Final Campaign?

As Congressional Democrats continue their disgraceful efforts to sabotage success in Iraq, I find myself coming around to the view that the world may be a safer place today than it has been before in my lifetime. Prospects for a peaceful world may be the best they have ever been. Consider this. The odds that the major powers of the 21st century would go to war with each other are remote at worst. The two most dangerous regimes remaining on the planet are or soon will be surrounded by strong stable neighbors committed to containing them. We may yet face a generational conflict in the War on Terror but Al Qaeda’s recruits are demonstrating conclusively that God has not taken the field to lead them. We may even be seeing a clear path to peace in the Middle East. We just might never again have to go to war. Bush haters are accusing him of trying to start a war with Iran but that’s just silly. He’s begun drawing American forces down in the region, not building them up. Refusing to take military options off the table doesn’t start wars. It is often the best means of preventing them. Frightening as the Mutually Assured Destruction strategy was in the Cold War, it worked. Frankly I don’t see much chance of another war in the Middle East or anywhere else. With the examples of Saddam Hussein and Mullah Omar at hand no petty tyrant in his right mind is going to provoke the United States or allow others to use his territory to launch terrorist attacks here. When the next attack comes it isn’t likely to have a state sponsor. Syria and Iran are both going to have some serious bills to pay for their meddling in Iraq as she gets back on her feet. Between that and their increasing regional isolation I expect them to be too busy looking over their shoulders to conduct much of the sort of mischief we’ve come to expect from them. Libya’s Mohammar Qaddafi has already begun cleaning up his act. If Iraq, Iran, and Syria really are on the sidelines, even Israeli and Palestinian animosities look manageable. If not the Middle East then where? East Asia? Not likely. China is building military power but economic issues will carry the day there. Another incident like the mid-air collision that forced a US Navy spy plane to land at a Chinese airfield early in the Bush administration looks pretty remote these days. China is preoccupied with growing prosperity and that means integrating with the global economy. That is a powerful brake on clashes with export markets. Taiwan is still a potential flash point but China’s primary security concerns involve energy and trade. Korea? Some very close watchers like former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage think we could see a unified and stable peninsula as early as 2020. It could happen. It would be in China’s best interest, and Russia’s, and Japan’s, and ours, and both Korea’s. If the Berlin wall could fall peacefully so could the DMZ. Nobody in North East Asia wants war. If the six-party talks are successful in defusing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and they appear to be, it will be one of the most remarkable international political developments since the fall of the Soviet Union. Central Asia? No, things are messy but they are sorting them themselves out and governments are more interested in making the kind of economic progress they see in Eastern Europe than in military adventurism. Russia has had a remarkable economic rebound in recent years due principally to high oil prices. Some Russians may still have imperial ambitions but secure oil and gas pipelines are critical sources of revenue. Stability in the region is probably as important to Russia as it is to anyone. South Asia? Pakistan may not have a history of stable democracy but they have been policing themselves for six decades and, nuclear or not, they aren’t crazy. They have an Indian economic powerhouse emerging on their doorstep that also happens to have nuclear weapons. The incredibly backward extremists from the Pakistani badlands have over reached in taking on the military. Any new Pakistani regime will likely be focused on getting them under control. Fears of Muslim fanatics taking over are overwrought. One election after another in Pakistan has demonstrated minimal support for Islamist parties. That really leaves only Africa, and really only the failed states of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa. We could do some special operations style military interventions there from time to time, as we did in Somalia in cooperation with Ethiopia last year. I doubt we will become heavily involved in anything remotely approaching war. Of course all this depends on an unchallengeable American military. It isn’t reasonable to expect Americans to continue paying disproportionately for that. We’ve got some rebuilding to do over the next few years, especially with the Army and Marines, and there will probably be strong public support for that for a while, but not indefinitely. We would be wise to be exploring new and stronger means of collective security with countries like Russia, China, Japan, India, and Turkey. Those six party talks in Korea are looking pretty good. That kind of cooperative exercise could also help build mechanism for dealing with catastrophes like the global pandemic some experts think is only a matter of time in coming. There are still lots of things that could go wrong in this new world order that seems to be emerging. When it became apparent that George Bush intended to invade Iraq I thought it meant he had decided to reform the entire Arab world. If he pulled it off he would go down as one of America’s great presidents. If he failed he would go into the proverbial dust bin of history, right down there with Jimmy Carter. I’m beginning to think historians will treat Mr. Bush a lot more kindly than his contemporaries do. He may leave his successors a world with reforms that go far beyond Arabs. WWI was supposed to be the War to End All Wars. Won’t it be ironic if it turns out that Iraq finally does the trick?