The Wages of Stupidity
As loony leftist Billmon here observes, there are no good options for our Iraq policy:
If the United States were to begin pulling troops out of Iraq now, it would be interpreted correctly throughout the Middle East as an open admission of defeat -- one that would likely lead fairly quickly to a complete American evacuation of the country. (Maybe not literally by landing helicopters on the roof of the embassy, but all in the region would understand the military reality that as the force grows smaller it will become progressively more dangerous to keep it in Iraq.)
Such an outcome could force well Iraq's Shi'a political leaders to snuggle up even more tightly to Iran, if only as a matter of physical survival. If the full-scale civil war everyone seems to expect were to break out following an American withdrawal, Baghdad might even feel compelled to call in Iranian troops. At a minimum, Iran could be left with enormous influence over, if not outright control of, the Iraqi government and its security forces. Access to Iraqi air space would give Iran a direct resupply corridor to Syria, and, through Syria, to Hizbullah. A ground presence could provide Tehran with a direct ground link -- call it the Ayatollah Khomeini Trail -- assuming the Kurds could be bought off and/or intimidated, or the Sunni belt pacified (one shudders to think of what that might involve.)
The thrust of the piece is Billmon sticking it to the Dems for their shameless, abject allegiance to the State of Israel. I think he exaggerates a bit, but there's no doubt that the type of policy changes that would be necessary to begin to sort out "this Middle East problem" for real has essentially no constituency in Washington, and even less of one in the MSM.
This is the point at which I have to acknowledge that this all comes down to oil for us. After all, none of us lays awake at night wondering if the Gabsonkeg and Lapigu tribes of Papua New Guinea will ever learn to live together in peace and harmony...
If the United States were to begin pulling troops out of Iraq now, it would be interpreted correctly throughout the Middle East as an open admission of defeat -- one that would likely lead fairly quickly to a complete American evacuation of the country. (Maybe not literally by landing helicopters on the roof of the embassy, but all in the region would understand the military reality that as the force grows smaller it will become progressively more dangerous to keep it in Iraq.)
Such an outcome could force well Iraq's Shi'a political leaders to snuggle up even more tightly to Iran, if only as a matter of physical survival. If the full-scale civil war everyone seems to expect were to break out following an American withdrawal, Baghdad might even feel compelled to call in Iranian troops. At a minimum, Iran could be left with enormous influence over, if not outright control of, the Iraqi government and its security forces. Access to Iraqi air space would give Iran a direct resupply corridor to Syria, and, through Syria, to Hizbullah. A ground presence could provide Tehran with a direct ground link -- call it the Ayatollah Khomeini Trail -- assuming the Kurds could be bought off and/or intimidated, or the Sunni belt pacified (one shudders to think of what that might involve.)
The thrust of the piece is Billmon sticking it to the Dems for their shameless, abject allegiance to the State of Israel. I think he exaggerates a bit, but there's no doubt that the type of policy changes that would be necessary to begin to sort out "this Middle East problem" for real has essentially no constituency in Washington, and even less of one in the MSM.
This is the point at which I have to acknowledge that this all comes down to oil for us. After all, none of us lays awake at night wondering if the Gabsonkeg and Lapigu tribes of Papua New Guinea will ever learn to live together in peace and harmony...
posted by Mockrates at 4:34 PM
2 Comments:
"This is the point at which I have to acknowledge that this all comes down to oil for us. After all, none of us lays awake at night wondering if the Gabsonkeg and Lapigu tribes of Papua New Guinea will ever learn to live together in peace and harmony"
Frankly, I rather hope the Gabsonkeg and the Lapigus join forces to defeat those warmongers and whoremongers from Tuvalu, in a pre-emptive strike. Their imperialist excesses have gone unchecked for far too long.
"This is the point at which I have to acknowledge that this all comes down to oil for us. After all, none of us lays awake at night wondering if the Gabsonkeg and Lapigu tribes of Papua New Guinea will ever learn to live together in peace and harmony"
I don't lose sleep about the Gabsonkeg and Lapigu tribes getting along because of the fact that no one from Papua New Guinea is threatening jihad and have stated repeatedly in public that they want to kill all of the unbelievers (or bombed trains in Europe, crashed planes into NY skyscrapers, or blew up tourists in Bali.)
I admit that oil is part of our interest in the region. Lets state the obvious. What is wrong with defending the world economy and what our life style is based on.
I am partially open to a large gas tax ($.50/gallon). I haven't completely convinced myself, but I buy into the idea of reducing oil consumption on national security grounds. However, I am not sure what the true economic impact would be. Would we become less competitive compared to other countries? I'm guessing no based on the small impact of the recent rise in oil prices. Like I said, I am open, but still not fully convinced.
Post a Comment
<< Home