Middle East

[Elite Marksman]

Please don't get on to the Bush-bashing train here, that is not my intent. The intent of this thread is not to comment on, merely state the facts of the current situation, but rather to speculate on what will happen after the new Iraqi government is established.

Before the United States intervened with the oppressive Iraqi regime headed by Hussein, Iraq formed a sort of buffer zone between the Shi'a and and Sunni Muslims. Iran is primarily Shi'a, as seen here. Also shown on that map is the distribution of Sunni Muslims, who are predominant in the majority of the world. Iraq was caught in the middle of Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia, two very potent and, quite possibly, nuclear powers. Saddam's regime, the Ba'ath party, supported neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, and they appeared to coexist under his regime.

This, however, changed when on 9 April 2003, US-led military forces forcibly removed Saddam from power. Extremists from both the Sunni and Shi'a sects immediately undertook action to fill the vacuum and attempt to gain power so that they could sway the new regime in their favor.

Until now, the violence has largely been contained within Iraq's borders, however, this could very well change. After reading General Tommy Frank's autobiography, I noted a few key points he mentions. One was that if the new Iraqi government is secular and supports neither the Sunni or the Shi'a, the violence could remain within Iraq, or most likely dissipate over the next decade. However, it is likely that should the new government support the Shi'a or Sunni sects, the disenfranchised sect's supporters; Iran in the case of the Shi'a, Saudi Arabia in the case of the Sunni, could feel threatened by having their historical enemy so close and start a war to secure the neighboring areas.

It is my belief that though Saddam was oppressive and did commit crimes against humanity, and as such deserved to be punished, it is not worth the potential cost of losing the stability in Asia Minor. I was speaking with my history teacher, who flew as a navigator in the F-15E during Desert Storm, and he made the comparison, "Iraq is like Humpty Dumpty, once it falls, no matter how hard you try you will never be able to put it back together again," and the went on to say that by removing Saddam, we may have removed the cornerstone from Humpty Dumpty's wall.

What do you think about the matter. Sorry the post is so long, but I didn't see any way to make it shorter and still give a decent explanation.

[JayEff]

In the first Gulf War, that was the reason they did not go all the way to Baghdad and oust Saddam. Now it would seem that George Sr. is proven correct.

However, something changed in U.S. strategy after 9/11/2001. Here is a synopsis of the [G.W.] Bush Doctrine.

Features of the doctrine include:
1. Pre-emptive attacks against those who would attack the U.S. and those who would harbour them
2. The duty of the U.S. to pursue unilateral military action when acceptable multilateral solutions cannot be found.
3. The US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.
4. Extending Democracy, Liberty, and Security to All Regions.

Evidence in Iraq for WMD and links to terrorism were weak; there is more evidence that the U.S. has and uses more of both. And where the heck did Saddam get the gas or gas technology that he used against Iranians and Kurds? Very likely from a country that has a permanent seat on the UN 'Security' Council. One may like or dislike the Bush Doctrine, but I still don't see what it all has to do with Iraq. The terrorists had bases in weak countries like Somalia and Afghanistan, not Iraq. And terrorists have been found in places like Canada and the USA, and coming from places like Saudi Arabia and Eqypt, not Iran or Iran.

Item 4 above is of particular interest because it was not on the list of priorities in the second half of the last century:

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt Jr.'s (a senior CIA officer and grandson of the former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt), the CIA and British intelligence funded and led a coup d'etat to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister with the help of military forces loyal to the Shah through Operation Ajax.

(Wikipedia)

[Elite Marksman]

I think that the third point will be impossible to maintain. China already has a military capable of giving the US a run for its money, and with their rapid industrialization, could possibly overtake the US in the foreseeable future. It was the same situation in WWII, the German Panzer and Tiger tanks were vastly superior to our Shermans, however, with sheer numbers we were able to defeat them, but at a considerable cost. China has at least 3 times the population of the US, if not more.

[davion76]

Military balance of power wih china is flatly, we can't challenge them on the mainland, and they can't challenge us at sea (yet).

[MountainMan]

However, the Chinese have purchased at least one aircraft carrier and several other capital ships from Russia, as well as submarines, and are rapidly constructing a very powerful blue water navy.

The next military superpower will be China unless America acts to rebuild its aging infrastructure and its decimated troop strength.

[davion76]

I think there is rather little we can do to prevet china from becoming a superpower, nor should we actively attempt to undermine their efforts. Although I DO definitely support increasing domestic infrastructure investments and potentially using the WTO or US law to errect SOME trade barriers/tariffs between us and countries that have poor human rights laws and/or violations. The export of manufacturing will seriously come back to bite us if we continue to do so.

[EPH]

China is generations behind our military technology and is not spending the money needed to catch up. They are a regional power but not equal to Russia or Japan. Their biggest weapon is the amount of US debt they hold.