Divide and conquer the Middle East.

[madanthonywayne]

I came across this article today, and it reminded me of something SamCD said regarding the present situation in Iraq. Here's what she said:

Diplomacy is the art of giving in without appearing to do so.

The best thing the US can do right now is put it to the people of the ME who will not be seen as "invaders" but rather as familiar enemies with familiar tactics. Condi's trip to the ME to involve the Arab states tells me that this matter appears to be under consideration.

They must involve the Arab countries, Iran and Syria and let them resolve the issue. There is simply no other way to end this crisis. Americans are too unpopular to be seen as anything but occupiers.

Even then, there will be repercussions, but they'll be better than what the current blundering around is creating. The best way to avoid future crises is to recognise that they are going to become more fundamentalist now and stop attempting to force change. Rather promote education and social reform by exporting culture and encouraging economic growth. Support democratic regimes even if means paying more for the oil. Nothing wins over people like economic prosperity.

Now this article from the Wall Street Journal says much the same thing, but says we can manipulate the situation to our advantage by playing one side against the other in a game of divide and rule.

It was the hugely ambitious project of the Bush administration to transform the entire Middle East by remaking Iraq into an irresistible model of prosperous democracy. Having failed in that worthy purpose, another, more prosaic result has inadvertently been achieved: divide and rule, the classic formula for imperial power on the cheap.

Here are some of the facts

Once the Bush administration realizes what it has wrought, it will cease to scramble for more troops that can be sent to Iraq, because it has become pointless to patrol and outpost a civil war, while a mere quarter or less of the troops already there are quite enough to control the outcome. And that is just the start of what can now be achieved across the region with very little force, and some competent diplomacy.

Just as the Sunni threat to majority rule in Iraq is forcing Sciri to cooperate with the U.S., the prospect of a Shiite-dominated Iraq is forcing Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Jordan, to seek American help against the rising power of the Shiites.

The Sunni-U.S. alignment in Lebanon, which interestingly coexists with the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq, may yet achieve results of strategic importance if Syria is successfully detached from its alliance with Iran.

True, Syria is ruled primarily by members of the Alawite sect that is usually classified as a Shiite offshoot. But that extremely heterodox faith (it has Christmas and the transmigration of souls) is far different from the Shiism of Iraq, Lebanon or Iran--where it would be persecuted; and besides, at least 70% of Syrians are Sunnis.

The U.S.-Sunni alliance, which is a plain fact in Lebanon, is still only tentative over Syria; but it would be greatly energized if Iran were successfully deprived of its only Arab ally. At the same time, the U.S.-Shiite alliance in Iraq has been strengthened in the wake of Mr. Hakim's visit.

The result of all this:

The Iraq war has indeed brought into existence a New Middle East, in which Arab Sunnis can no longer gleefully disregard American interests because they need help against the looming threat of Shiite supremacy, while in Iraq at the core of the Arab world, the Shia are allied with the U.S. What past imperial statesmen strove to achieve with much cunning and cynicism, the Bush administration has brought about accidentally. But the result is exactly the same.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/.../?id=110009521
Some good stuff there. The author makes note of many of the same facts as Sam, but points out how we can turn it to our advantage.

[S.A.M.]

Guess we'll be getting a lot more inflammatory comments of Sunnis vs Shias and vice versa in the media now.

Wait! Hasn't that started already?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62124

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=62158

Trust the Americans to twist a civil war to their advantage.

I just hope they are able to contain the massacres.

[Prince_James]

I can now see the appeal of a cockfight.

[madanthonywayne]

Trust the Americans to twist a civil war to their advantage.

I just hope they are able to contain the massacres.

Come on, Sam. They're just following your advice.

[vincent]

I think there is a simple answer for the middle east:

1/ we get our asses out of oil, there are hundreds of alternatives now, its only greedy politicians who are keeping us in it.

2/ we build a new chinese wall dividing the middle east from the rest of the world, many of there ideas belong in the stone age, simple we let them live in the time of there choice, we stop supplying them with anything other than clubs, stones & matches.

3/ we let them have a mother of all holy wars with eachother, & after 100 years if there is anyone left alive, we see if they are ready to join the rest of us again...

[Buffalo Roam]

vincent28uk, I agree with your Ideas except for #1, none of the technologies available today are mature enough to replace oil yet, But from what I am finding in my research there is more than enough oil to carry us through out side the middle east, there are many reserves that are known that haven't been tapped yet.

