Join 3,495 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq
April 25, 2007 7:42 AM   Subscribe

The last thing the Middle East's main players want is US troops to leave Iraq.
posted by reklaw (11 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
Only skimmed the article so far, but one point jumped out at me: The absence of US intervention/influence/oversight would lead to partition, apparently? War Nerd thinks that Cheney and Co. would like to redraw the borders actively themselves.
posted by pax digita at 7:51 AM on April 25, 2007


It's a concise and erudite analysis of the situation, and it doesn't contain a single surprising word. This is not a criticism of the article, but I bemoan the fact that the only people who are likely to read it are the ones who already know it to be true.

The hegemonic powers-that-be have desires and schemes in direct opposition to those of the people whom they claim to represent and/or lead. So it was, is, and ever shall be, in Heaven and on Earth, amen.
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:59 AM on April 25, 2007 [1 favorite]


BTW I love the kind of editorial where the author is completely obscured. It's a British art form. So what is the point?
posted by srboisvert at 8:33 AM on April 25, 2007


Already, nothing has dented Israeli deterrence more than America's performance in Iraq - an inspiration to Israel's Arab foes that even the mightiest can be brought to heel.

I question this assertion, I think Israel is willing to go far beyond what the United States is to prosecute a war. The U.S. being "brought to heel" only stands as long as we stop short of a "Total War" strategy which Israel would most certainly use if pressed hard enough. Israel's Arab neighbors have neither the resources nor the "heart" to stand toe-to-toe with the IDF in an "unrestricted" conflict.
posted by MikeMc at 9:05 AM on April 25, 2007


That was a vaguely interesting editorial, but it lacks the quality of actually expressing anything beyond a summary of the reasons that every elite group in the region, plus the US, wants to see a continuation of the current Iraq war. It doesn't even think about dealing with the more fundamental problem with continuing the status quo – the situation of the occupation forces is growing steadily worse, with no positive change in sight. The fact that the deterioration of Iraq will continue unabated (and in fact constantly accelerate) as long as the US stays in place means that, at some point, something will give and the whole edifice will fall apart. Then the whole logic of the thing will change.
posted by graymouser at 9:34 AM on April 25, 2007


Right, this is a good summary of what's apparent, and like most good summaries, it's short on new analysis.

Speaking of new analysis, I sacrificed a white ram today, and after examining its entrails, my initial calculations are that we will slaughter them all.

Thanks for the link.
posted by breezeway at 10:42 AM on April 25, 2007


What is wrong with a summary? I read it, and I wasn't aware of all those nuances.

Thus, Faint of Butt's surmising is, strictly-speaking, wrong.
posted by JHarris at 11:37 AM on April 25, 2007


Interesting analysis, thanks. Another recent analysis by Hussein Agha (with Robert Malley): The Road from Mecca, discussing the dim prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement.

MikeMc: I question this assertion, I think Israel is willing to go far beyond what the United States is to prosecute a war. The U.S. being "brought to heel" only stands as long as we stop short of a "Total War" strategy which Israel would most certainly use if pressed hard enough. Israel's Arab neighbors have neither the resources nor the "heart" to stand toe-to-toe with the IDF in an "unrestricted" conflict.

Hezbollah's success in standing up to Israeli attack last August suggests otherwise.
posted by russilwvong at 12:45 PM on April 25, 2007


From the article: Second, if the US leaves, the emergence of a Shia regime in Iraq - in itself an offensive prospect to them - would only be a matter of time.

I don't see how the current (and failing) Iraqi government isn't a Shia regime of sorts. There's a reason the Sunni are angry, and it's because the writing's on the wall.

Also, I can't imagine Iran isn't pleased to see the US continue to flounder in its occupation of Iraq. We're losing blood and treasure and being made to look like an international fool. This no doubt pleases the Iranian regime immensely.

So I thought the article made some decent points, but the title is unneccesarily misleading. Simple fact -- Iraqis want us out. How are they not "major players" in the region?
posted by bardic at 1:47 PM on April 25, 2007


Good article, but FoB has the gist of it.

What it did reinforce to me is that this recent power play by the US will have ramifications for 100 years.
posted by wilful at 6:06 PM on April 25, 2007


It's a concise and erudite analysis of the situation, and it doesn't contain a single surprising word.

Well, for me it did. I've never seen irredentist before. Which resulted in the following exchange between bitmage and the onelook.com dictionary:

B: Define irredentist.
D: An advocate of irredentism.

(sigh)

B: Define irredentism.
D: The doctrine that irredenta should be controlled by the country to which they
are ethnically or historically related.

(snarl)

B: Define IRREDENTA! And stop screwing around!
D: A region that is related ethnically or historically to one country but is
controlled politically by another. (snigger)
posted by bitmage at 1:49 PM on April 26, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older A group of enthusiasts bring you live vessel movem...  |  "The average person will eat o... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments