And by Israel, I mean a country friendly to the US that depends on unending US support to defend itself within a sea of enemies (if you disagree that that describes Israel, just substitute the description). I don’t see any conceivable way we can ever leave Iraq to its own devices and expect it to remain an oasis of freedom and democracy. I believe that the minute Iraq’s defense capabilities dip below that of the US’s, our enemies will undo everything we did. Did this war doom us to support this country militarily and financially forever?
I tried to resist, but couldn’t: you mean the only OTHER functioning democracy in the Middle East?
If you could name some of that ‘sea of enemies’, I’d have a much better chance of fairly weighing the merits of your argument. As it is, however, I’d say that re: the question:
…the absolutism of this statement makes it easy to answer “no”.
The US has both helped support numerous Middle Eastern states in the past withdrawn that support, and will probably do so in the future. OTOH, if more than 100K troops are required to maintain order in Iraq for more than a year or two, don’t worry, the US will be sure to come up with some sort of ‘exit strategy’.
Remain?? I rarely burst out laughing aloud when sitting in a room on my own, but that did it!
As to your actual argument, well not really sure what it is to be honest. I don’t see any parallels between Iraq and Israel in terms of demographics or potential challenges for the future government (assuming that is ever allowed to happen).
Yes. I didn’t mean ‘doomed’ as in ‘it sucks to be Israel’…I meant it as the continuing need to support it financially and militarily. I support what we do for Israel; I’m just wondering if this war means another unending support. And by enemies, I mean Arab factions sympathetic to Hussein. If there aren’t any, than it shouldn’t be a problem. Do you think once a democracy is established and the US vacates, that Iraq under new leadership will just go on in peace and this will all be behind us?
I’m assuming we’re there until a stable, democratic government is in place, which obviously may be never, which means that we would have to continue supporting the country militarily and finiancially, or just leave it to self destruct. Under what circumstances do you see our military role ending in Iraq?
I agree that the US/other occupying troops will have to remain until a stable governement is in place.
But I cannot envisage it being fully democratic in any meaniful way - do you really think that the US will allow this to happen?
I really don’t know…is anywhere truly democratic? My point is that I don’t believe that whatever situation the US wants to be there will remain intact without a constant supply of military and financial resources. Unless we are someday willing to say ‘screw it, let our enemies have it, or let it fall into chaos’, we are invested forever.
You start from a false premise - there is no continuing need to support Israel financially or militarily. The US gives $3 billion in aid to Israel each year. A significant amount, and Israel is the largest recipient of US aid. But while Israel certainly wants it, it doesn’t need it - it would neither economically collapse nor be overrun if the aid were withdrawn.
The US gives $3 billion into a $122 billion Israeli economy, constituting approx. 2.4% of Israeli GDP. Without US aid, Israeli GDP per head would drop from $19,000 (ppp) to around $18,500. Even with that drop, Israel’s economy would be equivalent to the lower tier of EU members. It is an advanced market economy.
Nor would Israel be in danger of being overrun. Arguably, Israel needed an (implicit) US military guarantee during the Cold War, but only so that the Soviet Union would not get directly involved in an attack on Israel (assuming that was ever a possibility). But, as Israel’s potential enemies no longer have a Great Power patron, it has little need of one as well.
The US gives aid to Israel for three reasons. First, domestic political considerations. Aid to Israel is supported by two powerful interest groups, American Jews and Christian Conservatives.
Second, the US is bound to provide the aid by treaty - to make the (Carter) Camp David accords happen, the US guaranteed aid to both Israel and Egypt.
Third, it provides leverage over Israel. Israel doesn’t need the aid, but it certainly wants it. That gives the US the ability to influence Israeli policy.
Sua
By the way, of note for you who want to understand the region, note that Israel’s economy is about half the size of Saudi Arabia’s, with roughly double the per capita income. SA is the single largest economy in the region (although some measures place Egypt right up there too, but with almost three times the pop, they’re dirt poor on a per capita basis).
I rather hope this gives context.
Then just substitute ‘a country that depends on unending US support to defend itself within a sea of enemies’ for Israel.
The US is definitely going to need to maintain forces in Iraq for some time to come, and to continue to provide a great deal of financial aid as well. The US is moving out of bases in Saudi Arabia and presumably the intention is to make Iraq the location for permanent bases in the Mid-East. The only problem with describing Iraq as being ‘within a sea of enemies’ is that the enemies aren’t going to be an outside force. They may receive aid from outside sources, but the enemies are now and most likely will remain Iraqis, not an external threat.
Israel? No way! It is more likely to become the next Palestine and by this I mean a nominally controlled territory which the occupation forces cannot really control and it becomes a war of the military occupiers against the guerrillas and civilian population.
