It's a strange alliance of ill wishers! The Russians, the French, the Saudi's, the Jordanians, the Syrians, the Iranians, the former Baathists ... all together rooting for American failure!
On the one hand we have the Russians and the French who lost a huge opportunity to exploit Iraqi oil through prior contracts with Saddam Hussein. They have no basis for supporting George Bush! Beyond its economic loss, Russia is witnessing an encroachment of American bases and missiles on its borders. And Russia has already lost a great deal to American and British oil companies in Central Asia. And, France in particular, is relishing the prospect of American hegemony being supplanted by European dominance. America's loss will turn into a European gain.
On the other hand, there are monarchies or dictatorships in the Middle East (from neighboring Saudi Arabia and Jordan to Egypt) threatened by Bush's promise of 'spreading democracy' throughout the Middle East. Oh, I know the Saudi's and King Hussein in Jordan are nominally US allies. But, they know a threat when they see one. They are grand survivors after all! They can do a lot to undermine Bush in Iraq – simply by looking the other way at critical moments. The Saudi's and Jordanians have every reason to be two faced, blame the Iranians for all insurgencies, and overlook any transgressions inside their country and across their borders. In every sense, US failure in Iraq will benefit them. Democracy in Iraq, will empower their own populations to seek liberty in their kingdoms. This inevitably undermines their future. But also, a weakened US, will be less able to support to Israel – and will in the end increase Israel's insecurity and perhaps enhance the prospects for peace with its neighbors!
In fact the very same argument does apply to Syria and Egypt too. Kuwaitis too, know who was behind Saddam's invasion of their country; they too have every reason to undermine America's adventure in Iraq.
Not to be forgotten are the former Baathist who have lost everything! The Baathist all lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods why should they assist George Bush in anyway?
And then, you have an emboldened Iran – that has been humiliated by covert and overt threats from Bush! Labeled a member of the axis of evil after assisting in America's overthrow of the Afghan regime – the Iranians understand too well that neither Bush nor any American administration can be or will be a reliable partner. They too hear Mr. Bush's cries for liberty and democracy – and feel threatened.
And while America has helped the Shiites in Iraq rise – the Shiites know too well that Iran's mullahs have always consistently supported them. And Iran's Mullahs have in fact been reliable patrons too. They supported Iraq's Shiite leadership through thick and thin over decades. America on the other hand has developed a reputation, especially after the fall of the Shah, of twisting and turning every 4 years and shifting its alliances. America is not a reliable and consistent master! So who would you work for – America or Iran?
Then there are Democrats at home that are salivating with news of Bush's demise.
The war in Iraq is George Bush's singular war. No one else has anything to gain by winning (except Britain and Israel).
Can America win against all these enemies? Perhaps yes, but Bush will likely have to shift course decide between a series of bad alternatives to change the outcome, to develop some news allies.
On the one hand, the Iranians can in fact assist in stabilizing Iraq – they have experience dealing with war reparations, they have local contacts, they have major infrastructure nearby to tap into (cement mills, power stations, etc). But such help will come at a cost. Bush will likely have to guarantee the Iranian Mullahs another round in power, and drop sanctions on Iran's nuclear advancements ... in the end abandon the cause for freedom and democracy in Iran. This will in turn undermine Republican Party financial support from Iranian Americans; and undermine his promises to ordinary Iranians of freedom. It would be a 180 degree shift. And the risk of choosing this option is that the Arabs (Saudis, Baathists, ...) will not stand by and watch as Iran takes over power in Iraq. Terrorism in Iraq will not end. And the Mullahs will continue to undermine Israel and support Hezbollah! Terrorism will not end or diminish.
On the other hand, Bush could garner more support from neighboring Arab states if he dissolved democracy in Iraq and put in place another hard line general like Saddam Hussein (or like Musharaf in Pakistan) to clean up and control the country. But the risk of choosing this option is that the Iranians and the Shiites will not stand by and watch Iraq ruled by another enemy! And ordinary Arabs will continue to sign up as Islamic fanatics – since that is the only route these days to opposing the dictators at home! Terrorism, like 9/11 will not end or diminish.
Or he could give the Russians and the French a share of the oil pie in exchange for help ... but while the Russians and the French can certainly undermine America's efforts in Iraq, I do not think they can seriously assist in stabilizing Iraq and therefore enable Bush to save face. Neither the Russians nor the French have militaries worth much these days – or contractors that would be braver than the current set of contractors operating in Iraq. They would bring nothing to the table.
It's a hard situation – with no imminent or simple solution.
But it seems to me that of all the options on the table some sort of Iran play is probably the most compelling path. The greatest net benefits for the United States would be gained by with a 'shift' inside Iran. First of all, the Iranians probably can do the most to help Iraq. Secondly, there is a huge business opportunity for the US if Iran, as a market, could be opened up – probably worth trillions of dollars within decades. Thirdly, by opening Iran, US would also as a result open up an important southern access to the vast landlocked oil and gas fields in the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. George Bush can also claim that without Mullahs in charge in Iran that Iran's support for 'terrorists' such as Hamas and Hezbollah - and Iran's nuclear ambitions all disappear. A shifting inside Iran would also, undermine some nasty Shiites in Iraq (Muqtada Al Sadr, etc) and thus help shift private allegiances among the Saudis and Baathists in America's favor.
