Whether one supports this action or no, Stratfor's analysis of the regional power equation is compelling. However, in order to change that power equation, what has to happen:
...For all of the diversity in the region, there is a common geopolitical theme. If the U.S. invasion is successful, Washington intends to occupy Iraq militarily, and it officially expects to remain there for at least 18 months -- or to be more honest, indefinitely. The United States will build air bases and deploy substantial ground forces -- and, rather than permit the disintegration of Iraq, will create a puppet government underwritten by U.S. power.
What's truly disturbing to me is that the analysis of the long run consequences of this action almost exclusively focus on increasing the likelihood of terrorism. I think that true, but I don't think its the gravest danger.
If the US commits to do this, then other countries will jump on board (as the analysis predicts). But they won't be happy about it, and in my opinion, the perception - whether true or not - of the United States being a reluctant user of power, a relatively unique "power" in the history of the world, will be forever shattered.
If so, what will other countries do? They will re-arm as fast as their populations permit (or in the case of the more despotic governments, as fast as the money is available). National interest always comes first. Furthermore, it will immensely accelerate the development of weapons of mass destruction by all countries if for nothing less than a check on a no longer altruistic (at least perceptually) United States.
1880-1914 all over again.
ww |
