Also, the Turks. They don't want the Kurds to get their whey, er, way.

Some sort of civil war seem inevitable. What I don't automatically accept, though it's stated as a point of fact with Bush and McCain, is that Iraq will become some sort of home base for terrorists.

What faction in Iraq would shelter them once we're gone? Why would they put up with terrorism? The Sunnis have already shown they're not pro-terrorist.

Will second zenger. Believe there's a reasonable possibility for continuing border skirmishes between Turkey & Kurdistan.

Don't believe that the MEIF has much currency - listening to the right wing talks shows, their arguments boil down to "we can't give Al Qaeda a victory". Don't hear much mention of either MEIF or Iraqi internecine genocide.

I think the Turkish aspect is the most alarming. They have a very strong interest in preventing the emergence of an independent Kurdistan, and the armed forces to back up that interest. (Not to mention my turkish brother-in-law might get called back to military service if war breaks out.)

Zenger beat me on the Turks. I think they are the most likely country in the region to get involved if we leave. Iran would certainly be involved, but in a more covert way (since they favor a Shiite government).

Posted by: zenger: The Sunnis have already shown they're not pro-terrorist.

Perhaps because the terrorists in Iraq have concentrated on killing Iraqis to destabilize the country (which they have done very successfully), U.S. troops being too difficult a target.

Iraq may well be a haven for anti-U.S. terrorists after we leave. I wouldn't exaggerate the love of the Iraqi people for America, democracy, and Israel. While we're there they have to suck up to the powerful occupier, but after we leave, who knows.

Jordan, Syria, Kuwait - not interested in any involvement except to keep the refugee flow down.

Saudia Arabia - gets involved only if Iran sticks its nose in, or if Iraq dissolves completely.

Iran - interested in remote-control influence over Shia factions, unlikely to send in the military unless someone else intervenes first, or if Iraq dissolves completely. Likely to send intelligence agents, but crossing the ethnic divide (Persians in an Arab country) put limits on the numbers.

Turkey - most likely to intervene, but little territorial ambitions. Controlling the oil around Mosul would be nice but would bring a lot of Kurds along with it, adding to domestic issues.

But when crude oil is consistently over $120/bbl (current dollars) all bets are off.

Isn't "The Middle East Will Dissolve Into Chaos" code for "We Won't Control Their Oil Any More"?

I left out Turkey deliberately because border skirmishes with the PKK have been going on forever. It doesn't strike me that a civil war in Iraq really changes things much unless Kurdistan formally declares independence -- which I think we have the influence to prevent them from doing. That aside, there might well be border clashes, but nothing more serious.

Though, as with the rest, who knows? There's no question that Turk-Kurd relations are in a parlous state these days. I'm just not sure that a more gloomy than usual assessment is called for.

Enjoyed the Article Kevin. The dollar is at a 15 year low. Is this related to Iraq or the sub-prime 'securisitation' crash?

Isn't "The Middle East Will Dissolve Into Chaos" code for "We Won't Control Their Oil Any More"?

Lol.

Exactly. Russia and China are waiting to swoop in where the Bushies made such a big mess. US control is on verge of a complete meltdown - all thanks to Bush and Cheney wonderful liberaltion policies.

Bush says "it'll be the new killing fields" only it already IS the new killing fields. NO matter what comes up out of the ashes of Iraq - it won't be pro US.

Who knew Western oil contractors could be so nasty - well everybody knows it now, the entire world.

A very interesting analysis, Mr. Drum. You have given me reasons to hope that the destablization caused by the US invasion might not be as great as I have imagined.

No one has mentioned Afghanistan, Israel or Pakistan yet. We assume that the US stays in Afghanistan, trying to stablize that country and keep it out of the hands of the Taliban? The US would still have a presence in the ME, on the border of Iran, which might keep some of the anti-Israel hostility under the tipping point.

Pakistan is a wild card. I hate to think how things would play out if Musharref were be ousted by right-wing extremists.

I wonder about the Kurds. They have been our most loyal allies, they are the ones who have had something like a functioning democracy, they have oil resources, and Kurds in Turkey would like their independence, but Turkey doesn't want that. Maybe in Iraq, when the Shi'a and Sunni have killed enough of each other, the Kurds will be able to get some airtime.

It is always hard to ignore the oil wars angle of this, given the six years that have passed without any intelligent efforts at conservation and development of sustainable, non-carbon energy sources....

Invading Iraq was not the problem. Doing without a plan was. So now we're retreating WITHOUT A PLAN!! AGAIN!

We never ever ever learn anything!

I've started twitching a lot. I just don't understand politics anymore.

you left out some big players, as others have mentioned above, particularly the only one local to the region with nukes.

Invading Iraq was not the problem. Doing without a plan was. So now we're retreating WITHOUT A PLAN!! AGAIN!

Given that the alternative is staying without a plan... I'd say leaving is still the least awful option.

I don't want to sound like I necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder if the foreign jihadi-types don't, to a significant extent, come from—ergo will return to—Northern Africa when a US withdrawal makes their continued presence in Iraq untenable (lack of targets, more concentrated resistance from the natives). Without trying to make too much of it, I am most nervous about development in this area (from Morocco to Somalia [maybe including Yemen]). Add to this our intention of establishing an Africa Command.

Kurdish independence (even quasi-independence under a loose confederation) still presents the biggest problem for continued instability in the region. The folks in that region have long memories. The Turks will be remembering what happened to Turkey (the old Ottoman Turkey) back during the day when the Romanians, Bulgars, Serbs, and Greeks were nibbling at the Turkish state trying to "reclaim" pockets of their lost brethren in the Balkans.

We Americans forget (if we ever knew) about the Balkan Wars which raged from the early 1800s right into the 20th century. The Turks haven't forgotten and they're not about to let a third of Anatolia slip away. They'll do what they did to the Greeks after the Greeks tried to reclaim western Anatolia, and that wasn't pretty. The Turks will know from real experience that if the Kurds get independence, just like the Serbs and Bulgars did in the 1890s and the early 1900s, the Kurds will be supporting irredentist movements inside Turkey no matter what the Kurdish government might be saying now. If the Kurds go back on their word, will the American try to punish the Kurds for supporting terrorist acts against the Turks inside Turkey? That is the question which must be put to the Bush administration.

...if the United States takes a sane and energetic diplomatic approach to things.
So obviously we're talking about a policy to be enacted after Bush and Cheney leave office.
Isn't the main concern (well-founded, or not) not inter-state conflict, but a pan-Arabian religious war between Sunni and Shia that largely disregards state borders?

Why not rewind the tape back to the end of the Ottoman Empire and the redefinition of the ME by the British, French, etc. We could make a Suniland, a Shialand, a Kurdistan, and find a new safer, more logical place for the Jewish State. There are plenty of nice empty spaces left in the World.

It's all about power and money in the Middle East. If there's an advantage for any of those countries to meddle in Iraq's affairs, without them having to risk too much to get it, they'll go for it.

However, going in with guns blazing probably won't help them much in the long run, so it's unlikely they'll do it.

unless Kurdistan formally declares independence -- which I think we have the influence to prevent them from doing

What's our carrot and what's our stick? Being on speaking terms doesn't neccessarily translate into influence and control. The way I figure they could easily decide to declare independance knowing we have a vested interest in not seeing them massacred.

How much control do we have over provacative Israeli policies?

The most dangerous scenario, which seems to escape everyone's attention, is that Saudi Arabia and Iran are pulled into the vacuum left by us, and create an alliance of radical Islamic states, bent on re-establishing the caliphate.

Well, just one thought on Iran and Kevin's point that Iran hasn't had any territorial ambitions over the last 30 years.

One of the principal reasons Iran has not had or acted on any western territorial ambitions is because Saddam and his Iraqi army posed a major impediment to any possible ambitions that Iran may have had. Iran's understanding of the problems Saddam posed was clearly reinforced by the brutal eight year war it fought with Iraq.

Times have changed. Saddam is now gone, Iraq has no army and, as we all know, Iran can act with significant impunity in Iraq, albeit through proxies and intelligence agents at the moment.

I'm not saying this guarantees that Iran will invade Iraq, but the destruction of the Iraqi state and Iraqi army make it a more feasible and perhaps palatable proposition to some in the Iranian leadership. What's worse is that the Saudis, Jordanians and Syrians all understand this to be the case.

The Saudis, Jordanians and Syrians cannot confidently and accurately predict the intentions of the Iranian regime (a regime which, by the way, to a large degree still supports the export of a revolutionary Shiite ideology) which in turn gives them all the more reason to augment their military capabilities and grow far more suspicious of Iranian intentions and capabilities. One of the principal reasons they never felt compelled to have any major military capabilities was the strong Iraqi buffer with Iran. That buffer is now gone.

So, you get more weapons and even more regional suspicion. These are two things that, as history has shown time and again, frequently lead to war.

None of this guarantees a regional war. But then again, wars are rarely a "guarantee" before they begin.

Most likely this is an academic exercise isn't it? I ask that because it appears that, unless enough senators have the guts to make a filibuster stick, Bush will get the funding to keep enough troops there to stop a really full scale civil war from erupting while he is President. And after another year and half the dynamics could very well shift in unforeseen ways - though almost surely not in a way that leads to a strong enough nonsectarian central government. Given that Bush will probably get the money to keep a large number of troops in Iraq, I think the best of the awful alternatives is to push for a model along the lines that Biden is advocating (although I'm not overly impressed with much of the rest of what he has to say); that is, some sort of decentralized government in Iraq with three largely autonomous regions. Of course, that is fraught with a lot of difficulties - especially how to distribute the oil wealth and suppressing the extreme Sunni and Shia elements. But such an approach may have the best chance of avoiding even greater wholesale bloodshed than the terrible carnage that has happened so far in Iraq; and to the topic at hand, may be the best approach to lessen the probability of the conflict overtly spreading beyond Iraq - as low or as high as that probability may already be.

Kevin Drum, one of the loudest cheerleaders IN FAVOR of invading Iraq, directs his laser-like policy analysis toward another Mideastern country. Kevin. Seriously. Shut up. Take a deep breath. Back away from the keyboard. Come back when you are ready to cat blog. That's your level.

George Bush is Our Pet Goat.

Kevin: the local Wahhabi imams

This would be considered a slur in Saudi Arabia. "Wahabi" there has connotations of backwoods hicks. They prefer to be called Salafists.

The religious content is more or less the same. From Wikipedia: "The principal tenet of Salafism is that Islam was perfect and complete during the days of Muhammad and his companions, but that undesirable innovations have been added over the later centuries due to materialist and cultural influences."

Al's post is a work of art. Utterly ridiculous (at the time of a vicious shia-sunni civil war, he worries the two will unite and form a new caliphate), it's so stupid one thinks it has to be a parody, yet it represents a political political point of view actually held by numerous people, so you can't really be sure if he means it or not. Masterful.

In the war of 1812, the British invaded parts of the U.S., burned down the White House, etc.

The war was actually started by the Americans, it that Congress declared war over the cause of impressment of U.S. sailors. But many believe the war was caused by a desire of the U.S. to expand their holdings, take over Canada, etc.

In other words, the British attacked claiming the Americans as aggressors.

What if the British had stayed? What if the British claimed they would stay and occupy America as long as the Americans continued to misbehave, continued aggressive action, etc. Would the Americans have been justify to oppose the British, to conduct a guerilla war?

Or should nations simply allow other nations to invade and occupy them -- for their own good? Should Iraqis simply accept the presence of American forces -- because it is good for them?

Would you?

Kevin Drum, one of the loudest cheerleaders IN FAVOR of invading Iraq,

I was reading Kevin at the time, and no, he wasn't the loudest, or even all that loud. Like a lot of us, he was willing to give a hearing to the Pollack notion that we needed to deal aggressively with a WMD problem (a mistake in retrospect), but by the time the troops went in he no longer supported invasion. For mindless war cheerleading at the time you needed to read InstaPundit.

Al is wrong (there's a shock), if only cuz a caliphate UNITING Sunni and Shi'ia is sorta unlikely, the way most folks figure a new Pope isn't going to unite Catholics and Protestants. It's not that a guy like John Paul II won't do spectacularly symbolic gestures, like going to a Lutheran church (after 500 years: surrender!), it's just that a Pope couldn't reconcile Rome with Protestantism -- BECAUSE he is a pope.

But I wanna speak up for the role of a caliph, anyway: it's common for folks to point out that Islam has never had a Reformation. But few go on to realize the reason is that it never had a Pope. It's hard to rebel against a central authority when there isn't one. For all of the sins of the Roman church, it has this great virtue: it IS a central authority, and you can measure everything against its yardstick.