I have to believe that George Bush's administration has a better awareness of the circumstances...and that perhaps they have also weighed these and other options and arrived at the same point.
and Bush is not the US. Bush has enemies, real or imaginable. His real enemies are the people of the US. This is his war on them. And everything he is doing is directed to harm the people of the US. It is thus paramount that any foreign activity of the Bush and his cronies can only harm the US people. That is that simple. Let's leave the other people alone and look inside.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3360 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 9:26:11 AM
The neo-con Republicans in power in this administration will invariably lead, push, and cajole the President to eventually act out his natural "cowboy" tendencies (actually, not so much "cowboy" as spoiled, arrogant, and drunk frat boy) and to attack Iran. THAT is the "strategy for Iraq."
It will have global consequences, throwing the U.S. into a massive economic depression that will spiral into a world-wide depression.
The only open question left is how the branches of U.S. Government will respond to the event -- which will make Katrina look like a small house fire -- and whether or not the media will hold anybody accountable or simply roll over and play dead as they have for the last 8 years.
The Executive Branch will try to usurp massive powers and avoid accountability at all costs.
The Judicial Branch will rubber-stamp whatever the Executive wants.
So, that just leaves the Legislative Branch (supposedly in the hands of the "opposition party") to determine how to mitigate the horrors that will surely come. My guess is they will look remarkably like the PREVIOUS rubber-stamp congress (which at least had the excuse of being Rethuglican and Republicant through-and-through) and not take any significant action, beyond positioning their candidates for the 2008 election.
But, of course, that leaves out one powerful force that none of the Rethuglicans or neo-cons have accounted for: THE PEOPLE. They simply expect the citizens of the US who have lost all confidence and faith in their leadership to continue to do NOTHING but occasionally blovate, write a letter here and there, complain on blogs, and go to the polls thinking that their votes will be counted and make a difference.
BUT THINGS MAY GO DIFFERENTLY. We may reach a tipping point and the American People may turn off their TV sets and start TALKING to each other and MARCHING in the streets and even OPENLY REBELLING against their oppressive government.
We shall see.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 2 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 638 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 10:22:44 AM
''American and British oil companies in Central Asia. And, France in particular, is relishing the prospect of American hegemony being supplanted by European dominance. America's loss will turn into a European gain.''
Except a few delusional politicos, I do not know anybody in France or elsewhere entertaining the far fetched notion that European hegemony could replace American imperium any time soon.
The EU is presently semi-paralyzed by an expansion that has run amok--no less than 27 countries are members now--and a lack of political Constitution that renders any international and/or military joint action near impossible.
And the author correctly underlines that most European armies are not much to speak of.
That makes the EU an economic giant but sort of a political dwarf.
Besides, when it comes to imperium, the widespread attitude in Europe is ''been there, done that, costs too much''.
At best, Europeans businessmen might hope to gain a few contracts from a weakening of US economic dominance--but todays' corporate entities are transnational anyway.
of course, the day the Busheviks' get kicked out, people here will be dancing in the streets.
Can't blame them...
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 299 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 12:32:32 PM
Every enemy of despotism, every foe of torture, everyone who respects the rule of law and the Constitution of these United States should be an enemy of Bush.
Mr.Bahar:
the Iranians understand too well that neither Bush nor any American administration can be or will be a reliable partner.
ardee:
I do not believe this statement to be consistent with fact. Because the neocons who control our less than intellectual President are attempting to gain military control over the oil in that region of the world does not mean that all Americans are the enemies of Iran. There will come a day, despite your lack of belief in our nation apparently, despite the awful foot dragging of our Democrats, when we see a more enlightened Executive Branch and , with the cooperation of the Iranians themselves, a new chapter can be opened in our dealings with that nation. These are difficult times but we are a compassionate people, if a bit slow to learn our lessons.
Mr. Bahar
Then there are Democrats at home that are salivating with news of Bush's demise
ardee:
Well, if they are indeed salivating they are doing damn little else.
Mr. Bahar:
I have to believe that George Bush's administration has a better awareness of the circumstances...and that perhaps they have also weighed these and other options and arrived at the same point.
ardee:
You have simply got to be joking. Are you not aware of the absence of fact or rationality in most of the major decisions of this administration , especially in foreign affairs. These agendised empire builders begin with a result and work backwards, and the facts be damned.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 4:51:29 PM
I agree with your comments...(1) Iranians would do better with a more 'reliable' different executive branch than the ones US has had for the past 20 years...by the way, the reverse is also true [the Mullahs aren't reliable either] (2)the Democrats are doing nothing and have done nothing of any substance on this matter (it's a shame)... (3) and I think the Bush Administration has been driven by preset concepts and ideologies (without any flexibility or consideration for real facts ...not just on Iraq, but I am thinking of many other things like stem cell research etc.), they appear to be very weak on actual execution and not really bothered by "how" things should be done without any detailed planing, or willingness to engage experts, institutions or companies that are not within their own political circles (very incestuous)...
The result has been and will be abject failure ...when there was so much potential for success.
by
Jalil Bahar (19 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 30 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 6:55:23 PM
Come into the light, Jalil my friend and ally..:-}
It is really simple, sir. The US has been guilty of much evil in this world, it is also true that your own nations government has been also less than scrupulous about caring for its own folks.
We few are trying very hard to change this situation, it is not easily done, nor will it change willingly. Yet we do have all the power, if only we recognise this simple fact, and change it we will. Not only here in the evil empire but everywhere that governments fail in their duties to their own people.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at 8:18:50 PM
I'm surprised they let you post such inane drivel here.
Oh, and BTW, "America" is dead. Bush and his traitorous enablers in Congress put the final nail in its coffin. The abominable monstrosity on a rampage in the Mid-East is just that, an abominable monstrosity.
by
jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 287 comments)
on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 at 9:46:46 PM
