[The Telegraph, U.K.]

O Globo, Brazil

Iraq War to Face the 'Severe Judgment' of History

"My bet is that in 20 years, the invasion of Iraq will be judged in even more severe terms than it is today. If this war was launched to defend American interests, it has achieved the opposite results."

By William Waack

Translated By Brandi Miller

March 20, 2008

Brazil - O Globo - Original Article (Portuguese)

One comprehends President George W. Bush's confidence that history will judge the Iraq invasion kindly, say in about 20 years. It's a fairly well-known fact that the contemporary nature of an event doesn't necessarily allow one to understand the magnitude and consequences of the occurrence. Would you like two good recent examples? It was easy to anticipate what would happen after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But few anticipated the consequences of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

Can one now anticipate the judgment that will be made within the space of a generation of the Iraq invasion? In my opinion, yes. I see the invasion of Iraq in the same category as the 1967 war (the Six-Day War) between Arabs and Israelis, which profoundly transformed the Middle East and the consequences of which we are still living with today, over 40 years later.

[Editor's Note: In the Six Day War of 1967, the Israelis vanquished the combined Arab army of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria - long with troops from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria ].

There is an interesting parallel between the Israel political and military leaders who fought the war of 1967 and what is happening with the Americans today. Forty years ago, Israel judged attack as their best defense, believing that a “preventive” war (I'm pushing the concept a little, for clarity) would guarantee the security of the State, and principally, they felt that they would only briefly remain in Arab-occupied territory (especially the West Bank) - for they had not the slightest plan to remain.

In the case of Iraq, these five years have shown that above all, the Americans lacked a strategic long-term vision. Judging by the ample and well-researched literature already available, there was adequate planning only for the short term. They ran a brilliant, high efficiency, low cost military operation (I refer only to the first 20 days of the campaign). The rest can be summarized in one phrase: dilettantism marked by impressive ideological bias.

[Editor's Note: Dilettantism is defined as the act of being an amateur or a 'dabbler.']

Does Bush have reason to suggest that the “strategic results” of the Iraq invasion will be duly appreciated at a time when newspaper headlines aren't subject to short-term political interests? He does, but not for the reasons he claims. There are two long-term transformations that only began with the war, but that will probably play out over the next 20 years or more.

The first is the transformation of Iraq into a weak and unstable country, with parts under the direct influence (or threat) of stronger neighbors (like Turkey and Iran, for example). The situation in Iraq suggests the propagation of “failed states” in an arc of extraordinary importance for the energy needs of a good part of the world, and which covers Pakistan and Afghanistan. Perhaps no cataclysm will result from this fragility - but this does suggest a long-term imbalance that will be very difficult to handle.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

The second is the remarkable rise of Iran as a regional power. For the first time in the last 400 years, the Iranians again exercise influence from the west of Afghanistan to the east of Iraq - as well as Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and Syria. It's also interesting to note the geopolitical “respect” now garnered by the Iran of the ayatollahs, which has expanded into Central Asia and guarantees optimal relations with China and Russia.

Posted by WORLDMEETS.US

I don’t see how these strategic transformations can be considered positive from the point of view of North American interests. On the contrary: the Iraq War seems to have precipitated a succession of events over which the United States has little control. And the U.S. must now address the way its formidable military machine seems stretched to the point of being unable to fight in more than one place at a time.

My bet is that in 20 years, the invasion of Iraq will be judged in even more severe terms than it is today. If this war was launched to defend American interests, it has achieved the opposite results.

CLICK HERE FOR PORTUGUESE VERSION

[Posted by WORLDMEETS.US March 26, 3:40am]