Protestants, by contrast, are like Muslims: born schismatics. If you reject the Pope's authority, like Luther or Henry VIII, leave. Then when the next congregation decides they don't like a bishop, or a priest, or the concept of a priesthood, or maybe just the 'smells and bells' of Popery, well: you get Presbyterians and Congregationalists and whatnot.

It's that constant splitting apart which, as much as anything, led the quintessentially civilizing concept that civics has a moral value in itself. It didn't happen without the traction of something to rebel AGAINST.

That's why Islam never had it.

Muslims tell me that Islam cannot have the separation of Church and State, because in the western sense, Islam is not a church: it's a way of life. It never developed the church and state dichotomy the way Europe and America did, because it was not developed in reaction to (nor in support of) a central religious authority with military and political clout: no Pope, no Luther; Muslim versions of Henry VIII (and there were lots) never had to renounce Rome's rule, cuz there was no Rome.

There was a lively debate within Islam a thousand years ago about itjihad, the interpretation of the Recitation and the Sayings, in the waning years of the Abbasid Caliphs, with their Fatimid rivals. This is when the 'us vs. them' worldview of Islam was cemented, cuz it WAS, after all, a pretty reasonable view of the struggle of Christendom against Muslims during the Crusades. That was when the institutions of Islam formally determined that the gates of interpretation were closed -- and it was also when Arab domination of Islam ended.

Somebody should reopen Interpretation: why wouldn't a caliphate be the catalyst?

See, that's the key to it all: when the Turks took over, they made the caliphate into a religious support for a political empire, and kept it that way until 1924. Milton Viorst had a great line, that when Mustafa Kemal established modern Turkey and abolished the Caliphate, it was as if Garibaldi had unified Italy by abolishing the Papacy.

The Muslim Brotherhood reconnected Islam and Arab nationalism without reopening Interpretation -- and that's what leads directly to the mess we have now. (There was a Brotherhood guy in Saudi Arabia in the 20s who refused to eat with a fork, cuz there is no evidence the Prophet ever ate with a fork: gotta stay on the safe side.)

So I dunno that if some Muslim state or sect credibly tried to claim to restore the Caliphate would necessarily be a disaster. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is waaaaay too bureaucratic and downright collegial to be much of a bulwark against the uncivilizing tendencies of religion; Saudi money runs al-Aksar and most maddrassahs; (besides being evil criminals)al Qaeda has no true religious credibility; I dunno enough about Tanzeem in Pakistan -- but having SOME definitive and MODERN orthodoxy to rebel against might be precisely the catalyst for a Muslim Reformation, and about bloody time, too.

Kevin, you really need to go back and study the Iran-Iraq War. You should also loon into Iran's territorial disputes with Afghanistan and Azerbaijan. Not to mention finance projects in Somalia, Sudan and other part of Northern Africa. To make a blanket statement such as "over the past 30 years they've never displayed any territorial ambitions" proves you have very little interest in actual history.

The Saudi military has one of the most well financed and well trained militaries in the world. They have Mecca to guard, not to mention all of those oil fields. We dump billions in arms on them, as well as training. They have the money to rent out mercs, and are without question better armed than the militias in Iraq. They always feared Saddam's imperial ambitions, and have a tenuous relationship with the Persians. It's not as likely that the Saudis would need the ground forces we had, because their concern will be the Sunni minority in the country. They could establish no fly zones, bombing campaigns, or even worse, arm Anbar to the teeth. Again, not a terribly accurate statement on your part.

And, you left out Turkey. Turkey has twice bluffed at entering Kurdistan, and most certainly would do it if we left. Now, perhaps the Kurds, in our absence, would smarten up and move to mediate with the Turks immediately, but it's unlikely that they'll crack down on the PKK.

Oh, oh! Iran might wander in their with their tank brigades! That'd be horrible!

And then Saudi would have to send in... Wait, they didn't even participate in Operation Desert Shield, for crying out loud, they've got too much trouble at home.

Syria? They're both smaller and pinned down by Israel. If they as much twitched, you know the Golan would be more than Semetic homes.

Turkey is the only one with troops massed on the border. And what are they going to do? If they move in from the border the Kurds will stop being pests and actually start fighting across the border. Since we've never bothered this fight before, why would it matter now?

I really don't see how it could get 'worse' insofar as someone else's troops are the ones bogged down in Iraq, assuming someone tries for the oil.

...On the other hand, why aren't we taking refugees?

Dicksknee has pointed to the correct moral compass. Think of India at independence. Should the British have stayed- forever- to prevent bloodshed and suffering in that country? I have asked my Indian friends this question and through looks of indignation they replied in the negative.

Certainly this latest reason to stay in Iraq is just a child's excuse to keep doing what the imperialists want to do. It should not be mistaken for adult conversation.

Having said that why is chaos and bloodshed caused by George Bush's invasion morally acceptable while chaos and bloodshed caused by regional powers is not?

Somebody should reopen Interpretation: why wouldn't a caliphate be the catalyst?

It took a LOT of years for Christianity to evolve away from central authority to the separation, with some pain tossed in. It'd be nice if there were a better way.

I think there will be/is a civil war in Iraq, and it will end when the geography has been partitioned ad hoc or formally, and each side has "cleansed" the others. Our presence in Iraq is a dampener on that process, and because of that we control it. Too much dampening/presence and we delay the war's onset and eventual conclusion. Too little and the fire gets out of hand and outside players succumb to the pressure to intervene. Somewhere in between is the right amount, that lets the partition occur as rapidly as possible with as little violence as possible.

And as the partition occurs, it will slow as Shia run out of Sunnis to remove and vice versa. As it slows, we should be able to decrease the numbers of troops.

This suggests metrics that would measure how partitioned the country as, and when it is fully partitioned and the Arab world has its first Shia state, we're done.

Apropos of this and that:

Saudi Arabia, in military terms, is a paper tiger joke, albeit a well armed and supplied one. Come on, hardware by itself does not make an efffective military and Saudi Arabia is not militarily effective. Their best and most effective defences are their position as an oil supplier, money, guardianship of the holy places and effective diplomacy.

Nothing is going to change in the ME and the mess is going to remain a mess until you do something about Israel (currently enjoying immunity and impunity as an international bandit) and give the Palestinians something that matches the spirit and the obligations of the releevant UN resolutions.

As Fareed Zakariah noted on This Week with George Stephanopoulus... ethnic cleansing pretty much has already happened... while we were there.

So it may not be as bad as some predict.

Oh please.... that old saw... "the POOR Palestinians..."

The Palestinians are despised by all the other arab nations, who are fully capable of fighting among themselves without Israel as an excuse.

Charlie Brown, Iran won't invade Iraq because that would give the U.S. carte blanche to attack Iran, and you can be sure the Iranians know that.

Kevin -- you miss the weakness of the Middle East in Flames theory. To the extent it adds anything to the civil war scenario, it does not posit that surrounding countries will meddle in the collapsing Iraq. Rather, it suggests that somehow war will spread to Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. There is no evidence for this. As you point out, for example, Iran isn't even going into Iraq -- it's certainly not going to attack Saudi Arabia, much less Turkey. And so on.

This is just the "mushroom cloud" of the latest of the Iraq War argument, an in terrorem claim with no evidentiary basis. Is suspect that this version is getting attention mainly because it is aimed at supporters of your unmentioned Middle East country, Israel.

I have to second these two comments about Iran's past territorial ambitions.

I also wanted to add a comment that the Turks are not the only countries worried about Kurdish autonomy: Iran and Syria both have Kurdish minorities, and probably do not want to see an autonomous Kurdish Iraq, for fear of internal destabilization.

Its remarkable that any discussion goes on that does not mention ISRAEL. Come on, its not hard to say or think about. Its interests\intentions are central to the future of the region and our future in the region.

The fear-mongerers above posit, at worst, I guess, a Turkish incursion into Kurdistan or a Saudi-Iranian War. Would this all be any worse to us than the Iranian-Iraqi War? I think not; we handled that one all right. And in this case both Saudis and Turks depend on us for aid.

Al, oddly enough, seems to fear that our leaving would lead to peace and an alliance between the Saudis and the Iranians. That's weird.

The sheer speculativeness of all this, and the speculations pointing in different directions, and the failure to point to any real damage to our interests, makes the MEIF seem insubstantial to me.

It's all a bunch of neo-Domino theory bullshit.

Anything we're going to do to prevent a regional conflagration and/or a mass genocide we can do without keeping troops on the ground. We have and will continue to have forces nearby. The small-scale ethnic cleansing will continue whether we are there or not. If they round up 5000 Sunnis in a field like the Serbs did, we can intervene from the air and land special forces if necessary.

Iraq is already fucked. Its a question of cutting our losses.

It's an interesting albeit useless exercise which is a specialty here. The US isn't leaving anytime soon in large part because in order for Iraq to be a sovereign state, able to defend itself from the neighbors, they'd have to have better armament than AK-47s, mortars, a few heavy machine guns, T-72s donated by Hungary, traffic helicopters and PBRs. They'd need an air force, a navy, armor and artillery divisions of which they have basically none.

While there are perfectly good reasons for this, namely the weapons would be used on us, it doesn't change the fact that Iraq's territory can be overrun, as say, well, we did, but what then?

Perhaps what would take the place of such armament would be either a UN protectorate or a Middle East Treaty Organization with Iran/Iraq balanced by Saudi/Syria with Jordan, the Emirates etc.

That sort of regional involvement seems like the only way to try and balance the competing interests. Would a local treaty organization make sense? Could Shia and Sunni states coexist after what's been unleashed in Iraq?

However, going in with guns blazing probably won't help them much in the long run, so it's unlikely they'll do it.

Yeah, who'd be crazy enough to do that?

"Could Shia and Sunni states coexist after what's been unleashed in Iraq?"

Sure, they long have. I think the acrimony between the two in Iraq is because the Shi'ite minority were long suppressed, not to say brutalized, by Saddam, and the Sunnis are afraid they're about to be repaid in kind. I think we're not able to mediate the tensions because nobody trusts us, we haven't been willing to deal with those with real power, we're armning all sides (see Anbar), and our government is full of idiots. But a regional organzition might be interesting, if the parties were willing (and the US would ignore Israel for a change). Unless you are, like Al, terrified of the new, terrorist-controlled Caliphate.

Of course I meant Shi'ite majority above.

My skepticism of the MEIF theory

I like how you always get us to using the new acronym right away

"...On the other hand, why aren't we taking refugees?"

Crissa, you should ask Syria, who refuse to give DHS visas in order to PROCESS Iraqi refugees.

And nice comment about the "semmetic homes." Stay classy, Monthly readers.

Euphemism alert: Red State Mike using the term "partition." What's the matter, Mike, "ethnic cleansing" set off your well-known cognitive dissonance again?

Jackass.

Euphemism alert: Red State Mike using the term "partition." What's the matter, Mike, "ethnic cleansing" set off your well-known cognitive dissonance again?

Moron alert. I used the word "cleansed" in my post.

Jackass.
Posted by: Gregory

Moron

As others have noted, the question of whether Iran might directly involve itself in Iraq is a serious one. The Iran-Iraq war was about something, for Christ's sake, and it's pretty doubtful that it can all be chalked up to self defense on the part of the Iranians.

It's going to be especially hard for Iran to keep its nose out of Iraq if the Sunnis start to push the Shiites out of power in Iraq when the American forces leave.

Certainly one thing that will serve as a deterrent for Iran to involve itself directly in Iraq is the prospect of the US striking Iran if they choose to do so. However, the possibility of this happening would certainly go down if (when, really) a Democratic President takes over, because the decision to strike Iran would be deliberate, instead of kneejerk and automatic, and might in principle go either way. It's hard to say how the political and policy calculations will fall on this question both in Iran and the US.

It is, though, something that Democrats should anticipate and have an answer to -- we can certainly expect that Republicans would criticize Democrats severely if they did not punish Iran for any incursions into Iraq, or even for certain kinds of support of the Shiites in Iraq.

Yes, indeedee do, we certainly handled the Iraq-Iran War well.

Loved the photo-op of RumDumb in Baghdad, shaking hands with Mr Democracy - Allowing arms to flow from the US and Europe to Iraq - Lots of winking and looking the other way - Plenty of cluster bombs for kidees to play with.

But, we did forge a very special relationship to Saddam - Kind of nice that he has allowed our Military Advisory Group personnel to help with the Iraqi military. Such wonderful comraderie. Even allows us to run our own PX system. Just love Iraqi-American fellowhip events.