[madanthonywayne]

If we were really the imperialists everyone makes us out to be, we'd treat the middle east the way Rome treated Dacia. Dacia was giving Rome some trouble and had a huge gold mine that Rome wanted. Rome invaded, killed most of the Dacians, and stold the gold. The aniliation of Dacia was so complete, that that area is now known as Romania (land of the Romans).

[Oniw17]

I thought divide and conquer was already the strategy in Iraq? It's not like there's been a single, unified opposition since we've been there(at all?).

[madanthonywayne]

I thought divide and conquer was already the strategy in Iraq? It's not like there's been a single, unified opposition since we've been there(at all?).

The original plan was to create a functioning democracy in the middle east to catalyze further changes and create an environment hostile to terrorists.

This doesn't seem to be going well, but the author of this article points out that we can still turn things to our benefit and be better off then if we hadn't invaded by playing the different groups against each other.

I'd say try Bush's "surge" strategy while simultaneously pursuing the strategy recommended here. We need the Iraqis to be able to police their own country with our troops there to back them up. At the same time, we should try to seperate Syria from Iran and pursue some of these other ideas.

[Roman]

If we were really the imperialists everyone makes us out to be, we'd treat the middle east the way Rome treated Dacia. Dacia was giving Rome some trouble and had a huge gold mine that Rome wanted. Rome invaded, killed most of the Dacians, and stold the gold. The aniliation of Dacia was so complete, that that area is now known as Romania (land of the Romans).

The only way we can win is if we adopt this type of strategy, either by killing the civilians ourselves, or supporting brutal dictators that do it for us.


How comfortable are you with slaughter?

[spidergoat]

We HAD devide and conquer, or at least contain, with Iran and Iraq. With a civil war in Iraq, it is Iran's dream scenerio. Far from requiring less troops, it would require many more than are available to control Iraq. The result will be that US troops will leave, and the Shia likely take over, aligning with Iran. However, Saudi Arabia is predominately Sunni, which means a big problem.

As much as conservatives hope that Bush has pulled victory out of the jaws of defeat, the opposite has happened. He is not a strategist, not even accidentally.

About the oil, Iraq's oil is in the process of being privatized. Permanent fortress bases are being built (by American contractors). We have spent so much money it is the equivalent of $400 dollars every minute since the birth of Christ. Who is getting that money?

[S.A.M.]

How comfortable are you with slaughter?

Based on what I read here most Americans appear to be very comfortable with slaughter that does not involve Americans. As long as its other people elsewhere that are dying, they can reconcile themselves to it, even justify it as something that will benefit future progress. Like they do for Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

I do believe that if it brought gas prices to 25 cents a gallon most would find a way to be comfortable with nuking all people in the ME including Israel.

[Roman]

Based on what I read here most Americans appear to be very comfortable with slaughter that does not involve Americans. As long as its other people elsewhere that are dying, they can reconcile themselves to it, even justify it as something that will benefit future progress. Like they do for Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

I do believe that if it brought gas prices to 25 cents a gallon most would find a way to be comfortable with nuking all people in the ME including Israel.

It can only be expected.
America's a Christian nation, after all.

[spidergoat]

1. Not Christian.
2. Not relevent.

[S.A.M.]

It can only be expected.
America's a Christian nation, after all.

I feel Gandhian today:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ- Gandhi

[madanthonywayne]

I feel Gandhian today:

That's a good quote. It's hard to find fault with Christ. In order to fulfil his destiny he had to live a life without sin. Sadly most Christians fall far short of this. Of course, were this not the case he wouldn't have needed to make the sacrifice he did.

[Mr. G]

Based on what I read here most Americans appear to be very comfortable with slaughter that does not involve Americans. As long as its other people elsewhere that are dying, they can reconcile themselves to it, even justify it as something that will benefit future progress. Like they do for Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Based on what you read here, most Democratic Americans are very comfortable with slaughter that does not involve them.

Plausible deniability is an important Democratic party plank.

Some of us here are not Democrats.

Some of us here are more comfortable with discriminate culling.

It's a form of democracy: Voting, of a nature.

[S.A.M.]

Based on what you read here, most Democratic Americans are very comfortable with slaughter that does not involve them.

Plausible deniability is an important Democratic party plank.

Some of us here are not Democrats.

Some of us here are more comfortable with discriminate culling.

It's a form of democracy: Voting, of a nature.

I did not realise Bush is a closet Democrat.