General John Abizaid, perhaps IMPACT’s most distinguished guest for
2008, had a surprise for listeners during his speech. Most listeners
expected to hear a long talk justifying the war in Iraq. Indeed, a
group from the Middle Tennessee Veterans Association handed out copies
of a formal letter to the General asking him to address the war and
condemn it along with them. But Abizaid had a different goal in mind.
In keeping with the theme of IMPACT this year (Middle East Meets West),
he barely mentioned the war at all. Rather, he discussed military
organization in the Middle East, and he pinpointed what he believes to
be the four primary “problems” of the region.
General Abizaid is now retired, but he spent 34 years in the United States Army in a highly successful career. He became the youngest four-star general in the Army as well as the longest-serving commander of United States Central Command. He spent some time as the Director of the Joint Staff, giving military advise to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and he fell directly under Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense, in the ranks of command. At the height of his career, he was in charge of United States military influence over most of the Middle East, including Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, just to name a few of the more problematic regions. The only particularly noteworthy country missing from this list is Israel, and Abizaid explained that the United States groups Israel as part of a different geographic region. The United States Army “gives” countries to a small group of generals of Abizaid’s rank, and these groups of countries vary by size and level of conflict. Lebanon was given to Abizaid by Rumsfeld, not having been originally part of the Middle Eastern grouping; Abizaid expressed his displeasure at this particular event and noted that he asked Secretary Rumsfeld to “give [him] Haiti and North Korea while he was at it.”
In terms of his more surprising aspects of his lecture, Abizaid targeted what he sees as the four problems that the United States faces with involvement in the Middle East:
First, and most importantly, is the terrorist group Al-Qaeda. Abizaid pointed out there are facts about Al-Qaeda that the media often twists or gets wrong. For instance, this group does not want to establish an Islamic government. If anything, it wants to destroy governments (including Islamic ones), and establish a world-wide regime based on its radial ideologies. He also pointed out that this ideological regime is fairly new, and it needs time to die out just as other ideological regimes have done in the past, such as Naziism and Communism. Unfortunately, the General predicts that Al Qaeda will be with us for quite awhile as it exhausts its resources and influences.
The second problem, according to Abizaid, is the regime of Shia fundamentalists and the Mullahs in Iran. He noted that Iran holds a seat of influence and power, and allowing this power to be centered with a group of radical fundamentalists creates a rocky situation. He believes that the good news, however, is that unlike Al-Qaeda, the Shia regime is coming to its end. He said that recently the Iranian people have expressed an intense dislike over this regime and a commitment to something more moderate.
Third, the ever-present Arab-Israeli creates a world of instability in the Middle East that the General says has no foreseeable resolution. He commented that the most dire situation regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict has to do with Pakistan, and the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear country. There is a fear that Pakistan, either accidentally or on purpose, may arm the terrorists of Al-Qaeda, who have infiltrated this country, in which case the old WMD scenario could become alarmingly real.
Finally, the United States’ dependency on Middle Eastern oil demands that we have a presence in the Middle East. The dangers of the area demand that this presence be the military. As Abizaid noted, if we can wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil and turn to alternative sources of energy, then we benefit in two ways: first, the Middle East will have no bargaining chip over us and second, we will cripple the economic success of groups like the Iranian Shia regime. An added bonus, of course, is the potential for finding cleaner sources of energy that will limit damage to the environment. Until we develop this technology, however, we are stuck in the Middle East, because without its oil, our country would cease to function, economically.
Though Abizaid never conclusively said that we need to maintain a military presence in the Middle East, this is an opinion that I inferred from his lecture, and which I share. If the situation were such that we did not need Middle Eastern oil and there was not a nuclear weapon in any of the countries susceptible to terrorist infiltration, I would say to pull out entirely and leave the Middle East to its own devices. Afterall, fighting over regions such as the Gaza Strip is completely pointless, except on ideological terms. That land is not going to be useful for anything, as it has been so destroyed by the fighting and bombings. Unfortunately, the realities of our world make us dependent on that region, and we need to keep a presence there to protect our interests and national security. If we add the war in Iraq to the mix, then we are going to be stuck in the Middle East for years to come, despite the promises and pretty words of some of our more illustrious politicians and candidates. We cannot abandon the oil until we have a viable alternative; we cannot lose the constant vigilance against the possibility of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons; and we cannot pull out of Iraq at a moment’s notice, leaving a power vacuum for a dictator worse than Saddam to fill. And after hearing his remarkable lecture, I think the General would agree.
Comments