I have said many times before that NATO (not Nato, BBC!) has outlived its usefulness. It is after all the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and as such should stick to its neighbourhood. Afghanistan is an exception since the 9/11 attacks were an attack on a member nation, and Article 5 covers that quite distinctly.
Rebuilding Afghanistan was never in the agreement and I object to it as a bottomless pit for blood and treasure. Certainly routing al Queda and putting the boot to the Taliban government neutralized the immediate threat (as much as reasonably possible) and could be counted as effective payback under the circumstances. Iraq was most certainly NOT a NATO concern, and has done much to put the USA in the situation where they need to be guilting other Alliance countries into stepping up.
Regional confederations of nations with aligned interests are coming together, which is a good thing for them. America is worse than broke and entirely too beholden to the Chinese holdings of US debt and currency to be counted on in South-East Asia, for example. That said, no combination to be found around the South China Sea can stand up to Chinese strong-arm tactics over its ludicrous claimed Exclusive Economic Zone , assuming that China continues to disregard world opinion about it's blatant expansionism.
One can of course compare what China is doing on it's way up with what the US did, and a lot of it is standard Great Power manoeuvring. The South China Sea stuff however is baldly hegemonic and there is no way to spin that one as anything other than screwing over everyone smaller than them in the neighbourhood.
The world is adjusting to the balance of power, much as it did 20 years ago. China is not quite a Superpower, but it's on its way up as the Americans contract, and this leaves local vacuums that China will happily fill. China however is not a monolith, and the cracks are plastered over at the moment.
So, should NATO get involved in a dispute over the Spratly Islands? Certainly what happens in that part of the world is significant to international trade, but the Europeans are almost as boned as the USA, and in any event shy about shooting at anyone who can shoot back. I don't see Canada getting into that, nor any reason why we should. If the Americans think we should get involved just because they are, I don't see it that way, and I don't think the Canadian government (and certainly not the people) will either. Multiply that by all of the NATO signatories, and you have a problem with Mr. Panetta's position.
Piracy in the Indian Ocean? Sure, that's something that affects almost everyone, and doesn't drag us into geopolitical struggles. Peace support (not Peacekeeping!) in Africa, Company to Battalion scale? That sort of thing also can work, provided the area in question has any reasonable chance of being salvaged.
You may see a trend here: smaller countries like Canada can do the smaller stuff, but we have to have a good reason to do so if it's not part of our treaty obligations. If that's what the Americans want, they might get it, albeit appealing to NATO for it renders completely meaningless the terms of that organization. There is this other thing called the UN that was designed to do this sort of job, but we've seen how well that works. Time for everyone to re-evaluate their national interests and possibly re-combine into more relevant organizations to meet those.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
To bomb, or not to bomb?
It now seems imminent that Iran will have its nuclear weapons. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen, but the place is a flash point in the meantime. There is a lot of handwringing about bombing or not bombing, but I say go for it. But, NOT the nuclear program.
Leaving aside the troublesome aspects of dropping bombs on radioactive material, the nuclear program is something that virtually all Iranians are behind. Hitting this would rally them all and trigger a whole pile of proxy wars with Iranian surrogates from Gaza to Afghanistan.\
While a chance to kill a whole bunch more Hezbollah wouldn't exactly be unwelcome in Israel for example, the current situation of Syria ensures no significant threat from them. Those who say the Israelis would be "mad" to bomb Iran now are not as right as they could be.
What I have advocated before I will advocate again: hurt the regime in Iran, not the people and the infrastructure. Hit all the Quds Force assets you can, the Revolutionary Guard, and anything else that will weaken the mullahs. This will strengthen the opposition while compromising the government's ability to hit back.
Leaving the nuclear program in place is then a gamble that a more reasonable regime will take over and not hand fission bombs out like Hallowe'en candy to Islamic terrorists. To put that scenario in perspective, Pakistan has a bunch of nukes and we never bombed their program.
Pakistan is a lost cause due to fanaticism and failed-state-ishness but Iran has more potential as long as we can help them get some better leaders. Does Iran with a bomb scare you more than Pakistan, in the state the latter is rapidly devolving to? If so, why?
