SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (46943)9/26/2002 6:50:44 AM
From: frankw1900  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
This article smells of faux realpolitik

Arab leaders worry above all about the possible disintegration of Iraq, or continued instability emanating from Iraq,

What this means is that they don't want their citizens, of whatever stripe, to have uppity ideas after looking at whatever the US does to Iraq.

They see the task of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and preventing meddling by regional rivals as potentially overwhelming

Overwhelming to whom? I'm sure a US army could maintain the country's borders. Meddling: who's going to meddle? Iran? It's going to have its own problems if the US goes in Iraq.
If Iraq divides into two or three countries - what might be the result? These two or three ex-Iraq countries would be anxious to maintain their integrity. Who might they turn to for help? Not likely Saudi or Iran - more likely Turkey, the US, or, gasp! Israel. Why would they turn to anyone else? All the US would have to do is offer them support.

While most in Iraq may be happy to rid themselves of Saddam, others may not; no ruler governs alone, and many in the state's extensive power structure and the factions associated with them will be fearful if the government falls.


So? Their hands are clean? This is like worrying about the fears of the folk who ran Japan or Germany pre 45 or Romania pre soviet collapse. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen or make sure the Merc is fueled and the Lichenstein account is topped up. The comment is at the far end of stupid.

The Kurds in the north will push for maximum autonomy, and the prospect of a Kurdish state would concern Turkey, which has its own large Kurdish population.

Unless they cut a deal with the Turks, which they're trying to do. Their project is getting free of Saddam, not establishing Kurdistan. Some would no doubt like to see a Kurdistan but if they have a choice between being free of Saddam and making nice to the Turks, which do you suppose they'll choose?

The majority of Iraq's Shiites, meanwhile, would want friendly religious and cultural ties with Iran. That could clash with U.S. objectives of confronting Iran and add to Iraq's instability.

An idea at last. But it's not developed. Are the majority of them mullocracy types? If they're not, it makes no never mind to the US. There are shiites all over the world and the majority of them, even in Iran, aren't ideological whackos.

But Arab leaders' worries don't stop there. They also fear a sustained U.S. presence meant to prevent such chaos. If the United States commits to the deployment of the necessary military, political and economic resources to assure Iraq's stability, many of Iraq's neighbors, and others in the region, fear a possible American military and political dominance that would then include Iraq in a way that alters the strategic picture to their disadvantage.

So? Is this a bad thing? Right now their so called advantage is to sit under the US security blanket, oppress their citizens, continue being kleptocrats and encourage their chattering classes to libel the US. Not to mention, in some cases, encourage their citizens to murder US citizens.

Ultimately, most states in the region do not see Iraq as currently posing a serious enough threat to them to warrant a war that could significantly alter the regional environment and present them with hard choices internally and externally.


The reason Iraq is not a current menace to them is because of US/UK/UN action. They're getting a freebe. They aren't paying the freight: dealing with "hard choices internally and externally."

This person writes as if 9/11 and all the rest, never happened. As if many of the leaders and citizens of these countries never had anything to do with it.

9/11 forces the US to deal with two things: the proximate shelter of the perpetrators - Afhanistan/Pakistan, and their ultimate source - Saudi Arabia. It can attack Saudi directly but there isn't nearly such a big payoff in that as attacking it indirectly through Iraq, which is also an enemy not just of the US, but everyone, and has a loathsome government. A side benefit is that it might further destabilize the Iranian mullocracy which is already staggering under demographic pressure.