Rightwords... Prudent Conservatism

After Iraq, What?


Assuming that the Iraqi situation is coming under control soon now, and our 150 thousand troops will be rotated out in stages over the next year or so, what is our next move? First, we must be careful to phase the rotations in conjunction with the Iraqi military buildup and proof by combat. Second, we must have assurances that there will be no massacre of Sunnis by the Shiites, who have control of the new army of about 150 thousand troops now.

In a few years they could have 300 thousand troops trained, equipped and proven. Were the Sunnis and others continue the jihad then, it is entirely possible for the Shiites to resort to their ancestral tribal ways and simply wipe out the Sunnis once and for all.

But, what of us? What are we destined to do after the rotations are largely over? Will we pack up and go home, and hope to forget the Middle East, except for our support of the new Iraq, and of course, Israel. Or will we exploit the opportunities we have made for ourselves there? We will have several permanent bases in Iraq.

The jihad will not be over when relative peace comes to Iraq. There are three regimes in the Middle East that have been thorns in our side for a long time: the Saudis, the Syrians, and the Iranians. All three have supported terrorists. Of the three, Iran poses the most serious threat to us, since they are pursuing nuclear power, and presumably the bomb.

We also have the North Koreans, who are building nuclear weapons at an alarming rate now, and are aggressively threatening their use, if we don’t pony up billions in aid. That is blackmail, in plain English. In fact, it is more than speculation that the NK has been aiding Iran in its weapons programs, and selling them missile technology. But since we are pursuing the six-party talks with the NK, I will defer further discussions about the NK problem for the moment. What America will do next will be driven by the sum of the threats in the Middle East and in North Korea. We cannot ignore either one.

The big question is whether we should seek a permanent solution to the continuing problems in the Middle East or not. Must we be passive and only driven by immediate threats? Must we abandon Israel, as the Muslims demand as one criterion for peace? Must we be somehow tied to the status quo in Saudi Arabia, or should we let the Wahabbis do their deeds and overthrow the current government?

A critical factor in all of this is oil. At least 2/3rds of the world’s proven supplies of oil are in this region. Yet, with all of the petrodollars the Arab/Muslim nations have amassed in the last 20 or 30 years, there is no real change in the lives of the under classes. They are oppressed and impoverished. What is more difficult is that the Muslim nations have not developed any industry to speak of, and therefore have little two-way trade with the Western world, except for recycling petrodollars through investments.

The whole world needs oil. Fully 20% of China’s oil comes from the ME, for example. Should the ME oil be stopped from flowing to the West and the Far East, there would be a huge financial and energy disruption throughout the world. The price of oil would skyrocket, which we in the US could handle with some difficulty, as could China and perhaps the EU and Russia, but smaller countries of the world would be absolutely devastated by the ultra high price of oil.

But suppose the West were to be shut out from ME oil, and not Russia and China. Or perhaps just the US might be blocked out from access to ME oil, with the EU cravenly joining the other nations against us to assure their access to oil, as some in Europe have suggested. This leads to a few conclusions:

1. Middle East oil should be shared throughout the world at fair market value for all nations.

2. This may well not happen if Russia and China combine to shut everyone else from the ME, except their favored nations. China is already inserting their troops into the African Continent to protect their oil concessions.

3. The majority of people in the ME are living at the poverty level, and are not enjoying the riches that their leaders do. This leads to continual strife and terrorism. For the under classes, there is no future.

4. By blaming Israel and the US for their woes, they focus on the wrong thing. Their real problems are internal, but an external power, such as Israel and the US, presents the radical Islamists with a convenient target for their rage.

5. If we in the US withdraw from the ME, there will be no one to stop successive takeovers of countries there by Russia or China or both. We would then have to mount a huge effort to dislodge them, and to restore the countries to their people, or accept the aggressions as faites accompli.

6. The threat of use of nuclear weapons in such a confrontation is voided by the obvious capabilities of Russia and China to assure destruction of the US.

7. The forces of the nations in the ME are weak and incapable of defending themselves in open battle against a relatively modern and large army such as those of Russia and China. Even Iraq will have few aircraft, tanks and artillery once they reestablish their army.

8. Democracy exists in Israel and is emerging in Iraq, and perhaps Lebanon. Egypt has a President-for Life, Libya has a despot, the Mullahs run Iran, and Assad runs Syria. The Saudi family runs Saudi Arabia.

9. Current so-called democratic reforms in these countries are trivial showpieces, in my opinion.

10. Hence, we really cannot withdraw completely from the ME, much as the Muslims want us to, on worldwide shared-energy, geopolitical and humanitarian grounds.


(To be continued)

# posted by Mannning @ 2:38 PM