-
“Fediting 101”
June 13, 2013 | 1 comment
-
National Security and the Difficult Debate
June 10, 2013 | 12 comments
-
Just Because I’m Paranoid…
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
Over at the Foreign Policy Association, I’ve written a brief review of a memo published by the Council on Foreign Relations, titled “Renewed Violence in Iraq.” Authored by Douglas Ollivant of the New America Foundation, the report offers practical recommendations as to how the U.S. can help the Iraqi government cope with a number of relevant security contingencies.
“To what end..?” you may be asking yourself. These days, if we speak of the war in Iraq, we do so in brief, terse terms reserved for an ultimately unpopular war. A war best remembered for false start declarations of missions accomplished and the slow bleed of American blood and treasure. Not a popular subject…but one that demands our attention.
Ollivant summates the security implications, expertly:
“Iraq is also not only an influencer but a participant in the “Arab-Persian” axis. It is primarily an Arab country like much of the Middle East, but it has a Shia majority like Iran that exercises political control. Similarly, Iraq is a frontline state in the conflict between moderate Islam and al-Qaeda, a battle for ideas that will continue to be of major import in the fight against terrorism. Iraq has a significant minority Kurdish population, a distinction it shares with the otherwise dissimilar Iranian, Turkish, and Syrian regimes. With the world’s fifth-largest oil reserves, Iraq’s output can stabilize or roil markets, directly affecting the U.S. economy. As Iraq moves back into the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) quota system, how it aligns within the organization—whether with the stability-oriented bloc of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States or with the more ideological bloc led by Iran and Venezuela—will have clear implications for U.S. energy policy.”
As I wrote for FPA, that list provides an effective aggregate of America’s enduring interest in the future of Iraqi governance and energy output.
Having detailed all the internecine and intra-national spats that have plagued the country since the 2003 invasion (plus newly emergent ‘Shi’a vs. Shi’a’ frictions), Ollivant pleads stubbornly optimistic that the state has potential as an “emerging regional power.” In theory, he’s correct.
As I wrote for the Foreign Policy Association, Iraqi oil production now outpaces Iran, while the parliamentary democracy (although fragile) and “quietest Shi’a tradition” (as embodied by Grand Ayatollah Ali al Sistani’s opposition to Khomenei’s vision of Islamic guardianship) remain obstacles to the brittle legitimacy and power of Iran’s titular theocracy.
Of course, Iraqi opposition to Iranian influence is a matter of profound intricacy, hinging on matters of religious, social and political identity. Although it’s a matter many would like to forget, U.S. policymakers would alienate Iraq at our peril…as Ollivant suggests, delicate American assistance, regional, bilateral partnerships (e.g., with Ankara) and electoral stability could still prove an effective counterbalance Iran’s regional sway.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/15/lest-we-forget-iraq
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Drink Earlier, Drink Less
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike W| 8.15.12 @ 6:06PM
Let's forget Iraq. Please. The Iraq debacle stained the Bush administration, hiked oil prices, made us no safer, provided an ally for Iran, killed 4500 Americans and cost us over one trillion dollars.
The worst of it is that Iraq essentially gave us the Democrat takeover in 2006 and Obama in 2008. Any way you cut it, Iraq was a catastrophe for the USA.
Reid Smith| 8.15.12 @ 6:24PM
Oh, I agree entirely. On all fronts. The war was a disaster, that never should have been fought. But we can't just "forget" a critical state, in a critical region.
I'd like to avoid another war, if possible. A strong(er) Iraq would guard against that.
C Bowen | 8.15.12 @ 6:35PM
A stronger Iraq as check against Iran has come to mean allying with Al-Qaeda.
Just remember, all of us in fly-over country think the foreign policy regime in DC is either insane or criminally insane.
Reid Smith| 8.15.12 @ 6:48PM
I would disagree with your first statement...perhaps not, with your second.
Iraqi Shi'a majority does not equate to al Qaeda. In no way, shape or form. A Shi'a strongman, like Maliki, finds no material or ideational support from a Salafi transnational terror movement. Not only are they completely unrelated...they're diametrically opposed.
