Such is Washington eight weeks before the mid-term Elections. Coming back from
vacation just proves that you need another vacation. As is their custom, the Democrats declared victory in both
House and Senate in mid-August.
Let fear strike your heart, Osama, Harry Reid is on the hunt.
If we agree that arriving at a judgment the war on Islamic Fascism will be the central issue of the fall election,
then we should begin to assess the alternatives being offered by the various candidates. It is time for the adults
to show up. The question is - will they?
Thanks to the recent work of George Friedman of the Geopolitical Intelligence Report, we have a framework in which
to place our observations. In each local election, voters could ask their candidates to say whether the proposals
they make benefit our military and political efforts or benefit our enemy's efforts. Here are the major alternatives.
We Should Never Have Attacked Iraq. In which case, Saddam & Sons would be using the fascist Baathist
Party to maintain authoritarian governance by the minority Sunni over the majority Shia. The corrupt French, German
and Russian sanctions-busting scheme would have succeeded and the American blockade would be ended. With the march
of Iran, internal revolts in Iraq would be encouraged. The Wahabbi-funded Sunni terrorists would still be in conflict
with the Iranian-funded Shia terrorists. The Middle East would still be unstable. It being impossible to turn back
the clock, this position is intellectually flawed and emotional - having a "we lived in a golden age"
quality to it that is patently false. Iraq wasn't safe before the invasion but the world was taking a nap, lulled
by the gurgles of flowing oil.
Impose a Military Solution. The allies, lead by the United States, face more than one enemy. In fact, they
face a series of enemy organizations willing to kill each other and any Americans they find in their way. In the
North, the Kurds would kindly like to be left alone. However, their southern oil fields are coveted by the Sunni
whose homelands do not have oil prospects. On the Kurd northern border, Turkey would be delighted to control Kurdish
oil resources as well.
In Sunni lands there are at least three major factions besides simple tribal militias. One group sees their best
prospects in cooperating with the central government so that the Shia do not gain absolute control. Another group,
primarily secular Baathists who ruled under Saddam, do not concede defeat and expect to rule again. A third group,
Saudi-financed, are foreign mercenaries and Jihadists that are the proxy forces for all Sunnis everywhere, especially
Islamic radicals.
In the South, Shia politics also divides three ways. There is one group that would be content to rule Iraq with
coalitions that assured them control of the southern oilfields but did not create a totalitarian religious government.
For them, secular rule plus tolerance of their religious beliefs would be sufficient. As could be expected, there
is also just the opposite - a group that wants a totalitarian Islamic state build on the Iranian model. The third
group has secular ambitions to advance the power of Iran. The long southern border with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
brings visions of Persian control of Middle East oil.
In the middle - American forces with the goal of defeating any enemy organization that threatens the populace or
the political settlements. A military solution is not in the cards.
A swing political position of coalition-building between the Sunni and the Shia might be attainable. A stable government
is years away.
Three Autonomous States. Iran's operating nuclear capabilities are still some years away. They are, in fact,
most likely a dilemma for the next President. What is true today is that Iran has the most powerful military force
in the Persian Gulf. Their ground forces are bigger and better than all the forces of the Arabian Peninsula combined.
While Sunni believers outnumber Shia by large numbers globally, Shia populations are well located in the areas
that actually produce oil. The rise of Hezbollah encourages the quiet Shia to become more assertive. It also demonstrates
than Iran can attack by proxy and not leave a forwarding address.
A three-way split would hand control of the southern Basra oil fields to Iran. The geographic location would enable
Iran to decisively influence if not control the bulk of the region's oil reserves. China's economy is so desperate
for energy to sustain growth that she would become an automatic, if sub rosa, ally.
A massive military buildup sufficient to attack Iran would be enormously expensive and take a very long time. It
would create huge occupier resentment, de-stabilize the geo-politics of the region and drain the American military
of its power to respond to anything else for a generation.
Cut-and-walk is just the same as cut-and-run. As the Americans withdraw, the Iranians will arrive. No open conflict
on their side would be necessary. It would be victory by fifth column effort.
Regional Withdrawal. The United States has fallen into the Iranian trap - The Americans cannot contain the
chaos and neither can they simply withdraw.
There are four possibilities.
- Recognize Iran as the regional hegemon and withdraw completely.
- Re-deploy to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. That would recreate the Muslim strife and resentment over occupied lands.
- Discontinue counter-insurgency campaigns and place American troops in locations in the Iraqi south that would
block Iranian forces.
- Use Saudi and Kuwaiti forces to engage in a counter proxy war.
Each of these four cede control over most of Iraq to a triumphant Shia community.
The Status Today. In his speeches this week, George Bush declared that he does not intend to change U.S.
policy in any fundamental way, Friedman concludes. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq. Counterinsurgency
operations will be carried out. The training of Iraqi national troops will continue with the goal that they would
be capable of taking over operations.
His opponent's main political answer is to draw down U.S. forces quickly, abandon combat operations and regard
the Iraqis as not friends and allies but hired mercenaries who have failed to do their job and should be fired.
The "walk away" political answer will likely produce at a minimum an Iranian satellite state.
The Iranians do not believe that America is anything but weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in
Iraq or taking successful military action against Iran.
As we go to the fall elections, voters might ask - where ever did Iran get that idea?
September 8, 2006