Leaving aside the troublesome aspects of dropping bombs on radioactive material, the nuclear program is something that virtually all Iranians are behind. Hitting this would rally them all and trigger a whole pile of proxy wars with Iranian surrogates from Gaza to Afghanistan.\
While a chance to kill a whole bunch more Hezbollah wouldn't exactly be unwelcome in Israel for example, the current situation of Syria ensures no significant threat from them. Those who say the Israelis would be "mad" to bomb Iran now are not as right as they could be.
What I have advocated before I will advocate again: hurt the regime in Iran, not the people and the infrastructure. Hit all the Quds Force assets you can, the Revolutionary Guard, and anything else that will weaken the mullahs. This will strengthen the opposition while compromising the government's ability to hit back.
Leaving the nuclear program in place is then a gamble that a more reasonable regime will take over and not hand fission bombs out like Hallowe'en candy to Islamic terrorists. To put that scenario in perspective, Pakistan has a bunch of nukes and we never bombed their program.
Pakistan is a lost cause due to fanaticism and failed-state-ishness but Iran has more potential as long as we can help them get some better leaders. Does Iran with a bomb scare you more than Pakistan, in the state the latter is rapidly devolving to? If so, why?
Thursday, 3 November 2011
Pusillanimity and the Oakland Soviet
A recent conversation with my father-in-law resulted in him saying that all of these "Occupy" people are "communists". This is fundamentally accurate, and not a surprising reaction from a retired businessman; if the "Death to Capitalism" banners weren't enough to give the game away I don't know what is.
People are starting to get fed up and again hardly surprising given the hijinks in Oakland in the last few days. I don't know if there has been a sifting out of participants so that the most radical are the ones who are sticking it out, but the novelty has definitely worn off even when they're not destroying property and trying to kill public servants. The whole thing is devolving rapidly, the worst example being Oakland. The others (especially in Canada) are varying degrees of useless and just plain squatting, but they are certainly now doing more harm than any possible good.
This means that the continued presence of these communes in business areas is killing small businesses in the vicinity through intimidation, deliberate vandalism, and effective blockade of customers. These people are not fans of the crony capitalism that got the U.S. in the mess it's in, and are certainly NOT in the much maligned (with some cause, some of the time) "1%". One problem (there are many) with not having a set "aim" is the inability to see when things are going badly off-track, as they obviously have done now.
The lefties and fellow travellers pooh-pooh the conservative/capitalist concept of having some idea what the hell you're doing and trying to accomplish, but most of us aren't nihilist anarchists and we like Order. Civilization requires some structure and certainly some common ideas about how things should work, and certainly requires enforcement of basic concepts. The occupiers are discovering, like it or probably not, that when you get more than three people anywhere you start needing organization if you are sticking around.
Supplies and security come right after shelter (often before) and they don't just happen. They require organization and leadership, and you won't have the former without some version of the latter. Now as is my wont, I circle back to the original point.
Oakland's civic reaction to this, specifically that of the Mayor and City Council, has been and to the time of writing continues to be inconsistent, and therefore a guaranteed and de facto disaster. The police have been whipsawed by contradictory orders, and one of the predictable results of this is certain Black Bloc elements in the protest will exploit the resulting chaos, as happened last night (main link). Another is a drop in morale of the police as they realize that their bosses don't have their backs, and no good can come of that.
So, the Oakland Soviet has blockaded the third-busiest port in the U.S. and to "press time" it is shut down. It has been pointed out that this hurts all of the workers who depend on the port for their livelihood; this is where the true colours of the Occupy clowns is shown. It's not about "the 99%", it's about their vague concept that things should be "different". Different how, exactly? I've asked this class of person that question before, and as much as they don't like what's happening the only coherent answer you'll likely get is some variation of "revolution".
So far it's a polyglot of signs about all things except making money and paying taxes, but the black flag has already been flown; how long until we see the red?
People are starting to get fed up and again hardly surprising given the hijinks in Oakland in the last few days. I don't know if there has been a sifting out of participants so that the most radical are the ones who are sticking it out, but the novelty has definitely worn off even when they're not destroying property and trying to kill public servants. The whole thing is devolving rapidly, the worst example being Oakland. The others (especially in Canada) are varying degrees of useless and just plain squatting, but they are certainly now doing more harm than any possible good.