Remember, the differences between Shia and Sunni Muslims over caliphate (who should have succeeded the Prophet) are as important, and intractable as the differences among Shiites on imamate (who can lead Muslims).
In other words, Shi'ite schisms between Iraq and Iran are just as important as those between Shi'a and Sunni.
Reid Smith| 8.15.12 @ 6:49PM
As to your second statement, yeah, preventive war is criminal. No ifs, ands or buts.
Occam's Tool| 8.15.12 @ 7:51PM
Right. So preventative war against Germany before WWII for invading the Rhineland would have been criminal. Uh-huh.
This is why the State Department is worthless, folks. Iraq is useful only for its oil and its Kurds. Other than Kurdistan, the rest of the country is useless to us except as target practice if required, and for petroleum. Attempting to civilize maniacs is useless; killing them is occasionally useful.
Destroying Iran's armed forces from the air and sea, followed by bombing until surrender, would easily deal with Iranian power with minimal American casualties.
Infantry is needed to reduce civilian casualties and make power projection more precise. When you don't give a shit about Iranian civilian casualties or precision of power projection (within Iranian borders is sufficient), then boots on the ground become less relevant because destruction of electrical, communication, and water infrastructure is relatively easy, especially if one has no interest in rebuilding.
"Let them hate us, so long as they fear us." I don't notice your skin ever on the line regarding "prentative war," Reid. Mine isn't on the line either, but at least I start off with the assumption that one million Iranian dead aren't worth one American soldier dead---the ration needs to be higher.
Occam's Tool| 8.15.12 @ 7:54PM
Sorry, fogot the "v" in "preventative."
Otherwise, bloodthirsty enough? Check. Uncaring enough? Check. Nasty enough to set off the "oh my goodness, you're talking about genocide" ranters? Check.
If Iran stops trying to get nuclear weapons to destroy its neighbors, I'm perfectly happy to leave them alone. If they want to fight Iraq with conventional weapons, I say stay out of it. But if they threaten decent civilized people, then "Cathargo Delenda Est."
aware| 8.16.12 @ 6:16AM
I love how arrogant people can look back and precisely pin point the exact moment when the perfect action makes everything come out like a Hollywood ending.
In '35 it would have been France alone doing the "preventative" war. Guess what? It would have been 1870 again.
The German high command was planning a war starting in '44 or '45. Hitler miscalculated and got the ball rolling 5 or 6 years too soon. So you actually had the very scenario you think would have made everything perfect, war before the aggressor was completely ready.
The God Complex always includes this thinking you can remake not only the world, but even history too. Just like Hitler. He thought he was doing a "preventative" war and fixing the mistakes of the past too. Ironic isn't it?
But irony is wasted on the neo con. Preventative war is evil because no one, not even industrial/prison complex shrinks, can know what the future will be. Worse, it shows total disregard for God and His ability to preserve the righteous.
aware| 8.16.12 @ 6:17AM
A certain group planned 3 world wars in the late 1890s. The first would remove the protector of the eastern orthodox church, the Czar and put his nation under the heel of militant atheists(also created by this same group). The second would place half of Europe under the heel of the same atheists and threaten the other half.
The 3rd is slated for the Middle East and will cause so much destruction and chaos that the survivors will beg for global governance under 1 leader.
Find out who this group is.
JP| 8.16.12 @ 9:02AM
"In '35 it would have been France alone doing the "preventative" war. Guess what? It would have been 1870 again."
Germany didn't institute general conscription until after the Rheinland incident. Before conscription, The Germany Army fielded 21 division, of which 1 division was mechanized (the 1st Panzer). Germany possessed no armor better than the PzKw1 (the Mark 2 was in its early production phases); it possessed no artillery beyond 75mm, and its infantry possessed no antitank guns. The Luftwaffe was in its infantcy.
The French, from a purely TO&E perspective outnumbered the Germans 3-1 infantry;5-1 tanks; 10-1 in aircraft. Nazis Germany would have been crushed.
Nazis Germany in 1935 didn't have the forces to defend its borders let alone launch offensive operations. This is very well documented.
Occam's Tool| 8.15.12 @ 7:55PM
Oh, and it should be "ratio, not "ration.""