It's going to be especially hard for Iran to keep its nose out of Iraq if the Sunnis start to push the Shiites out of power in Iraq when the American forces leave.

I don't see that happening since the Shia are the majority, although they'll try.

And when that problem is resolved, then the fact that Iranians are Persians and Iraqis are Arabs will reintroduce itself. That source of tension will forever keep the two countries from being totally joined at the hip. The Shia in Southern Iraq can't even get along with themselves.

I used the word "cleansed" in my post.

You didn't use ethnically cleansed, though, did you?

That's some outcome Bush has wasted all those American -- not to mention Iraqi -- lives on, there, Mike. Someone who still supports that feckless, incompetent team shouldn't be so quick to throw around the term "moron," even if your silly little tit-for-tat game is all you have to play.

You really should be ashamed of yourself, Mike. What's the matter with you?

I don't see that happening since the Shia are the majority, although they'll try.

They are a majority who were quite effectively dominated then suppressed under Saddam. Numbers per se don't mean a lot when it comes to military capabilities.

I think the worry about oil fields being located within an area that's de facto not a functioning sovereign state isn't really substantial. We've been accepting oil from factions within nations at civil war and regimes we're unfriendly to for years. So long as the oil can find a way out (I'm sure we'd be happy to patrol a path by air) I don't think it matters to us who gains control of it, and someone will gain control. The oil isn't really useful to whoever gets it unless they can sell it at a reasonable price. Iraq doesn't have the last oil fields in the world yet.

I think the whole rationale for the middle-east base for the Iraq hawks was just a general regional strategy thing (a just-in-case measure for if a single power begins out-distancing the others in the region by far, or if little powers unite toward this end, whatever-- really not too realistic scenarios) and for the psychological/glory aspect of it. Not so much a direct nexus to protecting crucial oil fields being in peril.

the "Middle East In Flames" theory).

Also known as the "Domino" theory - a theory proven completely wrong about 30 years ago. Can't our serious foreign policy "experts" learn from history?

Shouldn't someone have thought about this BEFORE invasion?

The oil isn't really useful to whoever gets it unless they can sell it at a reasonable price.

Therefore we don't have to worry about getting stuck-up by some upstart who's got no other card to play and who gets control of the oil.

"we certainly handled the Iraq-Iran War well"

In the context of it not spreading to other countries, yes, though that may have been pure accident, not the result of the diplomatic "skill" of the Reagan folk. That war certainly suggests that even if the fearful ones are right, and there's another ME war of some kind, it needn't affect our interests. I did not mean to suggest, thethirdPaul, that our various ploys -- helping Saddam, arms to Iran, and all -- were well handled, just that we didn't turn it into a region-wide debacle of the kind that's being posited by the right. As far as US interests went that war was basically neutral, and would have been completely neutral if we'd had even less to do with it.

psychological/glory aspect of it.

For their own psychological gratification ("Whoo! I'm playing war! In real life! Neato!"), and not for the propaganda quality to it, that is.

Col. Pat Lang:

In my opinion a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, abandoning the protean mess that is the Iraqi government would result in such a disastrous situation that we can not afford to do that.

Some of the consequences?

- A rump state of Iraq in the south in which whichever Shia faction wins will become a satellite of the Iranian government. That government, if not dealt with through a prolonged and aggressive combination of diplomacy and potential military force will continue to act as a major sponsor of Islamic zealot movements and their terrorist manifestations. Iran will also take up a major role as arbiter of alignments and activity in the region.

- Kurdistan will become one of the saddest of experiments in national popular sovereignty that I know of. Would Turkey and Iran continue to tolerate the Kurdish aspiration to achieving something as close to independence as they can manage? I doubt it.

- Would the wide variety of Sunni Arab groups that are revolting against the takfiri jihadis coalesce into a integrated part of a renewed Iraq? Probably not, and among all the little de facto city states, sheikhdoms, etc, the surreptitious support and participation of the Sunni "neighbors" would continue. This means continued war indefinitely in Sunnistan.

- Would the jihadis find a way to re-establish themselves somewhere in Sunnistan? Probably.

You really should be ashamed of yourself, Mike. What's the matter with you?

Not enough time getting spanked here and at Greenwald's yesterday? Wants more? Hell, who can tell?

GREGORY WROTE
You didn't use ethnically cleansed, though, did you?

AHAHAHAHA! Did you think I meant they bathed? God what a moron. You are mind-bogglingly stupid with absolutely nothing useful to say on any topic. The good news is you know it, and so spend your days following me around like a pet donkey.

They are a majority who were quite effectively dominated then suppressed under Saddam. Numbers per se don't mean a lot when it comes to military capabilities.
Posted by: frankly0

If you look at history of Iraq, the Sunnis were basically installed by the British when the Brits had conquered Iraq and decided it was time to go. That's what allowed them to ride herd on the Shia. I doubt extremely they could have done it themselves or can do it now.

...and at Greenwald's yesterday?

Eh?

I think we're not able to mediate the tensions because nobody trusts us, we haven't been willing to deal with those with real power, we're armning all sides (see Anbar), and our government is full of idiots.
Posted by: David in NY on September 12, 2007 at 10:54 AM
---
Best argument I've seen yet why we *shouldn't* be the self-appointed world policeman. We are basically just fuck ups with too much money to burn to know better.

Kevin, pay some attention -- any attention -- to what Israel just did in Syria (amazing how the so-called liberal blogosphere is always so utterly silent when it comes to Israel), and you may gather an inkling of which way the wind is blowing.

For the life of me, I can't see anything about the U.S. staying in Iraq that changes one thing about Col. Lang's analysis of the situation. Even the part about the jihadis coming back to "Sunnistan" could well come true if the Sunnis in Anbar decide they'd like to have them do hits on Americans there.

If you look at history of Iraq, the Sunnis were basically installed by the British when the Brits had conquered Iraq and decided it was time to go. That's what allowed them to ride herd on the Shia. I doubt extremely they could have done it themselves or can do it now.

The Shiites did have a significant window of opportunity to claim some territory for themselves after the first Gulf War. Their rebellion was quickly put down and ended in fiasco. While they are no doubt better armed and organized now than they were then, I very much doubt that they have any effectively trained military leaders. The Sunnis, however, have such leaders in spades. Military power is more based on leadership and mastery than it is on bare numbers, especially when the difference in numbers is well less than an order of magnitude.

