On Wed, 07 Apr 2004 10:57:02 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message

I think I would agree with you, if someone could just explain what our
long term strategic goals are in Iraq.


1. In Iraq, we have eliminated the most unstable regime in the area. The
circumstance within Iraq will stabilize in due course.

Saddam's Iraq was many things, but unstable it was not. Today's Iraq is
unstable. Hopefully this will change, but it is not a certainty.
Unfortunately, at this moment, I would say a civil war is as likely as a
democracy.

2. In Afghanistan, we have eliminated the Taliban as the dominant
force, and effectively removed the area as a stable operating base for
al Qaeda.

We have effectively removed Afghanistan as a stable anything, except
perhaps a stable source of opium. There are some positive signs. Perhaps
if Iraq hadn't put Afghanistan on the back burner, we could have claimed
some real successes.

3. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have
bracketed Iran,
arguably the most powerful terrorist state anywhere.

Maybe, Iran certainly isn't our friend, but neither do they seem to be
exporting problems for us. Iran has domestic problems to deal with,
including a democratic movement that threatens the Islamic regime.


4. By our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, coupled with the generally
pro-western government in Turkey, we have major presence across the
entire northern tier of the mid-east.

5. Our presence in Iraq coupled with the location of Israel puts a
worrisome strategic bracket around Syria.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of Israel's Likud hardliners. Let them
fight their own battles. As an aside, you do know that Syria was a
coalition member in the Gulf War. They are Israel's enemy, not
necessarily ours.


6. Our demonstrated willingness to fight a war against terrorists has
induced Libya to a level of cooperation unseen in 30 years.

Reagan's bombing of Libya changed Qadhafi. Libya's efforts at
normalization predate Bush's War on Terror.


7. Probably for similar reasons, Algeria and Morocco have both
communicated with the US, indicating a preference for a softer,
non-militant, non-fundamentalist stance.

8. After 2+ years of effort, US diplomats have effectively brokered an
end to the 20+ year old (oil based) civil war in Sudan.

Sudan's troubles are mostly ethnic/religious.

9. Morocco, Algeria, Libya, and Sudan form a southern tier, effectively
bracketing the entire mid-east.

LOL, normalized relations don't necessarily mean allies.


11. Iraq, Libya, and Sudan all have major oil production capacity, once
reconstituted. This will seriously alter the economic balance of power
in the region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional lynchpins of the
region, see their influence jeopardized.

Egypt's influence is not based on oil.

In short, as a result of a demonstrated willingness by the US to take a
stance, militarily when necessary, virtually every Arab or Islamic
government from Gibraltar to the Hindu Kush is in flux, with most
indicating a more accommodating stance toward the west.

That's the strategy. It is working. Iraq is not the war. Iraq is just
a battle.

Geopolitical chess is a very dangerous game, especially since no human can
see the end result. Food for thought, Iraq and Iran were once both strong
allies.