Status quo in Middle East: unacceptable
I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics. But I do think the status quo in the region is unsustainable, and without innovative solutions nothing is going to change. Though I think the President is on the right track when he escalates rhetoric about Iranian-backed elements in Iraq, I don't think he has any idea what to actually do to get Iraqis to start settling their internal disputes with the pen rather than sword.
If anything, an insurgence of Saudi troops into the Sunni-dominated regions could broach a new relationship between Americans and the more belligerent elements in Anbar Province. It is still unclear exactly how many troops the Saudi government would be willing to deploy, but I suspect it would defer commitments until consultations and coordination with the Pentagon.
The Saudi government maintains an active military of 200,000 troops, the 25th largest in the world. In term of military spending, the Kingdom spares not a penny. In 2006 they spent roughly $31.25 Billion, or 10% of their GDP, and since 2003 their military spending has ranked 9th in the world as a percentage of GDP. Additionally, the cooperation between the Saudi armed forces and the Pentagon has been hand-in-glove for decades, and in 2005 the Saudis were the number one customer of US supplied weaponry. I suspect that the King and his ministers are willing to spare whatever it takes to insure the stability of its neighbor, and thus its borders. I also think the White House will not be modest in any request they make of the Kingdom to join the coalition.
Perhaps the presence of a fully trained and self-reliant Arab military in Iraq would allow the US to focus on rooting out Iran and leaning on the Shiite government to take control of al-Sadr and his militia, while delegating responsibility for the counter-insurgency to a more qualified arbiter. Many of our current problems, I believe, stem from bearing primary responsibility for all the problems Iraq faces, while the Iraqi government and our allies play back-seat driver. Maybe the Saudi initiative is the key element missing in the equation.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Deano
Ok, let's look at this idea - Saudi Arabia, primarily Sunni, moving in with a major military force to "protect" the Sunni areas of Iraq.....hmmm....The reaction of the Shiites - gosh, darn golly by goodness, I wonder what they would say?
I suspect that you would guarantee a vicious and extensive pre-emptive civil war between Shiite and Sunnis, effectively pusing out what few moderates haven't ducked out already due to car bombings out of the process. You would push the Shia's into the arms of Iran even more firmly as they would see this as an absolute betrayal by the Americans and iran as their only potential protector.
This is definitely a non-starter and very probably would be a regional disaster.
The last piece of the equation would be that the most radical elements of Al Quaeda have traditionally been Saudi (as is Bin Ladin himself). Given the strong strain of militant Wahabbism in Saudi Arabia - do you really want to encourage that mix?
2 - MCH
Brian;
Why don't you write about something you actually have experience with? For example, how about an article on how Denny Hastert dodged the draft to stay out of Vietnam...(?)
3 - Brian
Deano,
I understand your concern, but I do not agree with your assertions. First of all, I would have agreed with your assertion that the presence of Saudi forces would provoke an hysterical response from the Shiite majority a year ago, maybe even six months ago. However, I find the prospect of a Shiite dominated military leading the charge into Anbar Province to be a far more dangerous possibility. As I have said here before, the priority should be to end the violent "insurgency" that has tortured innocent Iraqis for the last 2+ years, Shiite and Sunni alike. My question to you is, why not secure the Sunni dominated areas with a world class military, operating under US leadership, that also happens to be comprised of men who share the same religious beliefs? As I stated above, deployment of Saudi forces should be strictly for the purposes of securing and opening dialog with the Iraqi minority, which is already exercising violent means at a scale which would be difficult to escalate.
I think the Saudis were clear in what they asserted, and have been asserting for weeks- if the US is forced to leave and create a vacuum in which the Sunni population faces certain persecution at the hands of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Saudis are going to intervene. It would be the single greatest stain on the foreign policy record of the United States if we were to succumb to petty domestic politicking and allow such a situation to even become conceivable. I know very well that the American public doesn't support the Bush "surge", but I suspect the collective sense of embarrassment that would reverberate throughout the country following such a horrible defeat. If Americans are anything, they are proud.
I am interested to hear what you think.
As for MCH,
Why don't you get off of my case. When you have something intelligent or thoughtful to say please share. But if you are just going to treat me like a stupid, little, spineless kid, please just keep it to yourself. Honestly, you are just ensuring that the otherwise considerate and reflective individuals who comment here will simply disregard you as a crack pot who doesn't even bother to answer responses to your own blather. When you decide to act your age, which I suspect is probably at least double mine, you may muster an actual thought. Why don't you go spout your nonsense about draft dodging to one of the many Clintonista's that I am sure publish here. Please don't post that crap on my articles.
4 - Clavos
emmy writes:
Brian;
Why don't you write about something you actually have experience with?
Why are you picking on him, emmy?
All you write about is who should go to war...
Take your own advice.
5 - Dave Nalle
Honestly, you are just ensuring that the otherwise considerate and reflective individuals who comment here will simply disregard you as a crack pot who doesn't even bother to answer responses to your own blather.
You must be new here, Brian. The rest of us already either ignore him or make fun of him.
As for Saudi intervention, it would be met by immediate Iranian intervention and the result would be a war in Iraq worse than what we have now.
On the one hand - the humanitarian hand - that would be a terrible thing. From the point of view of the US and the civilized world, maybe not so bad.
Dave
6 - ProfEssays
Cvil war between Shiite and Sunnis... It sounds promising. Just imagine a civil conflic between Shiite and Sunnis grows into a full-scale regional war in the mouslem world. I wonder, what would be the strategy of the US and other western troops in this possible war
7 - SHARK
Coupla quick points:
======
Saudi intervention would lead to a regional disaster/escalation/potential WWIII.
...Which could be a good thing, relatively speaking; a larger civil war among Islamic factions could have many positive side-effects for the US.
Discuss.
=====
re: Saudi Army --
Pentagon Official: "Man, they've got some great weapons."
Army General: "How do you know?"
Uncle Sam: "I looked at the receipt."
======
B.Edwards: "I do not pretend to be an expert on Middle Eastern politics. But I do think the status quo in the region is unsustainable, and without innovative solutions nothing is going to change."
Wow. Goin' out on the ol' intellectual limb, aren't ya?!
CLARITY-IN-THINKING TIP: This sentence shows you've had way too much Washington Blather influence on your thought processes (as one would suspect from your time spent with Dennis "Super-Size It" Hastert).
Purge brain immediately! Stating the obvious using 'big words' is not necessariily "having an original idea".
Here in Texas, we call it "bullshit".
Edit. You don't get paid by the word.
=====
B.Edwards: "...And certainly the new Democratic majority in the US Congress, with all their talk of "US forces standing down and Iraqi forces standing up."
Um, excuse me, this has been the BUSH Admin. MANTRA for almost three years. Get yer facts straight when you try to implicitly insult the Democrats.
=====
SPEAKING OF WHICH...
B.Edwards: "...But in view of far-left rhetoric about the Saudi government during the 2004 election, I doubt the Democrats are willing to embrace the most controversial US ally, especially with the hype of the 2008 election already heating up."
Should have read: "...I doubt the Democrats are willing to embrace the most controversial US ally, especially since they are the biggest stealth supporter of radical Wahhabis, terrorist training camps aka "madrassas" -- and the home-nation of the 9/11 TERRORIST HIJACKERS."
Thanks in advance -- for fixing the above sentence.
=====
8 - SHARK
almost forgot:
above bit re. weapons & receipt -- from a routine by the late, great Bill Hicks
(ironically, at the time he said it [pre-Gulf War I], he was talking about a war with Iraq!)
9 - SHARK
comment #3:
B.Edwards: "...if the US is forced to leave...the Saudis are going to intervene. It would be the single greatest stain on the foreign policy record of the United States if we were to succumb to petty domestic politicking and allow such a situation to even become conceivable."
Wow.
I'm not sure how you get from:
America leaves + SA intervenes = greatest strain on foreign policy
That's quite a leap...
But maybe that wasn't the important aspect: I think you were only trying to set-up your "succumb to petty domsetic politicking" bit, implying that wimpy, anti-war Dems/liberals are "the problem".
You're subtle -- but not subtle enough. And I'm starting to think you're a dick.
======
More crap from #3:
"I know .. the American public doesn't support the Bush "surge", but I suspect the collective sense of embarrassment that would reverberate throughout the country following such a horrible defeat. If Americans are anything, they are proud."
Man, if it were permissable, I'd say, FUCK YOU, BRIAN.
If you don't see how FUCKING HEINOUS this sentence is, you don't have a brain.
This is the kind of talk 'MCH' abhors: protecting some fantasy-collective 'pride' by sending American soldiers to die as political/self-esteem CANNON FODDER.
I'll beat him to the punch: maybe you would like to voluteer to risk your LIFE in order to protect Americans from a sense of "embarrassment"??
The military was originally formed to PROTECT AMERICA, not some abstract like 'pride'.
======
BTW: "Pride" goeth before a fall.