Personally, I predict that when the US leaves, the Sunnis will regain power, and likely with very surprising speed.

Those who advocate continuing the occupation of a sovereign nation should stand trial shortly after those who advocated the occupation in the first place.

Recommending occupying another nation for an indeterminate amount of time is no less a crime than the original crime itself.

It is not our responsibility to end the Sunni/Shia schism. And although America is guilty of a horrendous war crime in the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq, it can not seriously believe that it can negate this crime by the continuing occupation of the country, can it?

The idea that America, being resposible for massive deaths of Iraqis, will somehow reverse the situation through the continuation of the same policy is crazy.

Yes, I've been against this war from the beginning. But my biggest disappointment is that those who claim to also be against the war continue to advocate criminal activity on the part of the U.S. government. It tells me that large segment of the American population has learned nothing from this experience and is doomed to repeat it.

frankly0, what enabled the Sunnis to dominate the Shia was having an army & air force capable of quelling the majority at their leader's disposal. That they no longer have and the Shia are certainly doing all they can in to arm themselves and put themselves in a better position to defend their part of Iraq.

throw this into the discussion:

Kurdistan Regional Government Signs Oil and Gas Contract with US Based Hunt Oil Company
http://sev.prnewswire.com/oil-energy/20070908/CLSA00608092007-1.html

Swan,

Having listened for hours to talk radio, when it was still civilized, can still recall the many conversations between Michael Jackson of KABC in LA and an erudite conservative gentleman. Long discussion about the potential domino effect in Southeast Asia - This thread is based on the neo-cons "domino" effect of spreading war throughout the region.

And, the neo-cons have sat for hours on Uncle Kissinger's lap drooling over hardened bases in the Middle East - Kissinger was furious following the oil embargo in the 70s that we did not control the flow of oil and that we were subject to the will of others. He wanted us to invade in the 70s and establish forward bases.

This meddling, ala the Geo-Politik views ot Kissinger, is what can lead to well intentioned, supposedly well reasoned, aid to one side in a conflict to grow into a nightmare. Eisenhower chose the side of the French in Viet Nam. Kennedy, not wanting to back down against the Communists and look weak, escalated the operation. Johnson, not wishing to look weak against Bobby Kennedy, upped the ante.

We chose sides in Beirut in the early 80s - We chose sides in the Iraqi-Iranian war, and tried to also play a little footsy with Iran, to boot. Now, we reap the whirlwind of our actions. Let us not be isolationists, but, be very aware of the dangers of meddling in Geo-Politics.

I wrote: For their own psychological gratification ("Whoo! I'm playing war! In real life! Neato!"), and not for the propaganda quality to it, that is.

No offense to anybody who takes pleasure in war video games, which I think are fun, interesting, and probably good for teaching history. I'm just saying, if I'm playing a video game, I would take pleasure in it in a Calvin-from-Calvin and Hobbes type way that wouldn't come into play if I was actually someone planning military policy, or a military commander. If I was actually a military commander, I would take what I was doing seriously, and see it as a professional enterprise, and even consciously try to limit the effect of my psychological needs/idiosyncracies on the decisions I made (and that's despite what my professional peers may act like).

David W,

I'm sure having an army and air force at their disposal made the job far, far easier for the Sunnis under Saddam.

But my basic point remains: bare numbers mean very little in a military battle. Discipline, mastery, and leadership are far more decisive. The Shia represent 60 to 65 percent of the Muslim population in Iraq, and the Sunnis between 35 and 40 percent. That is NOT an impressively large difference -- from a military point of view, I'd think it is by itself quite trivial in the face of other factors.

People seem to imagine that military dominance is like a democracy in which the bigger number wins. It isn't.

frankly0, your basic point is bogus unless you can point to something the Sunnis actually have that would be as decisive as you claim. Tanks? Nope. Helicopter gunships? Nope. Artillery? Nope.

The Confederacy thought that their generals and fighting spirit would enable them to beat the superior numbers of the Union, but they were wrong. You can't beat something with nothing and I don't see how the Sunnis are going to dislodge the Shia anytime soon without something in their hands other than AK-47s and IEDs.

I do believe that the Iraq civil war itself would likely get worse if we leave

I believe the Iraq civil war will get worse as times moves forward, irrespective of whether we leave or stay. I don't see a lot of reason to believe that our presence is reducing conflict between the factions in Iraq such that the increase in violence over time is particularly likely to be worse if we withdraw than if we stay.

but I don't believe this would necessarily lead to a broadening of the war to the entire region (the "Middle East In Flames" theory).

Interesting concept. I think I'm on the other side, believing the worsening Iraq civil war is pretty likely to lead to a broader war in the Middle East, but that there isn't a whole lot of rational basis to believe that that's going to be accelerated more by us leaving than by us staying on in Iraq.

The four neighbors that are most likely to get involved in a wider war are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, and Syria.

I'd take Jordan off the list and add Turkey; Jordan only gets involved in the unlikely event that someone else makes them a target (that's true of Turkey, but Kurdish groups have already made them a target.)

Heck, Turkey's gotten directly involved intermittently while we've been in Iraq, from very early on, the idea that they wouldn't without the constraints imposed by a large active US presence is optimistic fantasy.

Basically, I consider Saudi Arabia a paper tiger. They're militarily incompetent and will never get directly involved in Iraq, no matter how much the local Wahhabi imams rant about the persecution of Iraq's Sunni minority.

The Saudi regime doesn't care, true, about the persecution of Iraq's Sunni minority on humanitarian grounds, and isn't going to jump in on that basis. OTOH, Saudi Arabia has historically been rather vitally concerned about Iranian regional influence, and willing to pay virtually any price to curb it; hence their funding of Saddam's war against Iran. They also are rather concerned with domestic Sunni extremists which might otherwise become religiously-motivated critics of the decadent domestic monarchy other outlets: in the event of a spiralling civil war in Iraq, funding the Sunni side and/or direct intervention serves both interests.

Iran is more competent, but over the past 30 years they've never displayed any territorial ambitions.

If territorial ambitions were the only reasons states went to war, that observation might even be relevant; as it is, not so much...

They prefer working through proxies. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran may provide some modest funding for their "side," but probably not much more.

Even if it starts out that way, once two powers start funding and supplying sides in the same conflict, it becomes tempting for each to attempt to interdict the funding and supply from the other. That can easily result in direct confrontation that neither side particularly sought.

