"Also, do you think the insurgents are a little more nervous after nov 2?"
Joe wrote the following question in the comments section of my last blog.
If you are not aware, whether it was Kerry or Bush winning on the 2nd, it would have been business as usual for the resistance. Fighting an occupation might be an alien concept to some Americans, when their troops are the occupiers, but it is not just Americans who are patriotic, and love their country, others are just the same if not more.
Did the Afghanis stop fighting when Gorbachev came to power?
Did the Algerians stop fighting when De Gaulle came to power?
Did the Libyans stop fighting when Mussolini came to power?
Did the Viet Cong stop fighting when Johnson left and Nixon came?
The answer to these questions is "NO, they did not" because at the end of the day it did not make a difference who was in power. Foreign occupation troops were still on the ground, and some people saw fit to fight them.
Most of the time when it comes to foreign affairs, countries do not change their policies until it reaches a dead end whomever is in power. Kerry would not have been any different.
People in the ME have sussed out US policy in their region, and they were not exactly overwhelmed with the alternative choice being presented. At the end of the day the US had 3 pillars that it never deviated from when conducting it affairs in the ME.
1. Ensuring Israel's military superiority over it neighbors
2. Ensuring free flow of oil
3. Combating the spread of communism (change that to terror groups after the end of the cold war)
For point 1, it has really become an embarrassment. Your politicians do not fail to show their allegiance to Israel, even at the expense of their own country. It has become a big tasteless joke
Point 2, Saudi Arabian and gulf area oil was always in the bag, add Iraq to it. That is approximately 40%-45% of all world resources. I don't think you can ask for more.
Point 3, combating terror. Anybody who thinks that Kerry or any other US president for that matter will be less hawkish in this war than Bush, is clearly stupid. It has become a war of survival, and these groups will have to exterminate or be exterminated. But having said that, I just like to remind my American readers that it was not on Kerry's watch that OBL was allowed to slip through the net in TORA BORA.
Some of you might argue and add a 4th point. Spreading democracy in the ME. I was totally willing to be swayed by that argument, but in little mentioned story coming out of the ME, one of America's most trusted thugs (the Tunisian president) has just won another term in office (20 years and counting) with 94.99% of the total vote. But look at the bright side, it used to be 99.999%...yep democracy is gaining in Tunisia... Now we have 5 human beings opposing this guy's re-election,instead of few fingers or part foot etc.
The most disturbingly amusing thing I have come across after the US election is what I noticed while browsing the Pravada forums. There was an alliance of happiness between die hard communists and rednecks at the victory. The die hard communists argue that the only way the US is going down is through economic means and while the actions taken by Bush in his 1st term would have been reversible, they reckon that now it will be all downhill. The rednecks are just happy that god's deputy has won, and the broadband link he enjoys has not been severed.
Interesting times ahead.