Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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: Dayuhan who wrote (107293)	7/23/2003 12:00:50 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Comments on "Securing the Gulf" by Kenneth M. Pollack: <The sweeping military victory in Iraq has cleared the way for...> Big assumption, there. If it turns out our victory isn't sweeping, or isn't even a victory, then everything else he says is moot. <America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large.> Not promoting democracy. Not making sure no villages get gassed. Not terrorism. Not even non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. <As for Iran, according to the latest estimates of U.S. intelligence and even of the International Atomic Energy Agency, its nuclear program has gone into overdrive...> He doesn't state the obvious reason why the Iranians are so keen to get nuclear weapons: because we put them on our Hit List, and our soldiers surround them on every border. <Washington has consistently, and probably correctly, been much more concerned with proliferation by its enemies (such as Iraq and North Korea) than by its friends (such as Israel and, to a lesser extent, India).> It's always refreshing, to read an honest Realist, rather than a dishonest NeoCon. He doesn't pretend that our actions in the region are for the benefit of other nations. And he ackniowledges the double standard. <In particular, it is not clear that the hard-liners will fall before Iran has obtained nuclear weapons.> And not clear, that the post-clerical government must be pro-American. <Iran's hard-liners maintain power in part by stoking popular fears that the United States seeks to rule the country and control its policies> A not unrealistic fear, given their history. <Tehran appears to want nuclear weapons principally to deter an American attack. Once it gets them, however, its strategic calculus might change and it might be emboldened to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy.> Or it might just use nukes for deterrence. Where does this phantom menace come from? It is the US, not Iran, who sends soldiers into Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Afghanistan, and 60 other nations. It is the U.S., not Iran, who has a doctrine of preventive war and serial Regime Change. He raises an unreal fear, to justify his own nation's "aggressive foreign policy". <Terrorism and internal instability in the Persian Gulf are ultimately fueled by the political, economic, and social stagnation of the local Arab states.> He disclaims all American responsibility for this, ignoring all the evidence of our support and identification with so many of those ineffective and unpopular governments.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (107293)	7/23/2003 12:01:47 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Respond to of 281500

More comments on "Securing the Gulf" by Kenneth M. Pollack: <The best way for the United States to address the rise of terrorism and the threat of internal instability in Saudi Arabia and the other GCC states would be to reduce its military presence in the region to the absolute minimum, or even to withdraw entirely. The presence of American troops fuels the terrorists' propaganda claims that the United States seeks to prop up the hated local tyrants and control the Middle East. And it is a source of humiliation and resentment for pretty much all locals...> He calls it propaganda, but admits it is propaganda that all the locals believe. He wants the U.S. to maintain military control of the region, but sees that the soldiers necessary to do that, inevitably create the very instability the soldiers are supposed to be deterring. There is, in fact, no solution to the problem, if you accept his unstated assumptions: 1. Energy Independence for the U.S. (technology that could be leased to any interested nation) is unachievable. 2. Only U.S. military domination of the region can assure a steady flow of oil. 3. Implicit in all his proposals, is the "right" of the U.S. to deny the sovereignty of all the nations of the region. <The idea would be for the United States to establish a formal defense alliance with the GCC states and a new government of Iraq. To paraphrase Lord Ismay's famous quip about NATO, the goal would be to keep the Americans in, the Iranians out, and the Iraqis down.> Several problems with this: 1. European NATO was made up, mostly, of stable democracies. This new ME NATO would be made up of unstable Un-democracies. 2. It probably won't be possible to "keep the Iraqis down" without a large permanent military presence. 3. If we are going to guarantee them against internal (as well as external) threats, that means intervening in every messy coup, revolution, and power struggle in every nation in the region. How is this different from colonialism-by-proxy? <if Persian Gulf publics could be convinced that American forces were there as part of a community of equals...> So, the Elephant says to the Mice, "let's have a community of equals..." <Ultimately, the intention would be to proceed to eventual arms control agreements that might include demilitarized zones, bans on destabilizing weapons systems, and balanced force reductions for all parties. In particular, the group might aim for a ban on all WMD, complete with penalties for violators and a multilateral (or international) inspection program to enforce compliance.> All? Even the U.S.? All WMD? No, he really doesn't mean that. His proposal is for disarmament of everyone except the U.S. The Hegemon with Global Reach would keep its WMD and overwhelming conventional forces just "over the horizon", but ready and willing to intervene. Also, Israel is left outside his proposed disarmament area. <Tehran's refusal to accept such an olive branch from the United States would demonstrate that Iran was a pariah state uninterested in peaceful means of addressing its security concerns. This, in turn, would make it easier for Washington to muster international support for tighter sanctions and other forms of pressure.> So, if Iran doesn't unilaterally disarm, (without requiring any equivalent American or Israeli disarmament), then this will serve as a pretext for a destabilization campaign. To sum up his proposals: he wants to have his cake, and eat it too. He wants all the benefits of withdrawing U.S. soldiers, but he wants to maintain the military control that only an occupation can bring. He wants regional security agreements, which guarantee all the pro-American regimes, but he also wants to retain the "right" of the U.S. to destabilize anti-American regimes. Finally, he makes Iran into a bogey-man, repeatedly raising the threat of Iranian conquest of the Gulf. By raising this spectre, he justifies U.S. neo-colonialism.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (107293)	7/23/2003 7:15:31 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The best available solution to the problem of N. Korean insistence on bilateral negotiations would be for Russia, China, S. Korea, or all three to formally announce that bilateral negotiations would be fundamentally unacceptable to them. Which is why I believe Bush is engaging in a bit of brinksmanship of his own. He's showing an apparent willingness to let this drag out, being just as stubborn in his convictions as Kim Jong Il has been.. Thus, China, Russia, and to a limited extent, S. Korea, will eventually be forced to intervene and prevent the situation from escalating further. Hawk