Some questions.
The Baathist Party controls Iraq. Yet, how many of them are there? If they are thrown out with Saddam, the new government will be Muslim - thus making a solid Muslim front from Pakistan to the Saudis - including a chunk of what was Russia - along with Turkey.
The stable non-Muslim government in the middle will be gone. Which is a reason, perhaps, for keeping Saddam in power after he has lost the war.
Turkey will have nothing to do with a separate Kurdish state, so American support for that is unlikely (though I wonder what we've promised each of them?)
On the other hand are there any Sunnis in the Shiite southern Iraq? Are they strong? What are the proportions of Shiism and Sunnism in the surrounding states? The Shiite Imam seems to my untrained mind the equivalent of the Catholic Pope - with the Sunnis adopting the position of the Protestants.
Turkey is mostly Sunni.
Does it matter? Will it matter?
Harry
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
Ed, At 16:19 15/01/03 -0500, you wrote: <<<< (KH) "Freidman doesn't mention what I think is a certainty -- that negotiations over long term oil contracts are going on right now and are probably very close to being finalised. All that remains now is for Saddam to finally decide to go into exile, so long as he can obtain guarantees about his safety." (EW) Keith, I think things are a little more complex than that. Personally, I lean toward George Friedman's interpretation that Saddam has the Americans stymied and not sure of what to do next except to continue to threaten use of force and keep the pressure on. They've sort of walked themselves into a trap of their own making, and, as Karen suggests, will soon have to resort to the use of force and military occupation. >>>>I think the Americans have been stymied to an extent because Tony Blair persuaded them to take the issue to the UN. But not any longer. Even at the risk of shaking the UN to its foundations, I think the Americans (and the UK) will press on now and, if necessary, invade Iraq. However, I am sure that Saddam has already calculated that when this happens his days are numbered. It won't be from the Americans and it won't be immediate, but once the Americans have blockaded Baghdad, Basra and the southern oilfields then he'll be overthrown sooner or later (probably sooner) by his own people. If an escape route has already been planned (to Egypt perhaps, with the connivance of the Americans and British) then I feel sure he'll take it soon. If he delays, he is in danger of losing his life and everything else. Saddam has already shown his desparation in the way he has opened everything he can -- even his own administrative offices -- to the UN inspectors. There can't be anything more humiliating than that in the whole history of human warfare. (EW) <<<< It's about more than oil contracts with Iraq. If that is what it was about, contracts probably could have been negotiated some time ago. >>>> I think they were. About 18 months ago. But Saddam only did so with French and Russian corporations. He cocked a snook at the Americans. And that's where his arrogance overtook his intelligence. (EW) <<<< What it seems to be most about is which major power will have the long-term hegemonic interest in the whole of the Middle East. It's the current great game being played by the Americans, the Russians, the French and perhaps others. The British are backing the Americans because the latter have the greatest chance of winning. >>>> I agree. (EW) <<<<< The reason the Americans are going after Saddam is partly because he is an obvious target and nobody likes him, but mainly because Iraq happens to be the very middle of the Middle East, and therefore highly strategically placed. Moreover, America can't really put many more troops into Saudi Arabia without the risk of uprisings against the Saudi regime. >>>> What you're saying is roughly what I was saying about four months ago (my "first hypothesis"). Since then I think that the Americans have given up on the possibility of seeing reform in Islamic countries anytime soon. September 11 catalysed this, not because Al Qaeda had any sort of association with Saddam (I think the Americans worked this out within days) but it was another illustration of the impossibility of any sort of sensible relationship with fundamental Islam -- anywhere. (EW) <<<< So, I would argue that it's a long-term strategy, or perhaps better, game, and its about hegemony. The game is being played for several reasons. An assured supply of oil is one, but that can only be assured if the region is pacified and remains stable. Another may be that the Middle East is a global crossroads. International air traffic moves over it, ships move through it and pipelines are built across it. Control that crossroads and you exercise control over a large chunk of global commerce. Controlling potential sources of terrorist attacks is yet another reason. The control the Americans are able to exercise over Afghanistan and Pakistan has greatly increased over the past three or so years, but the Middle East remains wide open. >>>> In general terms, I agree with the above but I don't think the Americans have developed any sort of strategy yet as to how to deal with Islamic countries (or the Palestinians) or the Middle East generally (so long as there are depednable oil supplies). As with the royal family in Saudi Arabia, the Americans are just dealing with them on a day-to-day basis, hoping that each Islamic country will come to its senses in its own way at its own pace. (EW) <<<< As a game, it will take a long time to fully work itself out, and it will be bloody and violent at times, so we had better brace ourselves. >>>> Once again I agree in general terms. All sorts of nasty things might happen. But, to summarise, I don't think this will happen in the immediate future as regards Iraq. I think Saddam will flee the country soon and the American oil corporations will make a deal with (probably) the chap who is their Foreign Minister whose name I've forgotten (and, I judge, someone of considerable intelligence and political ability -- so much so that even though Saddam must be afraid of him more than any other individual in the country, he hasn't sacked him over the past several years -- as he's sacked pretty well everybody else who's been remotely a danger to him). Saddam possibly might not flee the country if the Americans decide that he's trustworthy enough to keep to long term oil contracts. In that case, Saddam will have engineered a draw. But if he flees, Bush will be seen to have had a tremendous victory, and the whole matter will die down very quickly. Of course, all the other problems of the Middle East remain. It seems to me that revolutions in Iran and Saudi Arabia are inevitable unless the royal family and the mullahs (respectively) act imaginatively -- and fairly soon, too. As for Israel, I'm persuaded by Friedman in his NYT article of 15 January which Arthur posted that there's no future for a *democratic* Israel. The present terrible situation is likely to continue until the Israelis decide to sweep the Palestinians out of the country into Jordan and elsewhere -- as they did in 1946 with 800,000 of them. It'll be a bigger job this time but I think they'll see no other way out before they're likely to be completely submerged by fast-growing Palestinian numbers. Best wishes, Keith
****************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of LA Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: (818) 352-4141 Fax: (818) 353-2242 *******************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.434 / Virus Database: 243 - Release Date: 12/25/2002