10 - MCH
"Why are you picking on him, emmy?"
- Clavvy
Because he's content to stay home and send someone else to fight and die in a war he's promoting.
"Take your own advice."
- Clavvy
Uh, I'm opposed to the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and to anyone who "supports" the war - as long as someone ELSE does the fighting...which is what I write about.
11 - Dave Nalle
I wonder, what would be the strategy of the US and other western troops in this possible war
One would hope it would be to stay as far the hell away as possible.
Dave
12 - Nancy
Agreed, Dave: one would indeed hope that the US would have the sense to disavow any involvement & take the opportunity to get the hell out & stay out, but considering W's macho shithead delusions of competence & combat, I doubt it.
MCH, we all know your position, how about saying something different for a change? We will stipulate, as the lawyers say, that all non-vets of serving age have little credibility when pronouncing on war issues.
Alas, Brian & Clavos, if you publish here, you do indeed run the risk of being nittered to death by those who harp on one point, even as I have been guilty of on occasion. It could be worse: MCH COULD carry on a one-party commentary much as does the nutcase over on the Fatima thread-!
13 - MCH
"MCH, we all know your position, how about saying something different for a change?"
...ummmmmmmmm,
...ummmmmmmmm,
...Hey Nancy, how 'bout those Bears!!!???
14 - Nancy
I meant, you could expand your commentary to include, say, lists of those currently in power who do NOT have relatives serving, or expound on the past history of policy failures when wars are waged by those who have zilch experience, (or not, especially if they happen to let the experts run the wars, like Roosevelt), etc.
Something besides the simple statement.
15 - Nancy
getting back to speculation on the effect of a Saudi intervention in Iraq, it would be entertaining to see all the stinking barbarians at each others' throats. If we were lucky, they'd all kill each other off & then we could move in. If we were smart, we'd seed the entire area - Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Isreal, Palestine, Egypt, etc. - with ebola, Marburg, or pulmonary-form Plague & let nature take its course. It's such a pity that area isn't subject to tsunamis or volcanic activities.
16 - MCH
I'm just me, Nancy, sorry. Although I appreciate the advice (and the support, whenever). I work 50-60 hrs a week, besides being involved with several volunteer organizations...don't have time for lengthy debates.
17 - Nancy
OK. Didn't mean to nag; just figured if they wanted 'more' of you - expound on it. Well, never mind; I can talk enough for 10 people, sometimes.
18 - Brian
MCH,
If your a Bears fan then you couldn't be that bad. Sorry for losing my cool, but you could make brief comments on something else once in a while. And to be clear, I am not opposed to serving, and have put significant thought into enrolling in officers school with the Marines. However, to insist that those of us who haven't served yet should by default be opposed to wars generally is just silly.
Shark,
You need to take some valium or something, because you take this stuff too seriously.
"If it were permitted I would say FUCK YOU, BRIAN."
Well, if I could respond, I would probably say F#$% YOU TOO, but since your and editor I probably would get thrown off. So in that case, I will simply suggest that you chill.
To everyone else, I must say, you guys all really hate either Bush or Muslims, and seem to care very little about the future of the Middle East. I have put a great deal of thought into the last two articles and most of you just dismiss me as a kool-aid drinking, Bush/Hastert-loving idiot. I appreciate the few of you who take me seriously and are mature enough not to lose their cool and start swearing and calling me names.
If D'oh is out there anywhere I would like to hear what you have to say.
19 - MCH
"However, to insist that those of us who haven't served yet should by default be opposed to wars generally is just silly."
- BEvans
That's not what I'm insisting on.
I'm against anyone who hasn't served promoting sending SOMEONE ELSE into harm's way...or pretending to know what combat is like...or calling anyone opposed to the war a "pinko" or a "commie"...or comparing traffic fatalities to being killed in combat...or comparing Max Cleland to "a gigantic thalidamide baby"...or likening serving in combat to giving a vehicle a tuneup...etc, etc...
And since you're new, all of which pertains to certain BC posters.
20 - Dave Nalle
MCH is incapable of understanding the basic fact that some people want government to do its job, which may include making war in some cases, and that the choice to support generals and elected officials in determining when to use military force isn't the same as ordering troops into combat yourself. But that's because he's a simpleton.
BTW, MCH. Were you aware that 50% more people died last year from drowning than died in 3 years fighting in Iraq. Let's ban water now and arrest anyone who promots its use.