This means that the continued presence of these communes in business areas is killing small businesses in the vicinity through intimidation, deliberate vandalism, and effective blockade of customers. These people are not fans of the crony capitalism that got the U.S. in the mess it's in, and are certainly NOT in the much maligned (with some cause, some of the time) "1%". One problem (there are many) with not having a set "aim" is the inability to see when things are going badly off-track, as they obviously have done now.
The lefties and fellow travellers pooh-pooh the conservative/capitalist concept of having some idea what the hell you're doing and trying to accomplish, but most of us aren't nihilist anarchists and we like Order. Civilization requires some structure and certainly some common ideas about how things should work, and certainly requires enforcement of basic concepts. The occupiers are discovering, like it or probably not, that when you get more than three people anywhere you start needing organization if you are sticking around.
Supplies and security come right after shelter (often before) and they don't just happen. They require organization and leadership, and you won't have the former without some version of the latter. Now as is my wont, I circle back to the original point.
Oakland's civic reaction to this, specifically that of the Mayor and City Council, has been and to the time of writing continues to be inconsistent, and therefore a guaranteed and de facto disaster. The police have been whipsawed by contradictory orders, and one of the predictable results of this is certain Black Bloc elements in the protest will exploit the resulting chaos, as happened last night (main link). Another is a drop in morale of the police as they realize that their bosses don't have their backs, and no good can come of that.
So, the Oakland Soviet has blockaded the third-busiest port in the U.S. and to "press time" it is shut down. It has been pointed out that this hurts all of the workers who depend on the port for their livelihood; this is where the true colours of the Occupy clowns is shown. It's not about "the 99%", it's about their vague concept that things should be "different". Different how, exactly? I've asked this class of person that question before, and as much as they don't like what's happening the only coherent answer you'll likely get is some variation of "revolution".
So far it's a polyglot of signs about all things except making money and paying taxes, but the black flag has already been flown; how long until we see the red?
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
No good options
The IDF's operational forum will discuss a procedure which stipulates that the abduction of living soldiers must be prevented at any cost later this week in the backdrop of the Shalit prisoner exchange deal, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.
Since Shalit was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners Hamas has stressed that it will attempt to kidnap more soldiers in order to bring about the release of the remaining Palestinians held in Israel.
The IDF estimates the threat is concrete and has therefore briefed commanders on a series of preliminary actions which can help prevent kidnappings. IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has also ordered that the commanders learn ways to actively thwart kidnappings, even at the expense of the kidnapped soldier's life.
There will be different opinions on this to say the least, but here's my $0.02: if it was me getting snatched by any of these groups (pretty much any group, really) I'd want my people to shoot the fuckers and I'd take my chances with that. Your odds of survival aren't great if taken, and I'd be damned if I'd be put in a position where hundreds of murderers could be exchanged for me. Besides, you might get lucky and only the bad guys get hit. Those odds are slim, but in that circumstance I'd take them. It's that or:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Since Shalit was released in exchange for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners Hamas has stressed that it will attempt to kidnap more soldiers in order to bring about the release of the remaining Palestinians held in Israel.
The IDF estimates the threat is concrete and has therefore briefed commanders on a series of preliminary actions which can help prevent kidnappings. IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has also ordered that the commanders learn ways to actively thwart kidnappings, even at the expense of the kidnapped soldier's life.
There will be different opinions on this to say the least, but here's my $0.02: if it was me getting snatched by any of these groups (pretty much any group, really) I'd want my people to shoot the fuckers and I'd take my chances with that. Your odds of survival aren't great if taken, and I'd be damned if I'd be put in a position where hundreds of murderers could be exchanged for me. Besides, you might get lucky and only the bad guys get hit. Those odds are slim, but in that circumstance I'd take them. It's that or:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!
Monday, 24 October 2011
Talibanistan and the Line of Death
I formed my opinions of Afghanistan well before I went there, but I didn't see anything which changed my mind about how to deal with the place. Michael Yon has spent far more time and ranged much more broadly there than I have/ever will and in the linked article he brings up the same point that I was advocating five years ago.