Syria is harder to predict, but they've got plenty of problems on their plate already. Besides, they've been making fairly consistently conciliatory noises lately, and as Eric Umansky reminds us, they actively tried to cooperate with us in the early days of the Iraq war until Donald Rumsfeld put the kibosh on them.

And they have a much longer history, both before and after that, and active discussion oriented toward collaboration with both Iran and Turkey where containment of the Kurds is concerned. That would seem to be more relevant than any abortive overtures toward cooperation with the US.

How true, franklyO

A very interesting analysis, Mr. Drum. You have given me reasons to hope that the destablization caused by the US invasion might not be as great as I have imagined

Very interesting that you would do an analysis from a full blown military war, that is very American thinking, and not reality based. (Same mistake that the Neocons are accused of when they went into Iraq) Do you not think it possible that the meltdown would be more along the line of Lebanon, or Palestine? Iran and Saudi would fight a proxy war in Iraq with no end. (If Palestine is not a full blown Civil War I don't know what to call it) As usual after Arab/Persian killing Arabs and Persians in Iraq for year, the mullahs would surely deteremine who is to blame -Israel! This would turn into attacks against Israel, which would either have to perish, or fight back. Oh yea, and the brillant analysis that the US influence/ or promises will mean anything in Kurdistan after leaving them hanging. Kurds won't worry about independence, they will be pulled into the region wide Sunni/Shia Civil war. Kurds will fall to radicals which would then start attacking secular Turkey.
Of course the alternative is that Syria, Jordan, Iran and Saudi take away all liberties gained in the last years and go back to total crack down on the people, you get to keep the oil flow you had for the previous 50 years, and ignore the suffering of the Arabs/Persian people. We can march in the streets condeming Isreal (Should make you feel good about ignoring the Syria/Saudi/Iranian torture cells. like we did in th 70s, 80s and 90s) Then we can get back to the good old days, of the US/West getting blamed for abandoning the Arabs, and we just have to put up with an embassy bombing, ships attacked in harbors, train bombings and little things like that.
This analysis is picking a scenario that meets the result that you want to achieve. Pull out and only good (or at least nothing bad) will happen.
If you acknowledge that my scenario could possibly happen, is this acceptable to you? Do you believe Gaza better under Hammas denying all civil rights and executing dissidents, homosexuals, etc. ?

Do you not think it possible that the meltdown would be more along the line of Lebanon, or Palestine?

Which didn't result in either case in a regional conflagration, so your point actually supports Kevin Drum's skepticism about the claims of dire consequences following after a U.S. pull-out from Iraq.

MFB wrote: "Isn't 'The Middle East Will Dissolve Into Chaos' code for 'We Won't Control Their Oil Any More'?"

Of course it is. Control of the vast oil reserves of the Middle East has been the entire focus of US policy towards the region for at least fifty years and is indeed the only reason that any of the world's "great powers" have the slightest interest in the region.

PTate wrote: "It is always hard to ignore the oil wars angle of this ..."

It can't be that hard. Kevin consistently ignores it.

the thirdPaul, thanks for the subtle reminder about the '70s oil crisis. This one shouldn't take anyone more than five minutes to figure out- whoever takes control of Iraq's oil is going to have the clout, the willingness, or the influence on the global oil market to put us through the wringer like we were put in the '70s. It could be as simple as us threatening to turn off the supply of AK-47s or dropping one or two bombs that solves things.

This is similar to a broader point I'd like to add to Kevin's whole analysis, which is that Armageddon is not going to materialize in the ME overnight, and we'll have a lot of ability along the way to influence things. Even if big problems turn up, they're going to be relatively small big problems at first, that can be killed in the cradle. There's just not enough momentum for anything big to happen in the ME right now such that huge problem, insoluble except for our having kept a military presence in the ME, is going to show up. Anything that happens, we can stop along the way.

The Iran-Iraq war was about something, for Christ's sake, and it's pretty doubtful that it can all be chalked up to self defense on the part of the Iranians.

Of course not. That nice Saddam was just minding his business, and the scary moolahs made him invade. But then he was our guy, so it was OK.

typical ignorant iran-bashing. the house of saud must love you.

Jordan and Syria? Those two countries are pounded by refugees - they have no economic wherewithal to engage in any aggressive military action.

Saudi Arabia has the best army that money can buy: The US Army. In most scenarios it can only be used for defense.

Part of Iran's unity stems from them facing an implacable external enemy, the U.S. If we started sensible diplomatic moves, they would start to move out of their defensive shell. The Europeans recognize this.

The Sunni Iraqis have no love for the Saudi salafists. They make up half of the AQ wannabes in Iraq and we've already seen how that plays out when they try to run things. My guess is the same would go for the Shia and Iranians.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Turkey is the major customer for the Kurd's oil. Neither side wants to jeopardize that relationship. I think Turkish saber rattling at Kurdistan has more to do with internal Turkish politics than any real desire to go to war. The Iraqi Kurds would be nuts to jeopardize their sweet deal by antagonizing the Turks.

But say Kevin's wrong and they all jump in? I wrote about this in January:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/19/133610/922

and again in March:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/markg8/2007/mar/08/the_george_costanza_theory

SecularAnimist is correct - Offspring of Arabian horses comes in a very distant second. There must be a third somewhere.

Kevin -- Could you let a couple of strawmen off at the next blogstop?

You characterize "MEIF" adherents as claiming that regional chaos will "inevitably" and "necessarily" follow rapid US withdrawal.

As far as I know, nobody claims this degree of certainty, and it's not germane to the argument. Why pretend?

Uncontained chaos is a valid strategic consideration whether the subjective likelihood is 100%, or 50%, or 10%, whether the geographic range is 3 nations or 30 nations, and whether the death toll is order-of-magnitude 10^6 or order-of-magnitude 10^9.

Tangentially, I suspect your treatment here reprises some of your errors in pre-war analysis.

As far as I know, nobody claims this degree of certainty, and it's not germane to the argument. Why pretend?

Uncontained chaos is a valid strategic consideration whether the subjective likelihood is 100%, or 50%, or 10%

When the jokes just write themselves, it's time to give it a rest RonK. I find it hilarious for you to say that no one claims chaos is a certainty and then immediately go on to make a 1% Cheney-esque chaos hawk point about even a 10% chance being a valid consideration.

