Cradle to grave of civilization

I never spent a lot of time here (or anywhere else) talking about the US foray into Iraq, but it's now all but over.

Washington and Baghdad's failure to agree on a troop-extension deal means that virtually all of the 43,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq will stream out of the country over the next six weeks, bringing a quiet end to a conflict that began with so much bombast.

Radical Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has called for public rallies on Jan. 1 to celebrate the U.S. withdrawal, but the idea hasn't gained much traction with other Iraqi political leaders. For now, there are no formal ceremonies planned in Iraq to mark the end of the U.S.-led mission there or to commemorate the thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed in the conflict.

Going in there to "fix" the place seemed like a bad idea to me the first time in 90/91, and this bit of regime change was poorly conceived and badly bungled (yes, I'm looking at YOU, Mr Bremer!) My take in '91 was that if you removed Saddam you'd just have to find another guy like him. Of course, after the Iran revolution in 1979 Saddam became one of "our" bastards to contain the mullahs, and after a smacking back into place he could occupy that position again.

I doubt my analysis was that complete back then, but my take on what is required to run your average (mostly) Arab country was within spitting distance of reality. The near-term result of the last eight years of carnage and displacement is to have upset the entire balance of power in the Gulf area, and I read it as follows:

Removing the Baathist/Sunni hold on Iraq has handed it to the Shia, and thus into the back pocket of Iran. This removes the Saudis' main bulwark against Iran and throws the entire Gulf Cooperation Council into a tizzy (approved diplomatic terminology abounds here). The salutary effect of that is for the Saudis to start being part of the solution to the overall terrorist problem instead of creating monsters and loosing them across the world.

So far, could be worse. I have remarked previously about how it is evident that the interests of the House of Saud and those of Israel are increasingly convergent. This comes at a time when Egypt has become more actively hostile to Israel than it has been in over 30 years, and Turkey has thrown it's good relations with the Israelis under the bus. Turkey will probably conflict with Iran, which with Syria tottering will put a brake on Hezbollah in Lebanon, shifting the geopolitical balance again. Look for naval clashes in the Med, specifically off Cyprus between Turkey and Israel.

The Americans will probably back Israel up against Turkey, and as long as they do turkey will probably behave, but the sabres are rattling ominously. With the disengagement from Iraq, and probably another from Afghanistan in the near future, I can't predict what that will mean in the Near and Middle East, but Mrs. Clinton's arrival today in Libya and Obama's announcement of advisors to Uganda to sort out the Lord's Resistance Army may suggest more Africa and less Gulf/Central Asia.

We'll see what fills the partial vacuum which will be left by the US withdrawal from Iraq; resurgent Persian or Ottoman Empire? Both? Neither? Whatever happens, the Sunni Arab bloc is on the ropes in that neighbourhood. The Saudis still have lots of cash though...