The action in Iraq has now placed the coalition in a new position regarding influence in the middle east.
Until now, the only country in that region which was truly “friendly” toward the US and its allies was Israel. Other countries may not have been overtly hostile towards us, but their loyalties were bound on the basis of religion and a general distrust of the west and its motives (ie oil).
The problem that exists between Israel and its neighbours is rooted in history and I don’t believe that a solution will ever be found. The jews hate the arabs, the arabs hate the jews – they have done for thousands of years, so what’s going to change?
However, with Iraq now being “cleaned out”, no doubt Bush, Blair etc, hope that the new government will at least be more favourably disposed towards the West. I wonder where that leaves Israel? It may be that it is no longer the sole allied outpost in the middle east and may therefore be of less strategic value than it has in the past.
With the ongoing problems in Israel at present, could the US say “Look, you’re on your own.” and withdraw support for Israel, leaving it to fend for itself? One of the major problems the US has with Arab nations is its support for Israel and this has been cited as one of the reasons behind September 11 and other attacks against US establishments around the world.
To put it simply, should Israel and its neighbours be left alone to sort out their differences, without the US and others attempting to mediate?
Regards
Wombat
By: plawolf - 22nd April 2003 at 18:49
Garry:
“I am not so sure.
I really don’t think the US has ever or will ever care whether the new Iraqi regime is oppressive or nice to its people. All it really cares about is the price of oil. With enough damage due to the war and the need for a reasonable income and the complete rebuilding of its military any regime in Iraq will need to keep the oil flowing at quite a reasonable rate to attain such goals… which is all the US really needs. “
yes, i agree with u that the US is not really bothered wheather the new iraqi government is going to be nice or bad to its citizens as long as the oil keeps pumping. but after all the trouble they when through to take iraq, it would be very unlikely that they would install a governing systems that might aloow iraq to legitimately slip out of US hands again.
remember that while few in iraq truely supports saddam and many are greatful to the americans for driving him out of power, far more ppl will have plenty of reason to dislike or even hate the US. all those thousands of iraqi soilders the americans claimed to have killed would all have families who would most likely not appreciate the americans efforts in this war; nor would the thousands of civilan ‘colatral damage’ and their familiers look kindly at the US; finally, as time goes by and the iraqi population become better off and servival is not top of their priority list, nationlism will grow, and the ppl will like the US to stop dictating their country’s future (as is the case in all areas of former US influence, japan, philapians, Europe etc).
if the US installs a truely democratic government, then there is a substancial chance that an anti-US leader and government may take power. in which case the US would be absolutly powerless to stop iraq from slipping out of their grasp. after all, there is more need then supply of oil in the world, a country like a democratic iraq could sell its oil to other customers besides the US(UK, china, france, germany etc) and get everything it will ever need, from fresh water and grain to truely state of the art weapons.
apart from the stated risk of fighting a war only to have others reap the benefits, the US economy is not exactly the energiser bunny it used to be, and would benefit massively from a ‘gratitude price’ for their oil from iraq. (a few $s less per barrow then what everyone else is getting would give US products a significant edge when competing again those of other nations paying the full price for their oil). also, im sure the americans would not want to see many contracts going to french and russian companies to ‘punish’ them. only by keeping to tight leash on the new iraqi regeme could the US hope to achieve all this but the US just cant control a democraticly elected government as it can a ‘semi-democracy’.
By: Rabie - 21st April 2003 at 20:39
Democracy in the true sense of the word is a myth – the majority never gets its way
It’s either some doggy representative democracy (e.g. UK and USA) or PR (Europe) that ends up with all groups with an interest governing
i.e. at the end of the day Iraq won’t be able to go to war with Israel, turf Americans out or cut the oil supplies and most importantly they be locked into a liberal stance (i.e. no Islamic state)
Welcome to the wonders of liberal democracy – the democracy is limited by the liberalism 😉
rabie 😉
By: Geforce - 21st April 2003 at 13:07
We shouldn’t give in to terorists. True, but neither should we to a bunch of warmongers eager to transform a whole region the way they want to see it. The current war in Iraq has drawn our attention away from the situation in Israel.
By: Edmund Halley - 21st April 2003 at 11:26
On the question of Israel – who are we to say that the Jews should leave? Jews lived in that part of the world before any of the other religious groups, they have a right to live there now, as have Muslims and Christians. No one should give in to terrorists, they should be punished, no matter which side they come from. I believe the way forward for Israel would be to have all three religious groups sharing power equally, the area is equally important to all three religions and surely the civilised individuals among them can find a way to work together for the good of the country as a whole.
By: Geforce - 21st April 2003 at 11:05
The problem with Israel is: how do you want Iraq to become a democracy and at the same time you approve everything Israel is doing to the Palestians, because their gov’t is so called democratic. Many Arab countries can’t accpet democracy as long as Israel considered to be one!Democracy is more than about fair elections: it’s also about human right issues etc. Nor the Arab states, nor Israel care about this.
By: Arabella-Cox - 21st April 2003 at 06:19
“i personally dont think iraq will ever be allowed to have a truely democratic government “
I am not so sure.
I really don’t think the US has ever or will ever care whether the new Iraqi regime is oppressive or nice to its people. All it really cares about is the price of oil. With enough damage due to the war and the need for a reasonable income and the complete rebuilding of its military any regime in Iraq will need to keep the oil flowing at quite a reasonable rate to attain such goals… which is all the US really needs. A few military bases in the region would of course be nice… but not essential… there is always Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
By: Sauron - 20th April 2003 at 17:32
We can always count on some to quickly pounce on the Jewish question can’t we? Lets get rid of them and then everything in the M-E will fine. The only problem then will be the Arabs will have to find a new answer to the question ‘who did that to us!.
Geforce
Speaking of tiny counties, if Belgium ever gets tired of being handmaid to France and Germany you would be welcome to relocate over in North America. There is room enough in Lake Ontario to fit all of Belgium. Think of the amount of lake-front there would be and there would be enough room around the outside for the Belgium navy.
🙂
Regards
Sauron
By: Geforce - 20th April 2003 at 12:42
Why should a whole region (the Middle East) be transformed for a tiny country which does not want to adapt itself? I’d say it’s time for Israel to make concessions or move their country elsewhere.
By: plawolf - 20th April 2003 at 12:25
well said Garry.
i personally dont think iraq will ever be allowed to have a truely democratic government (well maybe if the oil runs out and its no longer worth america’s while to stay) simply because the US would not risk an anti-US government from forming in iraq.
as for isreal, well, no president hoping for re-elcetion will ever hang it out to dry. while isreal does have the finest miliatry in the area, they are out numbered about 100 to 1, and i wouldnt fancy their chances if the arabs were confident that the US would not get invalved no matter what.
anyway, isreal is still very valuable to the US as it presents the arabs with a much more present and dangerous opponed then the US, and well keep them occupied and distracted while the US gets what it wants-oil.
By: Arabella-Cox - 19th April 2003 at 04:33
Any liberating army becomes less welcome the longer it stays… if it stays too long it becomes an occupier… look at Eastern Europe.
By: ink - 19th April 2003 at 01:07
Oops, forgot to say:
On that note – isn’t anyone amazed that the number of people turning up for a demonstration against the US invasion is about 10 times higher than the number of people who joyfully knocked over a statue of Sadam… Doesn’t look quite as much like a liberation anymore – to me anyway…
By: ink - 19th April 2003 at 01:04
“With the ongoing problems in Israel at present, could the US say “Look, you’re on your own.” “
No.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/photo_gallery/2959955.stm
Sign In
April 19, 2003 at 12:40 am