 |
 |
 |
The US needs to have a Disengagement Plan for Iraq.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/10148
Comments
1
.
BobW
said:
I never believed the Bush administration was in the business of nation building. Bush 41 and his no-fly zones really disestablished the nation of Iraq. The northern no-fly zone was for the Kurds. The southern zone for the Shiites and the center for the Sunnis. The recent constitution was a sham. The recent election was a sham.
There is pressure, espcially from NATO Turkey, to preclude a sovereign Kurdish nation. Turkey would experience an irredentist movement in its southeast.
The USG is waiting for 2 hopefuls-operational pipelines for Caspian "north tier" oil flows and the closure of the current Social Security system to free up funds for a global military force.
The US administration felt obliged to go to war in Iraq. Iraq, with the EU and PR China (and others, eg Venezuela) were planning to change the world oil pricing of oil from a US dollar denominated basis to the Euro. The USG considered this a grave economic threat.
Note that the USG now has effective pricing controls over OPEC Vienna via US control of the Iraq oil pools.
In only hours Pres Bush meets with his PRC counterpart Wu to discuss Iran and Sudan. The discussion have the background advantage that last month's US energy legislation is loaded with billions ("b") in subsidies for nuclear power plants. The generating plants take a decade plus to build. Financial market take minutes to react to news.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on September 11, 2005 12:59 PM
2
.
lignaeus
said:
This is scary stuff and fodder for the anti Iraq war faction, but I still don't see an alternative. Project instead scenarios of an eventually failed and chaotic Iraq and the consequences that would follow from that, had the US not taken action.
I was mocked here by a commenter as Howdy Doody, which was food for thought for me, though I don't make any claims for high intelligence and insight into what is going on, I just try to figure it out as best I can, maybe sometimes in the manner of the kid in The Emperor's New Clothes. Two things, first, though just a kid at the time, I remember England in 1940. There were many naysayers, pessimists, those who thought Churchill was a fool at best, a criminal at worst and that we should make peace with Hitler and join Germany as an ally. Well, I'd rather be with the can-do optimists.
Second, and along the same lines in a way, I go along with another Brit, Christopher Hitchens in his essay, A War to be Proud of,
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5995&R=C68B2A43B
Dangerous times all right, but the bigger danger would be to do nothing as in the past forty years or more. I think and hope that in a hundred years time it will be seen to have been the start of a more sane world. There were millions of dead and hitherto unimaginable destruction before Hitler and his minions were got rid of and at the end of it all an exhausted world was left with the communists lording it over all of Eastern Europe and threatening the rest. But Hitler had to be fought in spite of that unwanted outcome. So, here we are again, and just as Churchill had many flaws and made awful mistakes, so does and will the US, but who else is there? EUrope is pretty useless for a start, someone has to take the lead. I often say to anti-Americans, imagine the world now if America had not existed. The Nazis without a Western front would probably have defeated Russia leaving the nice thought of a world dominated by European barbarians.
All this doesn't mean I don't have my black moments by the way.
Posted by: lignaeus on September 11, 2005 01:30 PM
3
.
lignaeus
said:
Oh yes, and reason #3 for my optimism.
http://anglosphereinstitute.org/
Any who are not familiar with the term 'Anglosphere' should hasten to the site and read the four essays, An Anglosphere Primer.
Posted by: lignaeus on September 11, 2005 02:34 PM
4
.
ligneus
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.israpundit.com/nav-commenters.gif)
said:
Sorry if I'm wasting your space for a personal comment, I finally corrected the spelling of my blog name to ligneus. It's been called a silly name, though silly names don't seem otherwise to be frowned on in the blogosphere, but all it is, is the name I was given when I started Latin classes in 1950 by our teacher one Miss Jones who gave us all Latin names related to our surnames. My name was Greenwood, ligneus is the Latin for wood. I thought it neat when I started blogging to resurrect it and send it out across the world on the Internet in contrast to when it was last used in a big old classroom with wooden desks and inkwells that had to be filled every Monday morning.
Thankyou for your indulgence.
Posted by: ligneus on September 11, 2005 02:55 PM
The US needs to have a Disengagement Plan for Iraq.
By Ted Belman (originally posted on Aug 22/05 but posted today because it addresses the next two posts.))
The reasons for the US quitting Iraq are not dissimilar from the reasons for Israel quitting Gaza.
When the US invaded Iraq it seemed like a good idea at the time. Israel didn’t have a choice to occupy Gaza in ’67 but later decided to hunker down and settle the land. Recently Israel decided it was a no win situation and just got out. The US has also decided it’s a no win situation. It is hanging in there to save face. Does it really want to waste its treasure and to have its sons be killed in order to create an Islamic state friendly to Iran? Even if a constitution is agreed upon, the resulting union will be unstable and as soon as the US leaves it will fall apart. In any event, Iran will have the dominant influence.
In both cases there is the concern that retreat sends a bad message to the terrorists. The Israelis have decided that that is of secondary importance. They decided to reject their burden, Gaza, and to focus where their long term interests lie. The US should do likewise.
Let us assume that the US took my advice and just disengaged unilaterally without regard to what happens constitutionally. Let the parties sort it out for themselves or not as the case may be.
The US should then move their troops to friendly Kurdistan, including Kirkup. From this position it would have considerable influence on Syria, Iran and Turkey all of whom worry about the secessionist Kurdish movements in their own countries. The US could support these secessionists Kurds in these countries to destabilize their host countries just as Iran and Syria use Hezbollah to destabilize Israel and the US in the ME. This potential would give it considerable leverage. Thus it would be returning to the policy of pre-emption.
Meanwhile the Shiites would be happy to go their separate way with the support of Iran. Shiitestan could then focus on increasing its oil production which could lower the price of oil. Another win for the US. But the problem of the Iranian /Shiitestan union or collaboration would have to be dealt with regardless
The Sunnis would be bereft of oil revenue and decidedly unhappy. They would not take it lying down. The Sunnis with the support of Saudi Arabia and Syria would go to war against the Shiites or at least continue the insurgency. But they couldn’t continue to kill Shiites with impunity..
There is no question that such a policy would have unpredictable results. Perhaps it would result in the Sunni/Shiite war as I have suggested with the result that Saudi Arabia or Jordan could be destabilized. Perhaps it would result in regime change in Iran and Syria also.
What a mess. The problem is that the US cannot transform the ME to its liking whether it stays in Iraq or disengages. Nor can it submit to Al Qaeda’s demands that it get out of the ME entirely.
It is clear that there will be no pax-Americana. Perhaps a guerre-Americana would be a better solution. It is in the US interest to have the Sunnis and Shiites fight each other as they did in the Iraq/Iranian war. It would preoccupy the terrorists and the regimes that support them. It would also make all the regimes vulnerable and concerned with their own survival.
Bush should take his former advice and not be in the business of nation building. A policy of deterrence would be better. From a base in Kurdistan it could have great influence over how all their protagonists act. It should be prepared to punish them by bombing them if need be. It should also support Israel and allow it to do likewise.
Posted by Ted Belman at September 11, 2005 08:00 AM