A program on the The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) interviews Newfoundland-born military analyst Gwynne Dyer who has some interesting forecasts for the endgame in the Middle East. (ABC calls Dwyer a “U.S. military analyst”, which to most might mean he's an American who analyses the military rather than a Canadian who analyses the world's armies, but I digress …)
Dwyer believes the terrorist threat to the West may, ultimately, be eliminated if the Americans lose the war in Iraq and are forced out of the Middle East. Here's his logic, as he laid it out yesterday on an ABC program:
The World Today – Friday, 1 June , 2007 12:27:00
Reporter: Eleanor Hall
ELEANOR HALL: A US military analyst who's served in the armed forces and has written on international affairs for more than two decades, is issuing a warning today about the collapse of the United States as a superpower.In his latest book, The Mess they Made: the Middle East after Iraq, Gwynne Dyer says there's no doubt that the US will withdraw its troops from Iraq once President George W. Bush leaves office.
But he predicts that already that war has set in motion events that will radically transform not only the Middle East but the role of the United States in the world.
Gwynne Dyer is in Sydney this week and he joined me earlier in the World Today studio.
There've been a series of conflicts in the Middle East over the last 40 years, why do you see this latest war in Iraq as likely to be so transformative for the region?
GWYNNE DYER: Well the Americans actually have never committed troops in the Middle East, never actually fought a war in the Middle East, the United States, before. I think this is having an impact on the American public, comparable to the impact on the American public in the Vietnam War though the casualties are far lower this time. So now, there is developing, a Middle Eastern allergy in American public opinion, rather similar to the South East Asian allergy that you had by the end of the 1960's.
That is transformative because if America is not there enforcing the status quo, the status quo probably collapses. It is very old and shoddy. The regimes of the Arab world, with zero exceptions, except for Iraq, where the Americans overthrew Saddam, have all been in power for at least forty years.
They're all dictatorships or absolute monarchies, most of them are corrupt beyond imagining. So this is a very unstable status quo, maintained by American subsidies, American troops, American guarantees, and when those are withdrawn, I think that there will be very large changes in the Middle East.
ELEANOR HALL: You're certain that all of those will be withdrawn, not just the US troops, but the US subsidies as well?
GWYNNE DYER: Not all and not right away, but enough to create a momentum, in which Congress will be reluctant to vote new funds, Congress will be very suspicious about new commitments to support Arab regimes, and meanwhile the momentum in the streets in the Arab world will be moving very rapidly in the favour of the revolutionaries. And that's what they are, after all, the Islamists, after all, are political revolutionaries, they're not just religious fanatics.
ELEANOR HALL: So what will be the shape of the Middle East at that point?
GWYNNE DYER: I think that you're going to see some, I can't tell you which ones, but some Arab regimes fall in the next five years, fall to Islamists of various variety. Some of them perhaps very radical, some of them less so.
ELEANOR HALL: So what would this mean for terrorism in the WestGWYNNE DYER: I think it would drop. I mean the terrorism in the West has two sources, really, first of all the actual 9/11 attacks were a strategic move by a revolutionary Arab organisation, al-Qaeda, to trick the United States into invading Muslim countries. If you pull the troops out of the Middle East, and the West is no longer occupying Muslim countries, I think the wind goes out of the sails of that particular interpretation.
ELEANOR HALL: There's not a danger that having Islamist republics in the Middle East might inspire terrorism around the world?
GWYNNE DYER: No, I don't see why, because I mean, once they're in power, what do they need to bother us for?
Of course, the 'revolutionary regimes' that spring up in the Middle East may not be the greatest thing for the people in those countries but at least we might be safe …
I wonder if Dyer ever listens to the stuff that comes out of his mouth…
Let's have a look at how that panned out for Southeast Asia, shall we?
– Burma / Myanmar: Former democratic government (since 1948) overthrown by socialist military strongman in 1962. Since overthrown by another military junta in 1988, which had promised to restore democracy. Elections held in 1990, but nobody took their seats and the junta still rules.
– Thailand: US ally following WW2, military dictatorship in power from 1932-1973. Briefly a democracy from 1973-1976, until a bloody military coup returned rule by junta until. Briefly a democracy again from 1992 until 2006, when another military junta staged a coup.
– Laos: Independent from 1955, 1958 constitutional monarchy overthrown by military coup in 1960. Militarists overthrown by communists in 1975, 10 percent of Lao population leaves. Still communist today.
– Cambodia: Constitutional monarchy from 1953 -1970, ended by military coup. Communist coup in 1975, followed by genocide, constant warfare with Vietnam, and civil war from 1978-1991. Elections in 1993, constitutional monarchy restored, briefly interrupted by politician-led coup in 1997. Relatively stable since 2003.
Vietnam: Partitioned 1954, essentially constant civil war 1954-1975. After US withdrawal in 1973, Vietnam reunified as communist state in 1975-6. A million Vietnamese flee. Fought wars with Cambodia (1978-1989) and China (1979). Still communist today.
So, yeah, things worked out for America, in the sense that Americans stopped fighting and dying for Vietnam. Not sure the picture is all that rosy for citizens of those countries, though.
The other key difference is that the Vietnam War was not religiously motivated. Nobody on the other side thought they were earning heavenly brownie-points for killing Americans or their Southeast Asian allies. Nor did they have any particular animus towards, say, Israel.
Leaving the Middle East would still leave Israel hanging in the balance; and an Islamist-run Middle East would not be happy as long as Israel exists. The US would have to be prepared to abandon the US-Israeli security alliance, and under those circumstances, I don't think that would be moral or wise.