Last night I said I would reread the Stratfor article. I'm still surprised at the failure to understand the (IMO) likely Muslim reaction to an occupation of a core state of the umma by infidels, but I covered that last night.
Turkey
Rereading the article I'm struck by the comments about Turkey. Consider
It has three interests there: securing its frontiers against events in Iraq, preventing the formation of a Kurdish state and managing Kurdish behavior near its borders, and controlling oil fields around Mosul and Kirkuk that represent a critical supply for Turkey. One of the reasons for Ankara's reluctance to permit U.S. troops in the region is that this would limit Turkey's own ability to act on these three interests directly.
and
its forces will seek to take control of the Mosul oil fields and, if possible, the oil fields in Kirkuk. ... The likelihood of combat between Turkish and Kurdish forces is high. Indeed, Turkey might intend to use this conflict to settle matters with the Kurds.
The challenge that the Turkish presence poses is to U.S. postwar reconstruction plans. The United States is relying on the sale of Iraqi oil to fund those plans in the long run. If it does not control the northern oil fields and their output is diverted to Turkish uses, the amount of oil available will decline substantially. This will pose a challenge to reconstruction. Therefore, the United States will have to reach some sort of accommodation with Turkey and will have relatively few levers with which to do so. It cannot go to war with Turkey, and Turkey clearly is not indebted to the United States.
This could get more than a little interesting. If I read the neo-con mind set, they will not take kindly to what they believe as a vassal state, absconding with the booty they were counting on to help pay for their vision. Could we end up funding a Kurdish insurgency against the Turks in "pacified" Iraq? What a mess!
Crockery
The quote
Iraq has massive centrifugal forces.
may be an understatement. One could argue that it is inherently unstable. With Iraqi oil fires already reported by the pentagon, and "Shock and Awe" still to occur, I'm reminded of Tom Friedman's comment comparing Iraq to the sign in the crockery store - "You break it, it's yours." Great! Just what we need – an expensive problem. Yeah, I know. Iraq’s oil is supposed to pay for it. With Saddam setting fires, and Turkey “making a move” on the northern fields, dream on. I’m not saying there will never be any money from oil, I am saying any oil money won’t come soon, but the bills will. Moreover, by the time the oil money can come, I expect we’ll be in the Islamic retaliation phase.
Regional Consequences
Under this heading, The Stratfor article states that one of the goals of this war is to establish fear (of the US) in the region. The (IMO) likely result, to borrow from a Hollywood title, is to establish “fear and loathing” – with the principal backlash coming from the loathing. For more details, see my post last night. The Stratfor article discusses the military climate of a highly mobile US force stationed in Iraq. No mention is made of a besieged garrison wondering which sand hill will explode next.
Three countries are specifically discussed:
Syria is discussed as a country that will be surrounded. This conveniently ignores the earlier problem with Turkey. It also ignores what is likely to be the response with the mullahs calling for jihad. Sure the government may feign obsequiousness, but the people will be enraged.
Saudi Arabia. The Stratfor article states
Between the manipulation
of Saudi Arabia's internal political system, the potential
ability to manipulate oil prices and the presence of U.S. forces
on its borders, the United States is assuming that it can force
Riyadh to reshape its behavior.
Note that the article states that the US is assuming. I believe this phrasing is used because the authors know what an unlikely “long shot” this is.
Iran. In many ways the discussion about Iran is the most sad. Two and a half decades after the revolution in Iran, pressures are building for a solution in Iran that will create an Islamic democracy. This is a native movement, not something imposed from the outside. It is hard to see how pressure from the US will do anything but help the Islamic hardliners in Iran.
Global Consequences
Under this heading, the Stratfor article uses some contorted logic. After stating:
One of al Qaeda's recruiting arguments has been that the United States intends to
make war on all Islamic countries;
it ignores what the consequence will be when that prophecy is fulfilled.
The article then goes into some detail about the consequences for France, concluding:
the United States will not reconcile with France. Rather, Washington will seek to make an example of the consequences of active attempts to thwart American policies.
Now I’m not being an apologist for Chirac. Too vividly, I recall that the campaign slogan that got him elected was “vote for the crook, not the Nazi”. But if the US is perceived as vindictively bullying France, my guess is that France may come out of this situation achieving exactly the goals it sought. Then the US will have handed France a victory, just as it already has handed one to Bin Luddite. So I repeat
Way to go George!
JMO
lurqer |