I called it "Talibanistan", but it was really about maximising return on our efforts. The more bad guys there are in the population, and the more support they have, the more it will be a lethal rats' nest for our troops and development workers. There is in Afghanistan a rather obvious dividing line (several in fact) between people who support the "Taliban" and people who will not.
Sectarianism is usually a bad thing, but there are a lot of examples from history which show how it can be used to achieve an aim. The aim admittedly is usually "divide and conquer", but the principles work just as well for "unite and secure".
Birds of feather do indeed flock together, and if the "feather" is not wanting to live under repressive religious thugs, there are a lot of those people in most parts of A-stan. There are a lot of those same people however who have ties of blood and/or culture to the Taliban et al, and in this case that would be the Pashtun. Not all Pashtun are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun, so you have a ready-made dividing line. This line tallies pretty well with the southern provinces that ISAF hs been fighting and dying in for the last 10 years, so a "Line of Death" would be pretty simple to come up with.
The key element to make this work is to ensure that the rump Afghanistan encompasses contiguous populations who are inimical to the Taliban. This means the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras as a start. The map here provides a rough idea, and this one of the Northern Alliance (vs. the Taliban in 1996) correlates very well, although the Hazara regions were overrun.
This of course would lead to a large area of the Pakistani NW Frontier and Southern Afghanistan being written off, but ask yourself what difference that would make in the big picture. The place is already not controlled in any way, we're just playing high-(and low)tech whack-a-mole with a bunch of Pakistan-supported badasses all through the south and east. Shift the borders of what we'll concern ourselves with (if we even continue to do so) and we shift the goalposts toward a win for somebody as opposed to a loss for everyone.
This is the point of Michael's article; there are people there who want our help (I've met them too) who won't try to kill us as we deliver it. These are the people over there (if anybody) that we should try to help, because they'll fight with us to defend their communities and projects.
As for my "Line of Death", the proposed border? I wouldn't want to consign civilized Pashtuns to the brutish rule of the Taliban (and the Haqqani Network, etc.) so it would be a mutable border. From a stable base the Pashtun territory could be absorbed in discrete "bites" working outward until too much resistance was reached, then the border Hesco fortresses go up. Those would be manned by Afghans with drones flying patrol and some bombers and SF teams on call. The"Line of Death" name isn't meant to be figurative: cross it with a weapon or try to sneak across, you die.
This blog is called "Arithmetic on the Frontier" for a reason; there are diminishing returns with everything, and nation building is no exception. After the 10 years we've been mucking about in the place there are still lots of "no-go" areas (Helmand, Zari, Panjwai, etc.); if we're not going to completely cut and run we'll need to cut our losses. I'm sure quiet parts of Afghanistan would appreciate some help,and our money wouldn't be going down the drain like when the Taliban blows up our schools and irrigation projects in the less-friendly parts.
My bottom line? Screw the villages that we get blown up patrolling; there's nothing there that we (or the Americans) need, and if you really want to dent the opium trade, spray the damned poppy fields. My prediction? China will move in and do (something like) this if we don't. If they don't, the place will carry on much like it is.
I called it "Talibanistan", but it was really about maximising return on our efforts. The more bad guys there are in the population, and the more support they have, the more it will be a lethal rats' nest for our troops and development workers. There is in Afghanistan a rather obvious dividing line (several in fact) between people who support the "Taliban" and people who will not.
Sectarianism is usually a bad thing, but there are a lot of examples from history which show how it can be used to achieve an aim. The aim admittedly is usually "divide and conquer", but the principles work just as well for "unite and secure".
Birds of feather do indeed flock together, and if the "feather" is not wanting to live under repressive religious thugs, there are a lot of those people in most parts of A-stan. There are a lot of those same people however who have ties of blood and/or culture to the Taliban et al, and in this case that would be the Pashtun. Not all Pashtun are Taliban, but most Taliban are Pashtun, so you have a ready-made dividing line. This line tallies pretty well with the southern provinces that ISAF hs been fighting and dying in for the last 10 years, so a "Line of Death" would be pretty simple to come up with.
