|
NorthernGent -> RE: Iraq: We can do without the Americans (7/15/2007 2:04:13 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Level
Saudi Arabia isn't Shia country, there is only a tiny minority there; in fact, the Saudis are not happy with the idea of Iran gaining any influence in Iraq.
Of course, the Saudis are largely hardcore Wahhabis, which isn't friendly to the West, perhaps less so than the Shi'as.
Can we all agree it's a big fucking mess?
Yeah, the Shia are a minority, but it's still a significant amount of people capable of adding something to an alliance. The vast majority of those captured in Iraq have been Iraqis and Saudis, which indicates a willingness for Saudi involvement in Iraq.
'Thing is, Level, I don't think anyone would disagree with your point that the event is a big fuckin' mess. I haven't seen anyone dispute this (maybe those who think democracy is being embedded, but, well, the less said about that lunacy the better).
The disagreement is over the cause, the solution and the outcome. Particularly the solution and outcome
There are two precedents to follow for the outcome:
a) The US government has form for imposing itself in other countries. That is its foreign policy in a nutshell.
b) The only similar situation from which to draw down for experience (correct me if I'm wrong, here, because I'm not that knowledgable on invasions/wars involving the US) is Vietnam i.e. an army bogged down thousands of miles from home, and no consensus on the motivation for their presence.
What a and b suggest to me is that US forces will be withdrawn when serious pressure is exerted on politicians, and that will only be when deaths of US soldiers reach a certain level. If this board is a representative sample of the US, I don't think you're anywhere near exerting this level of pressure on your politicians, and without this, they're not going anywhere. Their whole foreign policy is built around creating and maintaining an open economic system favourable to US interests, and they can't guarantee this without maintaining a presence in Iraq. They're not the only ones who do this, mind you, but they have the technology and the power to take it that step further and set up shop in another country.
All of this, now, is just arguing that black is white etc. People with a reasonable grasp of politics know exactly what US foreign policy is all about. It's wasted energy arguing about all of that. The trick is to look over the horizon and see the problem in 10/15 years time. Well, you, us, anyone, just can't keep people down forever, and maybe there's a case for biting off more than you can chew, here, because these people are an entirely different proposition, they share an idea which can be tapped into by millions of people, and they have the courage of their convictions - absolutely no doubt about that. I've no idea on the balance of income versus spend on Iraq, but there's a case to suggest it would be wise to spend the money on investment in high-tech sophisticated production, innovation, research, development, financial and business services e.g. real value-added, wealth generating activities. 'Not just the current wealth generating industries, but more importantly the ones that will be the big winners over the horizon e.g. bio-fuel etc. I suppose the problem on the other side of the coin is that the current US economy is underpinned by oil, and in order to transition to a self-sustaining, isolationist economy, they need the profits from oil to invest in research/development.
'Not an easy situation. As said, I think the outcome will be that they'll keep chipping away in Iraq, and do as much as they can to embed their control over the Iraqi economy, so that when the pressure is applied on politicians, and pressure forces them to leave, they're in a reasonable position to maintain their control. At some point, they'll decide that more dead soldiers = ruined political careers. 'Truth be told, they probably already have a number in mind that they feel is unacceptable to the wider public. These people are power mad, and they're not about to take any unneccessary risks such as underestimating the public mood and knowing exactly how far to push the boundaries.
In terms of what they should do if they had any morals whatsoever, well, it's irrelevant because US foreign policy doesn't consider the deaths and displacement of millions of people, that's just numbers and stats to them, and they have more pressing matters at hand i.e. oil and economic domination.
|
|
|
|
