Since today's news seems to be a continuation of yesterday's (no philosophical digressions here), I'll post a blue sky hypothetical question that should stimulate debate. I'm wrestling with some of the implications of Imperial Hubris and am seriously unimpressed with his stated alternatives: lose or kill with reckless abandon until they know that we mean business.
How about this scenario: we leave Iraq to fragment, knowing that the Kurds will declare independence, Iran will take the Shia bits and the Sunnis will hold a rump state that will probably ally with Syria. Given the increased Iranian presence in formerly Sunni lands, the Saudi will increase covert spending and encourage the growth of pro-Saudi groups opposed to the ruling Ayatollahs. This Sunni/Shia (Saudi/Iranian) showdown will weaken the middle east internally, drive their attention towards each other and away from us. In the meantime, if bin Laden and his ilk desire an Ottoman-like superstate, let them kill each other trying to build it. No Beiruti in his right mind will ever agree to be ruled by the one-eyed wonder of the Patans, no matter how holy.
Let what should be a inter-muslim fight for the direction of the faith and their respective societies become just that.
Cue the flaming arrows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Let us not forget that under this scenario, we most certainly will lose any assistance in the War on Terrorism from Turkey, which fervently opposes an independent Kurdistan.
An independent Kurdistan would most certainly want to capture territory with large Kurdish populations along the Turkish border, as well as other neighboring countries.
The end result would turn what has been a low-intensity conflict along the Turkish/Iraq border into a heated one in a number of neighboring nations with Kurdish minorities along their border regions. As States mobilize to combat the threat, most certainly the specter of a Kurdish genocide would rear its head.
This sounds very bad for business, in both the Middle East and Europe. Such destabilization and uncertainty would make the price of oil skyrocket. Turkey’s future place in the European Union could collapse. The price at the pump in the U.S. would lead to howls for swift action. The Madeline Albrights of the world would demand that President Bush military intervene to save the Kurds.
That being said, I understand your point. The divide and conquer strategy has worked well for colonial powers (I am not saying the U.S. is a colonial power in the old sense of the term) in the past, most notably the British Empire. The U.S. was much better at instigating revolt and revolution against enemy regimes during the Cold War, when our intelligence community was strong and the gloves were off. We don’t have that capability today. We don’t even have the stomach for it.
With that being said, the reality is the United States can’t just pull out of the Middle East and hope these countries tear themselves apart. As long as there is an independent state of Israel (which I strongly support), and a United States firmly backing it militarily, the Saudis, Iranians, and Bin Laden will always have a way to blame the United States for intervention and deflect attention from each other.
The Turks define their identity in modern times in terms of Ataturk. I don't think that they will move too far in the direction of Islamic radicalism, even if the Kurds bolt [run away with the spoon?]. Sure they will be angry. Maybe we can remind them about revoking basing rights at the last minute during the early stages of the Iraq war?
Anyway, the lack of a Kurdish homeland has created many problems in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. To create one would give the US the only reliably pro-American moderate democracy in the Arab world. The Kurds might have to fight the Iranians and/or the Turks. Let them.
If you worry that Turkey will leave NATO because of this, maybe you are right. Let them. Argue for self-sufficiency and get out.
This is just blue sky thinking that I won't put any emphasis on except as mental excersise. I haven't read too much from people more intelligent than myself about the potential pros and cons of undoing what the Brits, French and Russians did with the Sykes-Picot agreement that divided the Mid-East among the then Great Powers. Maybe we should. At least walk through the pros and cons to get an idea of the implications.
Post a Comment