Dave
21 - Brian
MCH,
Since I am relatively new, as you said, I am not aware of these other comments, which I agree with you are stupid. However, as you say yourself, you are "opposed to anyone who hasn't served promoting sending anyone else into harms way", which is exactly what I am talking about. In this country we have a volunteer military, and everyone who joins should understand that they are putting their lives on the line. I am grateful for every single person who has the courage to make such a sacrifice, but I generally assume that if they are sent into harms way, they acknowledge that this was their decision, not somebody else's. If you believe military service should be mandatory, then that is fine, but as long as we have a volunteer military it should be perfectly acceptable for some of us to share our thoughts on how the military is used, as long as they aren't ignorant like the ones you mentioned above. I appreciate your perspective and I hope from here on out we can avoid these types of exchanges. GO BEARS!!!
22 - Clavos
which is what I write about.
Repeating the same single point endlessly and boringly isn't writing, emmy.
23 - Deano
Okay Brian - first the Saudi military is of decidedly uneven quality, despite their high spending. During the first Gulf War when the Iraqi's made their only offensive move of the war, the Saudi troops departed Khafji so rapidly the Marine recon unit in the city didn't even realize they had been essentially abandoned by their allies. Things might have improved in recent years but I would not ever describe them as "fully trained and self-reliant". I would have profound doubts over their ability to manage the situation or to stand up under insurgent pressure.
I agree that yes, the Sunni insurgents might not directly attack the Saudi forces (Al Quaeda would, the Shiites would), but they would almost certainly use the Saudi presence as an opportunity to expand their own political and military positions, re-arming militias and developing their own standing army to oppose the "elected" official government of Iraq. How you can not see a civil war breaking out is beyond me...
The Sunni minority essentially ruled Iraq since colonial times. The current batch were top level Baathists in Saddam's government and used to sitting on the "top of the heap" and bluntly, many of them would be focused on using the Saudi presence as a proxy to climb back into power.
I understand fully why the Saudi's would come in - it has zero to do with protecting the Sunnis and everything to do with blunting the encroaching influence of Iran.
In addition, you really don't want to mess about with the stability of Saudi Arabia. An extra-curricular activity such as occupying part of Iraq might prove to be a catalyst for political instability within Saudi. It is on shaky ground as is - and an Islamic revolution in Saudi Arabia would be a geopolitical disaster - a real one, unlike the manufactured excuses for war that the Bush adminsitration has been steadfastly trotting out in to justify Iraq.
I've noted in recent weeks a tendancy for people to start throwing out weird-ass suggestions that the war be "solved" by turning it over to China, or Saudi Arabia, or the UN....I think the this is very much a desperation ploy. There is no easy, magic solution and no one stupid enough to fall for blandishments to step in and take it over so the US can quietly declare victory (again) and slip out.
There is no easy way out. You need to realize that. It will not be cheap in resources, nor in lives, nor in time. You will be there, in some form or another, for another ten years, even if the Democrats win the next election because it is very easy to proclaim "bring the troops home" when you are not in power and do not have to acknowledge the potential geopolitical fallout.
The reality is that you are now far past the point of a manageable solution. You are to a great extent, strategically boxed in by this misadventure. Willy-nilly abandonment of Iraq will embolden Iran, exacerbate the instability in Saudi Arabia, give Al Quaeda the biggest recruitment tool it could ever hope for (the second biggest being the Iraq war itself), and generally destroy US foreign policy credability (what is left after Bush et al finished with it).
The only real hope for a manageable solution is if you can blunt the active insurgency over the next one to two years and force the Sunnis into recognizing the new political reality of having to work with the Shiites, while simultanously trying to rip out the radical shiite militias that are now infesting the political system....all while building up a (hopefully) democratic governing structure, constitution, and infrastructure.
Can it be done? Doubtful. You might be able to blunt the insurgency somewhat over the next two years -with a concerted effort - by which time economic improvements might start to reduce the insurgency's appeal. Once you have enough Iraqi troops at least reasonably trained you can pull out and reduce troops.
It won't be clean, it won't be easy and it won't be nice.
And it might not work.
Cheery news ain't it?
24 - MCH
"BTW, MCH. Were you aware that 50% more people died last year from drowning than died in 3 years fighting in Iraq. Let's ban water now and arrest anyone who promots its use."
- Dave Nalle
Nalle once again proves how far removed from the horrors of actual sacrifice he is (safely inside his fortified compound), by comparing being killed in combat to accidental drownings.
25 - Clavos
Nalle once again proves how far removed from the horrors of actual sacrifice he is (safely inside his fortified compound), by comparing being killed in combat to accidental drownings.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...