>> I'm not really sure what you think we should have done. >> Just buy oil from these countries but not have any contact?
> of course not, but i think a better foreign policy would be to support > leaders who use the oil revenues for peaceful purposes. the US did not > found the baath party, but we should support more moderate arabs. OK, that sounds reasonable. It also sounds like the bulk of the US foreign policy with regards to working with Arabs and Persians. Let's look at a list of Mid-East oil producers...their 2000 production capacity and our policy towards them: Saudi Arabia 9.48 For Iran 3.77 Against Iraq 2.58 Against UAE 2.57 For Kuwait 2.20 For Oman 0.97 For Qatar 0.87 For Syria 0.55 Against Yemen 0.44 Mixed The ones we are against do not have a track record of using their oil revenues peacefully. The ones we are for generally do. > the fact that it is ALREADY IS a war between shi'ite and sunni is why > we should never have invaded, or remain... The war between Iraq and Iran was the only war between a Shiite and a Sunni run country that I can remember from 1900 on. Hussein was secular, and wasn't interested in theological disputes. He saw the fall of the Shah as an opportunity to grab disputed territory (and a bit extra). Also, the fact that the Ayatollah Khomeini called for the Shiites in Iraq to overthrow Hussein, as well as Shiite minorities to do the same in Kuwait, probably had some influence on him. This war went on for eight years, and at one point it looked as though Iran was gaining a major advantage...with a good chance of Basra falling. At that point, by many reports, the US supplied Iraq military intelligence that was very helpful in repelling the Iranian attack. This is the famous "alliance with Hussein" that folks talk about. This is what is considered proof that he was our ally. However, the actions in the war, and the timing of the intervention (which was late in the war) indicated that our objective was more modest. After all, the ideal time to get Hussein to attack the Ayatollah for us was early on...when he was on the offensive. The best explanation for this rather limited involvement was that we really didn't want an Iranian victory. The Khomeini explicitly stated that he was interested in broad Islamic Republic founded on what we now call radical Islam. If Iraq fell, no other Arab state was even close to matching Iran in capacity.....especially after it had the resources and Shiites of Iraq at its disposal. So, we follow the policy of "hands off" and Iran wins the war with Iraq. Then what? Do we use the US military to defend Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.? Or do we continue with a hands-off approach? Given the arguments against Gulf War I, staying out of disputes be Mid-East dictatorships seems pretty logical. Why lose American lives defending one dictator against another? An Islamic Republic, which controlled over 20 million barrels/day of oil would have a big hammer in dealing with the Western world. It would be in a very strong position to blackmail Europe....and I think it would not find it hard to buy the arms needed to become a strong power. Given the fact that Iraq was only about a year away from an A-bomb when Gulf war I started (according to the findings of the inspectors after the war), I see this as an extremely dangerous scenario....one that would be far worse than what we faced today. Now, we have a repeat of that potential. Unless internal politics in Iran changes, Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 3-7 years. If we withdraw our military from the mid-East, and declare a hands off policy, there are some very dicey scenarios possible. It is highly probable that, if we pull out quickly, there will be much more extensive ethnic cleansing in Iraq, with the Sunni population confined to NW Iraq. The Iranians will step into the power vacuum...having enormous influence who governs Iraq...somewhere between having a puppet government and being a kingmaker for the government. I'd rate the chances of genocide as better than even in this scenario. It would be hard for the Sunni governments to not intervene at this point...with money and weapons. AQ is a natural for spearheading the Sunni defense. Now, what I am listing above is, probably, the least worse evil...I favor a timetable for withdraw...not a immediate pullout. In this scenario, I hope we can successfully push for a non-genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis into the NW of Iraq...but I don't think we can be assured of this. Maybe we will still have enough influence to keep the murder rate to under 50k....I hope so. Then, as I said, Iran will have a lot of influence in Iraq. And, then, we have a question for US policy. Do well tell all the governments in the region that the US will respond to Iranian incursion into Sunni countries by defending those countries with it's own military? I'd guess you'd say no, right? That would lead, in my opinion, to a very unstable situation. I'd say yes, which would lead...as far as I see it....to a new status quo. One in which Iraqi Arab Shiites will remember that they are Arab, and the Iranians are Persians....and that they really don't need to be ruled by Persians....and the Iranian influence will gradually diminish....and a fairly independent Shiite Arab dictatorship will emerge as the governing power through most of Iraq....with the N staying Kurdish....and the Sunnis allowed to keep the impoverished NW. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
