassled in airports in an environment where every person including 80 year old Episcopalian grannies are viewed as potential shoe-bombers and saboteurs.

Let’s talk about Islam and the Clash of Civilizations theory. The Economist recently had a very good survey on this topic and they made some points worth repeating. Islam is not hostile to democracy; the rulers of the Arab countries are hostile to democracy and they have rigged the game to cut out secular opponents so that the only opposition is a menacing Islamic front set up as the bogeyman. Politics is local; the average Joe is not interested in global jihad; he wants water, sewage, a flat, a job and some recreation. True, terrorists have been from educated ranks but recruitment and assistance stems from the desperate situation on the ground around them. In Iraq, as the situation improves on the ground, the cost of getting jihadis goes up and the tipoffs from the ordinary people increase. The West is not in conflict with the Moslem World; one third of all Moslems live as minorities in non-Islamic countries. The biggest advances in Islamic thought are coming from inside Western countries and Islamists have an interest in maintaining these hosts for the development of themselves and their people. The fight is with those that are truly hostile to the West, not necessarily those that are hostile to democracy. Many that are hostile to the West are in favor of democracy, and many that are friendly to the West are not in favor of democracy and we really have to think about whether or not democracy is the end all and be all of everything; some people equate democracy with chaos and in the early pangs of getting a country started some people just want someone at the top to bang heads together when there are too many factions around that simply cannot agree to anything as in Iraq (where the Iraqis are saying they need at least a year to land themselves a constitution) and Afghanistan. And yet we have to be cautious about putting Order at the top of the pyramid of values because we see that people do not want an Order that does not benefit them. So again, the central thesis has to be that we are in favor of things that better the lives of people. Islamists are promising their people better lives; they succeed when they deliver it and they fail when they don’t. For after revolution or military success, people want to be fed. Hizbullah has had to adapt to a political role in Lebanon and I believe Hamas will have to adapt in a Palestinian state. We need to get Everyman who shares our values (and even those that don’t) to see that they have a stake in the preservation of an order that will lead to a better life for them.

Let’s talk about Israel. It’s just a matter of time before Quassem missiles strike inside the Green Line from launchers in the West Bank. It will raise the conflict to a totally new level and all the Walls that are built in the territories to keep people out will not solve a problem that will turn central Israel into the equivalent of the Galilee next to Lebanon of the 1980's. This is not just my opinion but that of some of the leading strategists and operatives in Israel who know what the real threat levels are. My analysis of the “Spiral of Violence” over the past decade is that the “ratcheting up” has been on the Israeli side. The Israelis come up with new offensives that they believe will create more security and the Palestinians respond with more efficient terror methods to negate the advance. Sharon in particular has been effective at creating ever-increasing levels of offense and at getting people to accept the resulting situation as being Normal. Things that would have been out of bounds 2 years ago are considered normal today. Peace is a possible but not credible prospect. I believe the parties must agree to peace or the future will become even more scary and that total security in any event is never possible, even though Israelis cling to the fiction that it is. I just don’t agree, and I accept the argument that it is arguable as to which side has ratcheted up first against the other. 

But let’s not dwell upon looking for historical rights or arguing who hit who first; this article is about creating a future. Tel Aviv will always be modern and light-years ahead of its neighbors, but it will be a scared city that will never be free to enjoy itself and it won’t be a place people want to live by choice. Jerusalem will be poor and scary. It’s not a future. Missiles with nuclear, biological and chemical material will come as will assassinations and bombings inside Israel. Some suicide bomber will race forward from the coast in a speedboat launched from some island in the Mediterranean and detonate a dirty bomb right on the Tel Aviv promenade on a Thursday night at midnight and it will be Israel’s moment to realize that it cannot win this game. I have predicted this for years and as much as I pray it won’t happen, I believe that the Israelis are deluding themselves to think they can police the area, create security, keep the Palestinians down and escape the consequences that will result from thinking they can win this game by outfoxing their adversaries at the top and by playing the Washington card. The answer is in realizing that the peace is not going to be between the leaders; it must be a reconciliation between the people and that reconciliation is going to be greased by the improvement of life beyond the Green Line, just as the original Intifadah of 1988 started due to the deterioration of living conditions there. It wasn’t about the politics, it was about the economy and the effects of that situation in 1988 are still with us today.

Yes, even peace with states will not prevent attacks by rogues, and 9/11 was an attack by a rogue, though it was a rogue which had hijacked a state which gave it a platform from which to attack. The problem with 9/11 was not the attack, but the situation in the world where 1/8 the world’s population thought the attack made sense and continue to believe that the event has been hijacked by the US in order to achieve total domination over the world. The US motives are not pure and national interests are indeed interests that must address the concerns of its citizens. What I am saying is that if these interests do not properly account for the interests of the others on this planet, even if accounting for those interests is against our own financial interest, we will not achieve a balance of harmony in the world that enables us to achieve our financial and political goals and will instead wind up costing us even more money and result in less stability, economy and security. 

One other point: I do believe that over time, the principles of a free market have consistently proven themselves to be the best of the available alternatives. Even if there are aberrations due to deregulation of a marketplace (ie: oligopolization of the airline industry in the US), the long view is that a forest fire will brush across the dry bush and the burn will restore nutrients to the soil that will ultimately replenish the forest. You can see that after 20 years the US airline industry contracted, convulsed and is now in its death-knell as upstarts compete against the established carriers, make profits and force changes in prices, methodologies and services. The telecom industry has not yet made the advances it should have because it was never truly deregulated; Verizon in New York is the world’s most awful company that I know of and it is that way because it is a protected monopoly. Yes, there are other local phone companies, but they all need Verizon’s infrastructure and personnel to keep them in business and I dare you to try and set up service in your house with any company other than Verizon and see if within a month you get your phone line installed. If Arnold Schwartzenegger is elected governor of California this week, it will be because enough people are tired of seeing California, the world’s fifth largest economy, lose jobs and corporations to other states because the policies of its Democratic-led government are too unfriendly to business. It currently costs $800 to incorporate in California and the state recently suspended loss-carryforwards for corporate taxes, which is a hostile thing to do to a business. The present governor’s policies are even making Democrats think of voting Republican under the assumption that Arnold can’t do any worse. Remember, it’s the Economy, Stupid. Bush Jr. knows it and what he has going for him is that even though the numbers are not good today in comparison to earlier in the past decade, they are still much better than they were years ago which is why I am not concerned about his 2004 electability at this moment.

The free market principle is one of the most important ideas the US has in its arsenal of Ideas the World likes. Even if you can’t have all the liberty you want in China, you are increasingly allowed to enjoy the benefits of the free market and people love that. It is still the best insurance I know of that enables people to live better lives and it goes hand in hand with this vision of the US as Leading Global Citizen.

So as I head into this Day of Atonement and think about my own concerns, on a personal level I think of global concerns because we are all wrapped up in each other’s concerns and welfare. The most elementary of Hebrew words Shalom, often translated as peace, is not only about politics, hello and goodbye. It has mystical connotations regarding God’s place in the universe and demands harmony of soul and not just earthly matters, and implies that you cannot achieve one without the other.  If we can translate those personal feelings into national policies as fellow Citizens of the World, we will have more peace in our personal space, in the town square, as well as in the global arena.