<p>Everybody seems to forget that we did not go to war with Iraq because they has weapons of mass destruction but rather because they wouldn’t allow inspections or account for the destructions of the weapons of mass destruction they had at the close of the first Gulf War.</p>
<p>Had we not gone to war the French and the Germans would have gotten the sanctions regime lifted and that would have been accounted a huge Arab victory by Saddam Hussein and today we would be facing an even more intractable problems in the region and an increased threat of terrorist attacks at home.</p>
<p>If you have a large enemy you split him in two. That is what we did when we went to Bagdahd and that is what Grant did when he took Vicksburg. Why not go to Iran? Well for starter the Iranians aren’t Arabs and the aren’t Sunnis. Bin Laden and his followers are mostly Arab and all Sunni. And besides why fight for something that is going to fall in your lap soon anyway. The Ayatollahs are a spent force and the population is fairly pro-American.</p>
<p>Shoot, pax. I was hoping for penetrating insight but you’re sticking with the sanction/WMD farce? Rightio. </p>
<p>Which enemy did we split in half? Sunni versus Shia? </p>
<p>After watching the last decade of increasing fundamentalism in Malaysia and Indonesia, you think Iran is going to fall in our laps? You are an optimistic Amnerican! My guess is that the Ayatollahs just pulled a “Mugabe”; ie draw the opposition out of hiding with fake elections so you can slaughter them in the following months.</p>
<p>The Iranian government is the nexus of Islamic terrorism. Bin Laden was just one of their ‘clients’, the others being Hammas, Hezbollah, etc.</p>
<p>From a military standpoint, invading Iran was not in the cards. Simply put, it just wasn’t an achievable objective.</p>
<p>As you point out, it is probably not necessary. The presence of the American military on both of Iran’s borders serves as a deterrent and gives us a base of operations should it prove necessary to go in take out a nuclear program (or a sighting of Bin Laden at one of the compounds he built in Iran).</p>
<p>Nothing, and I mean nothing, would threaten the Islamic theocracy in Iran more than the successful implementation of a quasi-democratic, pro-Western state in Iraq. The last thing the Alayatollahs can handle is images of jobs and consumer goods across the border in Iraq. In fact, the idea of success in Iraq threatens pretty much everyone in the Middle East which is why there is so much non-Iraqi support for the current terrorist actions trying to undermine the rebuilding process.</p>
<p>The two biggest exporters of terrorism in the region have been Iran and Syria. Look at a map and you’ll see that we now have a huge military presences smack-dab in between these two countries.</p>
<p>But the biggest financiers of Islamic attacks outside of Israel are the Saudis and the Jordanians, no? Arguably, those funds make them the largest exporters of Islamic revolution.</p>
<p>But nevermind. I misread the comment. I thought there was a reference to splitting some part of Islam apart–psychologically.</p>
Syria is sandwiched between Israel and Iraq; Iran between Iraq and Afghanistan, with all sorts of things going on in the surrounding 'stans. I think there’s a whole layer of strategery going on that few are aware of. I guess maybe Valerie Plame is in on it, but very few others would have the need to know. I’m serious, except for the Valerie Plame part. There’s a whole lot of SGO over there that we and the media know nothing about–and that’s probably a good thing.</p>
<p>Ah, but Cheers, the psychological dimension and all that other soft stuff is of no account. Dealing with the Middle East is as simple as moving cardboard chits around on a mapboard. </p>
<p>InterestedDad, I’d bet big bucks against a pro-Western quasi-democratic state emerging in Iraq within the next 10 years at least. Too bad that a bookie would tear his hair out on trying to define the terms. </p>
<p>And I’ll also make book that if anyone–my guess is an Israeli proxy–takes out an Iranian nuclear facility, the heretofore relatively quiescent Shiites in southern Iraq will create a really big mess for us.<br>
Yes, we can supply Baghdad by air…it’s a hell of a lot easier via Basra.</p>
<p>And I also don’t believe in a Chalabi scenario for Iran, with flag-waving Iranians cheering a U.S. presence after the overthrow of the mullahs. But we’ve already seen how that one has played out, haven’t we?</p>
<p>I saw some figures the other day. Something like 65% of the suicide bombers in Iraq are (were!) Saudi citizens.</p>
<p>The best analogy I’ve seen is that the terrorist elements demand “protection” money from the Saudis, much like the Mafia. Pay us to not burn down your store! </p>
<p>There was an explicit deal, negotiated by the Iranians in the '90s for the Saudis to finance terrorism in exchange for a promise to not attack the royal family interests. The Saudis have left themselves open to this kind of blackmail by not doing diddy-squat to improve the lives of their citizens. They’ve got the “Shah of Iran” problem.</p>
<p>Of course, this “protection” deal is showing signs of falling apart as terrorists have begun attacking Saudi interests. That’s probably a good thing for the US as it would be useful to have the Saudis stop sitting on their hands and make some effort to stem the flow of Saudi nationals into Iraq.</p>
<p>Don’t think for a minute that the attacks on diplomats from Egypt and Bahrain in Iraq were random acts. Those were designed to send a message to Arab governments. All of the terrorism in Iraq is designed to send a message. That’s the point of terrorism.</p>
<p>As they say in the NFL, I guess that’s why they play the game. Nobody knows the eventual outcome in Iraq. There are very strong grass-roots pro-freedom, pro-economy forces in Iraq. There are a lot of people putting their butts on the line to make it happen. Won’t be easy.</p>
<p>I was reading the story of a new power station that came on line last week. Built from the ground up since the invasion, the construction workers have had to endure RPG attacks, machine gun fire, and non-stop attacks – all designed to sabatoge the construction of something whose only purpose is to improve the quality of life of the Iraqi people. They finally had to halt contstruction for a few weeks and build a 20 foot tall concrete perimeter wall. But, they kept building and the first of the two new generators at that site was fired up in the last two weeks. I’d say there are some pretty brave Iraqis.</p>
