GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

jayeff · 02-28-2006, 10:30 PM

Civil war in Iraq could not only provide an exit strategy, but viewed within the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1920's - the primary purpose of which has been to keep the region unstable - it would represent success for the whole operation there.

I have been arguing since before the invasion ever happened, that its sole purpose was to replace a stable regime with chaos. The sectarian divisions in Iraq made that outcome almost inevitable: 20% of the country is Kurd, 35% Sunni and 45% Shi'a. Although the Shia's are the largest single group, they are not a majority and they have no experience of power.

To believe the "democracy for Iraq" line which replaced the WMD scare tactics when they were discredited, required anyone with a knowledge of the history of the region to believe there had been a complete about face in US policy. There was no evidence of that, nor anything to suggest a motive for such a dramatic change.

And if somehow the unlikely were made to happen, the numbers dictate that democracy in Iraq would give the Shi'as the most influence, moving Iraq towards closer ties with Iran, the Shi'as spiritual home. Yet barely 20 years earlier (remember the Iran-Contra affair?), the US was busy fomenting the war between these two countries, supplying both sides with weapons, intelligence and advice. In any case, how likely is it that the US has the slightest intention of letting both the 2nd- and 3rd-largest oil reserves be controlled by anti-US regimes?

Simplistically the past 80 years have all been about oil. Unfortunately the policies we pursued to keep cheap oil flowing also encouraged Arab nationalism and religious fundamentalism: both with a distinct anti-US slant. Their rise meant that the Iran-Iraq war was the last time we were able to act covertly in the region to any significant effect, yet doing nothing to slow these trends down would surely mean that the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be overthrown sooner rather than later. IMO the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to buy some time for the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

There isn't much point in blaming any recent presidents for this mess, because by about 1970 we were pretty much out of choices. Earlier administrations could have followed a less hawkish policy and done more to wean us away from Arab oil. But because we wasted all those years, I suspect policy now is dictated more by last-ditch pragmatism than by any optimism for the long term.

02-28-2006, 10:30 PM
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Civil war in Iraq could not only provide an exit strategy, but viewed within the context of US foreign policy in the Middle East since the 1920's - the primary purpose of which has been to keep the region unstable - it would represent success for the whole operation there. I have been arguing since before the invasion ever happened, that its sole purpose was to replace a stable regime with chaos. The sectarian divisions in Iraq made that outcome almost inevitable: 20% of the country is Kurd, 35% Sunni and 45% Shi'a. Although the Shia's are the largest single group, they are not a majority and they have no experience of power. To believe the "democracy for Iraq" line which replaced the WMD scare tactics when they were discredited, required anyone with a knowledge of the history of the region to believe there had been a complete about face in US policy. There was no evidence of that, nor anything to suggest a motive for such a dramatic change. And if somehow the unlikely were made to happen, the numbers dictate that democracy in Iraq would give the Shi'as the most influence, moving Iraq towards closer ties with Iran, the Shi'as spiritual home. Yet barely 20 years earlier (remember the Iran-Contra affair?), the US was busy fomenting the war between these two countries, supplying both sides with weapons, intelligence and advice. In any case, how likely is it that the US has the slightest intention of letting both the 2nd- and 3rd-largest oil reserves be controlled by anti-US regimes? Simplistically the past 80 years have all been about oil. Unfortunately the policies we pursued to keep cheap oil flowing also encouraged Arab nationalism and religious fundamentalism: both with a distinct anti-US slant. Their rise meant that the Iran-Iraq war was the last time we were able to act covertly in the region to any significant effect, yet doing nothing to slow these trends down would surely mean that the unpopular regimes in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would be overthrown sooner rather than later. IMO the main reason for the invasion of Iraq was to buy some time for the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There isn't much point in blaming any recent presidents for this mess, because by about 1970 we were pretty much out of choices. Earlier administrations could have followed a less hawkish policy and done more to wean us away from Arab oil. But because we wasted all those years, I suspect policy now is dictated more by last-ditch pragmatism than by any optimism for the long term.