The key element to make this work is to ensure that the rump Afghanistan encompasses contiguous populations who are inimical to the Taliban. This means the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras as a start. The map here provides a rough idea, and this one of the Northern Alliance (vs. the Taliban in 1996) correlates very well, although the Hazara regions were overrun.
This of course would lead to a large area of the Pakistani NW Frontier and Southern Afghanistan being written off, but ask yourself what difference that would make in the big picture. The place is already not controlled in any way, we're just playing high-(and low)tech whack-a-mole with a bunch of Pakistan-supported badasses all through the south and east. Shift the borders of what we'll concern ourselves with (if we even continue to do so) and we shift the goalposts toward a win for somebody as opposed to a loss for everyone.
This is the point of Michael's article; there are people there who want our help (I've met them too) who won't try to kill us as we deliver it. These are the people over there (if anybody) that we should try to help, because they'll fight with us to defend their communities and projects.
As for my "Line of Death", the proposed border? I wouldn't want to consign civilized Pashtuns to the brutish rule of the Taliban (and the Haqqani Network, etc.) so it would be a mutable border. From a stable base the Pashtun territory could be absorbed in discrete "bites" working outward until too much resistance was reached, then the border Hesco fortresses go up. Those would be manned by Afghans with drones flying patrol and some bombers and SF teams on call. The"Line of Death" name isn't meant to be figurative: cross it with a weapon or try to sneak across, you die.
This blog is called "Arithmetic on the Frontier" for a reason; there are diminishing returns with everything, and nation building is no exception. After the 10 years we've been mucking about in the place there are still lots of "no-go" areas (Helmand, Zari, Panjwai, etc.); if we're not going to completely cut and run we'll need to cut our losses. I'm sure quiet parts of Afghanistan would appreciate some help,and our money wouldn't be going down the drain like when the Taliban blows up our schools and irrigation projects in the less-friendly parts.
My bottom line? Screw the villages that we get blown up patrolling; there's nothing there that we (or the Americans) need, and if you really want to dent the opium trade, spray the damned poppy fields. My prediction? China will move in and do (something like) this if we don't. If they don't, the place will carry on much like it is.
Thursday, 20 October 2011
If you're so eager to die...
By Adrian Blomfield, Gaza City and Richard Spencer in Mitzpe Hila
11:13PM BST 19 Oct 2011
An unsuccessful suicide bomber released from prison as part of the deal to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli conscript, on Wednesday vowed to fulfil a childhood ambition by "sacrificing" her life for the Palestinian cause.
As she returned to her family home in northern Gaza, Wafa al-Bis insisted she would seize any opportunity to mount another suicide mission and encouraged dozens of cheering schoolchildren to follow her example.
When the first of these released idiots kills someone there will be a hell of an uproar in Israel, but there is plenty of "I told you so" to go around.
What I would really like to see out of all of this is a compelling reason NOT to bulldoze the entire Gaza Strip into the sea and start over. I know it's not an isolated incident, but when children are raised to revere people blowing themselves up, I see that as a problem, to put it mildly. Another Operation Cast Lead would be a good start, and would send a message that the only representative democracy in the Middle East still has a will to survive after this ridiculous prisoner swap.
11:13PM BST 19 Oct 2011
An unsuccessful suicide bomber released from prison as part of the deal to free Gilad Shalit, the Israeli conscript, on Wednesday vowed to fulfil a childhood ambition by "sacrificing" her life for the Palestinian cause.
As she returned to her family home in northern Gaza, Wafa al-Bis insisted she would seize any opportunity to mount another suicide mission and encouraged dozens of cheering schoolchildren to follow her example.
When the first of these released idiots kills someone there will be a hell of an uproar in Israel, but there is plenty of "I told you so" to go around.
What I would really like to see out of all of this is a compelling reason NOT to bulldoze the entire Gaza Strip into the sea and start over. I know it's not an isolated incident, but when children are raised to revere people blowing themselves up, I see that as a problem, to put it mildly. Another Operation Cast Lead would be a good start, and would send a message that the only representative democracy in the Middle East still has a will to survive after this ridiculous prisoner swap.
Tuesday, 18 October 2011
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)