“To achieve what only a superpower can”
Jeremy Greenstock in today’s Washington Post:
Excerpt one:
…the United States and Britain have never attempted a truly comprehensive policy on Iraq. Unless the United States and its principal allies construct an approach that brings all available resources to bear to establish stability, there will be no point in staying in the country when all objective observers see a continuing downward spiral.
That’s a call for “unified action.”
Excerpt two:
The Iraqi army must be asked to take on an increasing amount of the burden, with the coalition taking the calculated chance of equipping it more adequately. The army is the security institution with the highest status in the eyes of the population as a whole and the only one that is not largely corrupted and penetrated. Testing the Iraqi army next year, with the coalition stepping back off the streets and perhaps reducing its numbers, is a gamble that has to be taken. If it fails, and the coalition leaves, a national army will be unlikely to survive.
That’s been a goal since 2004, to have the Iraqi Army assume responsibility for security.
Excerpt three:
Rich in hydrocarbons as Iraq is, economic support from outside remains vital. The priority has to be jobs and the energy infrastructure. Oil is the glue that can hold the Iraqi state together. The effective generation of power can convince the people that better days are possible. Creating a national oil company that explicitly works for the interests of the people, and not for an elite or a region or a sect, could be a powerful and positive symbol. Enough people must have a stake in protecting the production platforms, the pipelines, the refineries and the power stations to make sabotage and disruption far more difficult. International investment in this outcome should be linked with internal political progress, but it must now include a far broader range of contributors than has so far been the case.
How do we link all these things? None will work unless they all do. The controlled collapse of Iraq into three separate and autonomous regions is not a realistic alternative, however much it seems to appeal as an escape route…
Again, not new.
But if re-casting and re-stating helps nudge sober and responsible politicians into a war-fighting consensus, good.
Excerpt four:
Iran fights a rearguard action. Iran’s Isamlic revolution flopped and everyone knows it. The mullahs think a nuclear bomb will save them, at least for a little while. They also believe continued regional troublemaking buys time. But is time really on the mullahs’ side? The demographics of discontent say “Nay.”
Inviting Iran to a conference and allowing the mullahs to make fools of themselves might be a useful ploy. Giving them any determinative capacity is a mistake, but I don’t think that’s what Greenstock is suggesting. I think this quote indicates he anticipates a lot of theater: “Countries in the region must be allowed to present their own agendas, even if they do not convince others for long.” Heh.
Do read the entire essay. Greenstock was the UK’s special envoy to Iraq from 2003-2004.
Also read this for background.
If the Iranian dictatorship isn’t taken down sometime in the next two years, it’s going to be too late. Destroying all islamic dictatorships and theocracies should be the primary goal of the war against muslim terror.
Comment by Wolf Kizter — 11/19/2006 @ 3:33 pm
I do no know how anyone who has followed the history of the Middle-east since 9/11 could come to the conclusion that Iran is fighting a rearguard action. Iran is ascendant. They are well on their way to controlling Iraq. Lebanon will be under the control of their proxy (Hezbollah) by the end of the year, I suspect. Absent military action by the US (and there will be no military action by the US IMHO), they will be a nuclear power more quickly than than any of us can bear (ever - is too quickly for me). Greenstock is just another European wishful-thinker (or perhaps deliberate threat-denier). The best way to avoid dealing with a difficult problem is to deny that it exists or is serious.
Comment by Brian — 11/20/2006 @ 2:53 pm
For Insight in to the internal dynamics, and poor demographics of IRAN, check out: http://www.atimes.com ..Look for an article by SPENGLER. His theory is that IRAN is a failed state with a rapidly aging population. They are desperate. That makes them “dangerous”. I have been reading him for awhile. I think you’ll be impressed.
Comment by Don — 11/20/2006 @ 3:07 pm
Regarding my earlier post, I should have read the whole WP article before commenting. It appears that it is your opinion, not Greenstock’s, that Iran is fighting a rearguard. Obviously, I could not disagree more. I usuallt agree with what you write. However, I think you are way off base on Iran in this case. ED NOTE: Quick response. Right now the mullahs are fighting at least three low-grade insurgencies. Arabs in Khuzistan. Baluchis out east. Iranian Kurds in the northeast. Under-forty Iranians know they’ve been cheated culturally and economically. Khomeini’s revolution is a national bust. Doesn’t mean the mullahs can’t play the natinoalist card — they do, and they play it relentlessly. They also know they ain’t popular. Moreover, the Iranians fear an “Iraqi bulldog” (revitalized Iraq armed with Western weapons and possessing four or five Western-trained divisions). Hence a bigtime rearguard action. But thanks for the comment.
Comment by Brian — 11/20/2006 @ 4:25 pm
I pray you are correct. Thank you for taking the time to comment on my comment. I think that the Iranians will have little to fear from the Iraqi army, they will be mostly allied. The insurgencies you mentioned are so low-grade that I would not consider them meaningful. Anyway, insurgencies are not much of a threat against a ruthless state. The interesting thing here is that with the speed that things are moving in the Middle-east we are going to find out very soon whether Iran is weak or strong. It looks like the revealing will start in Lebanon.
Comment by Brian — 11/20/2006 @ 5:47 pm
Brian, Iran is very very weak economically. They are mainly ascendant in the international media and maybe politically, but those are both transitory at best. (see Bush being ascendant in 2003…)
Comment by Aaron — 11/20/2006 @ 7:50 pm
Either Iran gets nukes soon, or it gets attacked and gets to blame all problems on the attacker. I hope the US becomes a much better ally of India, with the idea of supplying an Indian peacekeeping army with US tech and training. The world needs a Human Rights enforcement group; controlled by democracies only.
Comment by Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — 11/23/2006 @ 6:39 am