[lit-ideas] Re: The winner has already been selected?

  • From: "Andreas Ramos" <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 22:54:29 -0800

From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>

> I agree with the Bush
> administration that it matters less who wins and more that the
> democratic system gets up and running.

There will not be a democracy because none of the three major ethnic factions 
want a 
democracy because each of them stands to lose in such a structure.

> I don't see why a
> Shiite cleric in power is necessarily a problem and I don't think the
> Bush administration is in principle opposed to such an outcome.

Oh, Phil, if you would only read something about the situation, instead of 
making 
theorectical statements about principles.

About 60% of the population is Shiite. That means if there is an open vote, the 
Shiite win. 
Which guarantees a civil war, because the Sunni, who have been traditionally in 
power, would 
lose. The Kurds would also lose. So the Shiite can win the election, but they 
can't control 
the other two factions.

What's at stake? Hundreds of billions in oil money. If one faction gets the 
oil, the other 
two get only sand.

The Kurds want their own state. That would cause the breakup of Iraq. But if 
the Kurds 
estabish a state, Turkey attacks the Kurds, because a Kurdish state on their 
border would 
incite the Kurds within Turkey to start a separationist movement.

Iran would love to seize some oil fields as well. There's that Iraq/Iran War 
and 
reparations.

The only way for Iraq to stay stable would be some sort of power-sharing, quasi 
federation. 
But none of the players are stable enough to develop such a plan or stay in 
such an 
arrangement. (Actually, the Kurds probably could, but they're too small to 
matter.)

A good question is who are the insurgents? Are they a general anti-USA jihad? 
Are these 
various different groups, all fighting the USA? Are some of these ex-Saddam 
Baathists? Are 
they angry Iraqi, looking for revenge? Are they patriots, seeking to liberate 
their country? 
Where is the money, food, supplies, information, training, etc., coming from? 
The White 
House and the media doesn't discuss that very much.

> I would just add that it is virtually unthinkable that the US
> would not maintain some military presence in Iraq.

The US certainly wants to stay there (they built 14 large military bases), but 
an Iraqi 
government that has popular support will ask the USA to leave.

> If the Iraqi people want civil war, what business is it of the US?

Oh, let's see... second largest reserves of oil, total collapse of a volatile 
region, the 
catastrophic effects on the West if the oil supplies were to be cut off, the 
danger of oil 
switching to Euros, Iraq becoming fundamentalist, a fundamentalist Iraq with 
billions could 
easily buy nuclear weapons... any one of those, several of those, very likely 
several of 
those.

That's why an Iraqi civil war would be a disaster on the beaches of Iowa and 
the coffee 
houses of Toronto.

> And if things move towards civil war, surely the most
> logical intervention would be from the UN.  With the US out of Iraq I am
> sure we can count on the French and Germans to lead the way.

Once again, Phil reaches for arguments divorced from reality.

Would UN, France, or Germany intervene?

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of the region knows it is extremely 
unstable, with very 
powerful actors pushing their various agendas. The Saudi, India, Pakistan, 
Russia, and 
Turkey are all on the edge of war over the region. Three of those have nuclear 
weapons. 
Israel, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, is in middle of it. What kind 
of idiot 
would drive an army into the middle of such a mess? Well, okay, asides from 
Bush?

An Iraqi civil war could turn into a free-for-all land grab (okay, oil grab). 
And that could 
turn into a nuclear exchange very quickly.

Phil, that's why Germany and France won't lead the way.

The only country that could have kept the region from going at each other's 
throats would 
have been the USA, but the USA has lost so much credibility that it can't take 
on that role 
anymore.

If you noticed in the news today, Putin and Singh, of Russia and India, made a 
sharp 
denouncement of US policies in the Middle East. They say the USA should stop 
supporting 
Islamic terrorists. And they're right. Namely, the USA supports Pakistan, and 
Pakistan arms, 
trains, and directs the jihad in Kashmir and the former Soviet republics, incl. 
Chechnya.

yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: