Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

The Lebanon parallel might apply to the south of Iraq, but Kurdistan will remain autonomous and a US protectorate for the long haul.

The endgame scenario is where the Lebanon analogy (otherwise a useful one) begins to break down. In the absence of credible Israeli or American force, Lebanon was game, set and match to Syria.

Iraq should be so lucky.

Iran, yes, obviously has a laundry-list of reasons (some even kinda reasonable) to assert hegemony over the Shia parts of Iraq. The Kurdish north, I'm sure, would love to become an independent country by default, but every other country in the area has ample reason to oppose that, by force if necessary. And then there's the "Sunni Triangle", which beside having its own set of local would-be warlords...hey, look, Syria again!

Gonna be a fun year.

Even though these guys are fools, I really doubt they'll allow Iran to invade. If Iran tried, I have no doubt that our military would kick the $#!! out of them. Plus, Iranian morale is not exactly at its highest right now. Very few people in that country would be willing to sacrifice their lives for the Mullahs.

That said, something will fill the vaccum. I just don't know what.

There's no reason for them to invade. They are in the Middle East for the long haul. We are out of there as soon as we can arrange it. All they have to do is wait. There isn't a politically legitimate Iraqi government on earth that can survive on the basis of US support. Time for the Berlin to Baghdad railway to be finally constructed. This is Europe's chance to play.

Strange that Dubya and the posse launched themselves into Iraq in order to guarantee an alternative supply of petroleum to Saudi Arabia only to find it slipping into the hands of Iran and Syria. Can anyone mention two states who must detest the United States more these days? Worse, given the way Dubya's inept administration is treating the Sunni population in Iraq, the US is also alienating the Saudis too. Once the myth of US invincibility is shattered when we retreat from Iraq, the radicals in Saudi Arabia may feel empowered to make their move too.

Isn't it a doctrine in management theory that a creative ambiguity (like we had before the start of the Iraq War) can be managed much more intelligently than an incompetently strategized certainty (like our current post-invasion situation)? Where is that proverbial CEO President? Did he actually earn his MBA from Harvard Business School or did he send a ringer to class even then?

the furl linky thingy is broky, requiring a logie.

bad url, very bad url.

I wonder if we'll see a Iran/Saudi(Wahabi) proxy war in Iraq after the US pulls out.

http://stratfor.com/corp/Corporate.neo?s=SUB&c=f
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY 17 May 2004 suggests withdrawing to bases that suit the US strategic interests.

...
We would argue there already is a vacuum, filled only with
American and coalition targets. It is not a question of creating
anarchy; anarchy already exists. It is a question of whether the
United States wishes to lose soldiers in an anarchic situation.

...

http://www.stratfor.com/iraq_map.neo
Above link for Potential U.S. Basing Locations

The bulk of Iraq's population lives in the Tigris and Euphrates
valleys. To the south and west of the Euphrates River, there is a
vast and relatively uninhabited region of Iraq -- not very hospitable,
but with less shooting than on the other side. The western half of
Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Syria, two of the countries about
which the United States harbors the most concern.
...

Full 17 May Stratfor in URL above (maybe only this week).

If our only option is to retreat into heavily fortified bases, which must spend all of their time defending themselves, why bother? What other purpose do those bases serve, if any? To prevent an Iranian invasion? Why would they invade? They could accomplish nmost of what they want simply by sitting patiently and waiting for it to fall into their laps.

Yes, it's time to gang up on Brad. Bad economist. Bad. Get off the geopolitical carpet!

Iran invade Iraq? No need to invade Southern Iraq. Just infiltrate. No joy in invading Central Iraq. Bunch of Sunnis and no oil. Invading Kurdish Iraq puts Iran right up against a NATO member's border, with conflict a high odds outcome. In any circumstance in which Iran might be tempted to invade Iraq, Turkey might already have felt compelled to invade the Kurdish area, just to stabilize its own border. No, the local folk are much better at this than us. Iran fought Iraq in large measure because Iraq insisted, in part because both had governments that had not yet had their megalomaniac tendencies curbed. Iran has its own problems, what with reformers and all. They would be brazen, troublesome, arrogant and maybe successful in the end, but they probably woundn't have to invade.

Iran would very likely end up in control of the Shiite region of Iraq, and that might be the best thing. The generals get the Sunni region, while Turkey and the Kurds come to some arrangement in the North. Each would have a soft spot in thier hearts for the US, so we would be able to exercise vast influence on the cheap...don't you agree?

The adverse consequence of Cheney's & Bush's excellent adventure in the Mideast are just starting to become apparent.

Has any President ever done more harm to US interest?

http://pep.typepad.com/

I agree with K Harris. Iran would not invade.