Kevin -- Could you let a couple of strawmen off at the next blogstop?

You characterize "MEIF" adherents as claiming that regional chaos will "inevitably" and "necessarily" follow rapid US withdrawal.

As far as I know, nobody claims this degree of certainty, and it's not germane to the argument. Why pretend?

Uncontained chaos is a valid strategic consideration whether the subjective likelihood is 100%, or 50%, or 10%, whether the geographic range is 3 nations or 30 nations, and whether the death toll is order-of-magnitude 10^6 or order-of-magnitude 10^9.

Tangentially, I suspect your treatment here reprises some of your errors in pre-war analysis.

Since I spent 5 weeks this summer in Turkey, reading Turkish newspapers and talking to Turks and Kurds, I actually think I might have some clue here (unlike any of my ramblings about Jordan, Syria, SA, and Iran).

Turkey, who already has a few thousand troops over the border, mostly talks about targeted strikes against known PKK bases in the mountains. There is no talk of any kind of occupation.

This, of course, should be no surprise. Any objective look at the last couple of decades in the area will quickly lead to the realization that occupation is a fool's game. Russia, despite their manpower, brutality and short logistics, couldn't keep Afghanistan, and the US, with its technical superiority and prime military, can't hold Iraq (or Afghanistan). There is little reason to suppose that Turkey would be successful at invading a U.S. armed and Israeli advised Kurdistan.

There also does not seem to be the political will or popular support in Turkey for such an action.

Removing the US from the area will stop the flow of weapons to the PKK and pressure the government of land-locked Kurdistan to get on friendly terms with its neighbors. (Which country would they want their pipeline to go through?)

As I mentioned in some other thread, there is no political upside for the government of Kurdistan to attempt to annex Eastern Anatolia.

The Kurds of Turkey, by the way, regard the Kurdistan Kurds as wankers. There does not really seem to be much popular support for joining Kurdistan. The Kurdish civil war in Turkey's Southeast in the 1980's was underwritten by an expansionist Soviet government, that factor is no longer there.

Bonus rumor: It is much-believed in Turkey that the only reason they haven't gone in and bombed PKK camps in Kurdistan is because the U.S. paid them a Billion dollars not to.

I'll have to penalize myself 2 points for misuse of commas.

a few genuine regional experts

All American genuine regional experts will agree that the only thing the people, in whatever region any American military/foreign policy is invlolved with, understand is overwhelming force. The use of overwhelming force is the only thing they, the American genuine regional experts and Bernard Lewis, understand.

Asking American genuine regional experts their opinion is an invitation for more war against the weak.

Following up on my 12:07 post, if I was a high-up American military commander, I'd prefer to have some kind of at least quasi-permanent base somewhere in the region. But there is no reason why it has to be in Iraq. Also, I don't think it's necessary to have base, just preferable, and I wouldn't stand on having one or having one in a particular place if some better economic/political advantage could be gained by not having it. It's convenient if something breaks out, because the region is unstable and has allies/enemies in it, but no more than that.

Removing the US from the area will stop the flow of weapons to the PKK and pressure the government of land-locked Kurdistan to get on friendly terms with its neighbors. (Which country would they want their pipeline to go through?)
Posted by: mcdruid on September 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM
---
Someone posted a link here months ago to a Kurdish webpage (I think it was Blue Girl), where they went on in detail about what their aims were in Iraq. One of the things they were mentioning was the "demand" that the Shia allow them a "corridor" to the Persian Gulf. Whether they were needing it for oil or not I'm not sure, but I am a bit skeptical they would want their only oil transit to go through Turkey. This would give the Turks a powerful lever they could use to cut-off the Kurds source of cash should the Kurdish government fail to curtail the PKK or some other issue comes up.

"Bush says "it'll be the new killing fields" only it already IS the new killing fields."

No it isn't. It is awful, but nowhere near that awful. The new killing fields are in Africa. Iraq is still years of chaos from the whole peasant army thing being plausible.

I think bush would have to work pretty hard to get another Cambodia out of Iraq (or Iran). I believe that widespread starvation on top of civil war is a necessary precondition. Luckily Bush isn't big on hard work.

Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia have illegitimate governments that their people will not fight foreign wars for. If chaos should engulf the region, revolutions toppling the ruling regimes in all three of these countries would be good for their people, if they can throw off the yoke of royalty and dictatorship like Iran did. If American genuine regional experts fear regional chaos in the Middle East, it is the loss of client states to popular rule that they really fear. If the US cannot count on Saudi princes and a boy king in Jordan to support US regional hegemony, that is considered chaos. Of course, American GRE's were not too concerned with the chaos of removing Saddam Hussein, so any cries of chaos coming from them now must be considered a cover up for something else, which is more military intervention.

re: the middle-east in flames

some things to keep in mind:

1) leaving iraq militarily is not the same as leaving iraq (or the middle east) diplomatically or economically.

2) unlike our right-wing and its american president, most national leaders, including those in iran, syria, turkey, jordan, and saudi arabia) consider war an event to be strenuously avoided (ironically, like george bush and some recent israeli PM's, saddam hussein was an exception to this rule),

3) much of what happens with oil in the world has depended on and will continue to depend on diplomatic and business agreements, not military force. we can only completely control iraqi oil flow over the long run by occupying the country indefinitely and acting against the will of the iraqi nation (or nations).

4) the most destabilizing nation in the middle east right now is israel. and that has been the case for decades. the american invasion of iraq was driven by, supported by, and even managed by passionate american zionists.

4) there has been and will be a lot of america-bashing, tiger-tail pulling throughout the region for decades, and why not? but, as with the iranian nuclear thumbing-the-nose, that's just for public display. the smaller our public presence in the middle-east the less attention we draw and the better for us and our plans

5) because of the mutual need for oil and the severely tightening world supply, i would be astonished if any nation (other than the u.s., of course) would expect to or try to exercise sole control over iraqi oil.

6) the opportunities for international collaboration regarding both iraq the nation and iraqi oil are a wonderful upside of the present dismal circumstance. it is easy to imagine a well-intentioned american president working quietly and cooperatively with both regional "caucuses" and with larger european-asian "caucuses" to stabilize politics and oil supply,

7)it is embarrassing to me to see american leaders acting as if we were the "great-white-hope" for this benighted part of the world, with a god-sanctioned obligation to bring peace and democracy to our little brown brothers of the sand.

how is it we rate so highl