<p>Another interesting story is that the Shi’a fundamentalist “ward bosses” in the south backed down last week in the face of a two week protest by university students, issuing an apology (or blaming renegades acting without orders) for the crackdown.</p>
<p>I’ve seen quite a few Iraqi bloggers who think the religious platforms will lose seats in the elections. There is not a huge popular groundswell of support for a fundamentalist regime.</p>
<p>The apparent agreement (I say apparent because things are often a mirage in the Middle East) to add 15 Sunnis to the council drafting the Constistution is a very positive sign. It will be interesting to see if the Sunni clerics issue a call for voter registration as has been hinted lately.</p>
<p>Are you saying that hapless Saudis and Jordanians are getting monstered by Iranian thugs? Good one.</p>
<p>As for Iraq as the new Germany or Japan, the new quasi-Marshall success story, a fairy tale ending depends on the American ability to do ‘bitter’. Our parents did it, but will we? Will Gen X? That’s where the jello turns to kool-aid. </p>
<p>btw…driver…I’m with you on the veil of secrecy. Watching Sharon clear Gaza is like watching a science fiction blockbuster. Who traded who for what? Wouldn’t I like to be a blow fly on the wall…</p>
<p>As if we serve at their pleasure! Puhleeze. We will maintain a military presence in Afganistan as long as we want ont.</p>
<p>The problem the AP and NYT reporters have is that they take all the political rhetoric at face value, failing to understand that politicians in other countries have to posture for public consumption just like our home-grown hacks on Capitol Hill. The key is to watch what they do, not necessarily what they say. Nowhere is this more true than in the Middle East.</p>
<p>The Shi’a leaders in Iraq have to complain about the Sunni representation on the constitutional committee, just as surely as the sun comes up in the east and the republicans in congress have to complain about the “liberals”. The fact of the matter (according to today’s reports in Iraq) are that 15 more Sunnis have been added to the committee, giving them two more seats at the table than the Kurds have. I believe the current make-up of the 70 member committee is 36 Shiite, 18 Sunni, and 16 Kurds. The additional 10 proposed Sunnis objected to by the Shi’a can serve as advisors, but are not on the committee.</p>
<p>There is a draft constitution circulating publicly in Iraq. I believe it’s available on the internet (in Arabic). The process is moving forward.</p>
<p>And at that point it becomes clear that our interest in democracy is a sham and we’re not interested in anything short of imperial satraps.</p>
<p>And this is going to help us how?</p>
<p>The U.S., for several decades, was often able to cajole other nations to go along with us “for the greater good.” We’re in the process of modifying that to “for our greater good.”</p>
<p>Meanwhile, I see where the quadrennial defense review is moving away from a “two wars” doctrine for U.S. defense capabilities. I actually think we can win two wars…I’m just not sure that we can win one peace…certainly not if compliant satraps are what we desire as the end state.</p>
<p>At least your optimism about the Iraqi constitution won’t have to wait 5-10 years to be tested. It may nominally exist on paper next year but I predict that the political situation will be worse on the ground and the insurgency will be no weaker and possibly qualitatively stronger. Let’s set a date of, oh, November 7 to judge by.</p>
<p>Oh…one of my hole cards is that I think you’re behind the curve on the nature and effectiveness of the Sunni participation.</p>
<p>Let’s not forget why we conquered Afghanistan. For all intents and purposes, agents of the government of Afghanistan attacked New York City – an act of war. We responded to the act of war by defeating the country.</p>
<p>Whatever assistance we decide to provide in a post-war reconstruction is nice. But, lets be clear on the nature of the relationship. Afghanistan is a defeated enemy combatant state.</p>
<p>I just wish we’d had the guts to do the job before 9/11.</p>
<p>Huh? Cajole? Pardon me, but I think the Nicaraguans, the Cubans, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the Russians, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Vietnamese and golly, a whole host of nations who have been at the business end of US cajoling might like to differ. </p>
<p>Self-interest is behind the majority of US policy decisions, including magnanimous gestures likeThe Marshall Plan; ie let’s turn them into them fat and happy shoppers so they stop attacking us. </p>
<p>That tactic worked well in a country we nuked. It might work in Iraq but even if it doesn’t, Iraq does the US a favor by absorbing the brunt of the war on terror until the admin can devise another strategy to choke the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, (likeminded shopaholics being the best solution for the US economy). </p>
<p>Meanwhile, I am enjoying the proposed Chinese purchase of Unocal. Remember, Unocal was/is the main contractor for the oil pipeline from Kazakhstan through Afghanistan, and one the main reasons the Taliban could not be tolerated. </p>
<p>Treeating Afghanistan as the “state” behind 9/11 has some validity and it doesn’t. Certainly they were unequivocally shielding terrorists and that government paid for it. But even under Taliban, the “country” was a collection of warlords as opposed to a single entity. Do you want to cure a problem or do you want to be satisfied putting on a tourniquet that requires pressure forever? The military part of defeating Afghanistan was pretty good, save for Tora Bora. The post-active conflict follow-on has been execrable.</p>
<p>And again I ask the question, what good will treating the country as a satrapy do us? It certainly won’t diminish the impetus of Islamist terrorism. It certainly won’t give credence to the notion that our promotion of democracy isn’t a cynical sham. And it certainly won’t demonstrate that we know how to win a peace after winning a war.<br>
Btw, let’s see if in fact the Brits do wind up transferring 10K troops from southern Iraq to Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Cheers, I was thinking more of the all the countries we prodded to put aside short-term self-interest to stand with the U.S. in the Cold War, appealing to their better angels as it were.</p>