Why Iran? Why not Syria? The Syrians have more experience with putting down rebellions. The big problem is Baghdad with its ethnic diversity. The Syrians have more experience and Sunni ties. Syria does lack the numbers. That increases the possibility that Syria and Iran could support proxy armies that would drive the partition of Iraq. Syria would support the Sunnis in Baghdad and Iran would support Shiastan. Iran and Turkey will be busy throwing cold water on Kurdish dreams of expansion.

Iraq's neighbors want the US out (they might be next). They will do enough to make sure the US cannot establish a presence in Iraq. Once the US is gone, it is in their interest to stabilize the area. Even at this point, events are out of control beyond the Iranian comfort zone and they are not impeding the stabilization efforts. They are assisting in a half-hearted manner.

Syrian, Iran and Turkey do not need an activist Kurdistan agitating for Kurdish areas of those countries to secede and join greater Kurdistan. The Iranians, don't want conflicts that constantly spill over their long border. Syria, Jordan and the Saudis don't want an ethnic bloodbath just across their border.

Iraqis are used to a strong leader. If the situation gets too unstable, they will back the strongest leader who can provide stability. This is how the Taliban took Afghanistan.

I don't see either Iran or Syria invading. Lebanon probably had fewer than 3 million when Syria (about 10 million invaded). Iran is maybe 65 million to 25 million Iraqis? Iran could perhaps control Shiastan, but Kurdistan and Baghdad would be big mistakes.

Is the recent assassination of a third Shia leader a message that Sunnis will not submit to Shia majority rule? This would make governing and a unified Iraq even more difficult. The regime change policy of Mr. Bush has replaced a stable dictatorship with a dangerous unstable region at the mercy of gangs and thugs. How much more violence will it take to arrive and a more permanent settlement?

I believe the situation would be worse had Uday and Qusay taken over from Saddam and if the US had stopped the no-fly zones in the Kurdish north and Shia south. There would have been civil war with all of the neighbors involved.

India was a Third World colony just over 50 years ago and now look at it. Not perfect, but that vast, multicultural society just had a decent election and today will have an orderly transfer of power. The US, Europe (and Japan which is growing again) need to help Iraq down the same route.

The mullahs in Iran (who no longer have to deal the hated Taliban or the hated Saddam Hussein) and Syria should follow Libya's example and get with the program.

Whoever takes control of Iraq's oil, they will be one hundred times better than Saddam and they will break the insanely fundamentalist Saudis' grip on the oil market. Maybe that's why they didn't lower prices last December. They know their days are numbered. Iran's mullahs' days are numbered too.

It looks like Brad is linking to a search engine result which requires registration. The actual article is on MSNBC at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4988497/site/1/

Much of this was not only forseeable but forseen by those of us who opposed the war. Zakaria may be a smart guy, but he's a little late in noticing that the Bushies never had the competence to pull this off.

"What is more likely than civil war, however, is an ending like that of Ariel Sharon's "Peace for Galilee"--his early 1980s invasion of Lebanon. A strong neighboring power with substantial internal allies imposes its own hegemony upon the country. Iran, anyone?"

I'll take that bet. I'll bet you up to $10 that the government of Iran won't invade and occupy Baghdad for a period of more than 2 days in the next 5 years. And I'll give you 5-to-1 odds.

Baghdad, no. Forming a "military alliance" with Shiite southern Iraq (complete with Iranian troops all over the place), si.

Menachim Begin was the prime minister who decided to launch Peace in Galilee. I'd rate it about like the Bush adventure in Iraq. Fortunately Iran is not Syria as noted above. My bet is influence not invasion. Frankly that would be fine by me.

Also note how eager I am for an Iranian to run Iraq at http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.com

And why wouldn't Saudi Arabia support the Sunnis? Saudi Arabia has its own restive Shiite minority. Supporting the Sunnis would be a counter to Iranian hegemony in the region. In addition, it's inconceivable that the Turks wouldn't interfere given that they've mobilized forces twice and once the PM got on national television and told his whole country they were going in - to be reined back at the last minute by an alarmed Washington.

And Syria ... why wouldn't they play the game too? Supporting the Sunni *Baathists* like they've always done? What you've got here is a recipe for a four way tug of war ... Iran and Turkey supporting the Shiites and Turkmen (who are mostly Shiites) ... Saudi Arabia and Syria supporting the Sunnis and the Kurds desperately battling for their survival and trying to cling to promises of assistance for allegiances and services rendered to Washington. A real messy place.

Online Casino Directory

Peccatum tacituritatis - Sin of silence

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam - I'll either find a way or make one

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate - Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily

In his ordo est ordinem non servare - In this case the only rule is not obeying any rules

Omne ignotum pro magnifico est - We have great notions of everything unknown. (Tacitus)

Omne ignotum pro magnifico est - We have great notions of everything unknown. (Tacitus)

Latet anguis in herba - A snake lies in the grass. (Vergil)