**Is Iraq doomed to become the next Israel? **
heh in a word no
why?
OIL
After some reconstruction and a lot of restructuring militarily, economically, politically and even religiously, Iraq is very capable of sustaining itself. Heck the US might fork some dollars over to iraq just to maintain some bit of control or connection but in the end, iraq is rich beyond Israels capabilities.
Iraq is potentially a very wealthy country. While their oil reserves may not be as extensive as Saudi Arabia, they can fund their state, military and police operations from their oil wealth.
While US troops might be in Iraq for years, once the new state is up and running we aren’t going to have to use our soldiers as a police force…the local police force will do that for us. Our troops will be there to train and provide logistical support, as well as to step in and crush any big military uprising.
However, the presence of US troops guarantees that no such uprising will take place, since the US can defeat anyone in head to head fighting. So of course they won’t do that, they’ll use other more effective methods against us.
And I don’t see the “sea” of enemies. No country is going to attack Iraq. Turkey? They might raid the Kurds, but they do want to join the EU, stay in NATO, etc. I can’t see them attacking a US client state, what do they gain? Syria? Iraq is much wealthier than Syria, Syria has no oil. Jordan? Again, Jordan has no oil and so can’t afford the kind of military Iraq can. Saudi Arabia? Well, if Saudi implodes anything is possible. But even so, the new rulers of SA are going to be spending years establishing their rule, not sponsering adventures. Iran? Iran is busy with its own problems. But I’ll give you that war with Iran is possible. Not likely but still.
The trouble is that any country invading Iraq is going to expect an American response, even if we’ve withdrawn most or all of our troops. You can’t invade a US client state and not expect the US to respond. Iraq can’t be overrun in a few days like Kuwait was. An invasion force massing on the border is going to be seen by the US, US troops will be flown to the theatre, and suddenly Iraq isn’t an easy target. In open war, the US is going to win. As long as Iraq is our client no one will therefore choose to attack it openly, regardless of our troop strength there.
I just don’t see where the invasion is going to come from. Unless you aren’t talking about invasion from an outside power, but rather the sponsoring of terrorism, providing arms to guerillas, safe havens for troublemakers, propaganda, jihadi cells infiltrating, etc.
But again, the new state of Iraq is going to have some advantages, obviously all that oil wealth. A substantial fraction of that oil wealth can go to police, spies, etc, to crack down on terrorists and troublemakers. Unfortunately, this will cause more problems if people are targeted unfairly. It all comes down to the perceived legitimacy of the new regime. If it is regarded solely as an American puppet, then a popular uprising could crush it in the model of Iran. On the other hand, if the oil wealth is also used for the benefit of the people instead of Saddam Hussein personally, people might be pleased with the new arrangements. If people are generally happy with the new regime, the guerillas and jihadis no longer have an ocean to swim in. If most people hate the regime and the US, then the jihadis will be able to operate against us safely.
So it all comes down to the reconstruction. The key is the internal politics and economics of Iraq, not external threats. If the reconstruction goes well (in the middle or long term) then the threats fade. If not, then chaos ensues.
**Lemur866 has said pretty much everything I would have (and better, to boot!), but it seems I can always find a reason to natter on a bit more…
Well, despite the ‘sea of enemies’ assertion, I think the United States of Iraq faces these main threats (in no particular order):
-
Iran taking advantage of perceived Iraqi military weakness to adjust its eastern border to its advantage
-
Turkish incursions in Kurdish territories of Iraq (the threat to its EU position if it tried this without full approval makes it somwhat unlikely, I think)
-
Internal strife, from either a resurgent Ba’ath Party (perhaps under another name), a movement in favor of Iran-style theocracy, another Kurdish insurrection, or some combination of these.
Since the US so far has indicated it has no particular interest in building up a strong Iraqi military, I’d rate #1 as a serious risk, assuming eventual full US withdrawal. #3 is a serious risk no matter what happens, IMO.
OTOH, according to my newspaper reading of the past couple of days, the US is about to mount a major effort to convince other countries to kick in for Iraqi reconstruction (just why anyone, especially western European countries who were opposed to this adventure from the beginning, would agree to do so without lucrative contrac-- er, incentives, is beyond me, but whatever).
Hmm, I’m rambling, maybe. To summarize: while Iraq faces some significant threats, I would not claim ‘a sea of enemies’, and its huge oil wealth means that Iraq can mostly self-finance its reconstruction (if the US and potential partners can’t or won’t pony up) and defence (if the US allows it). The thing that will keep the US in Iraq for a long time, IMO, is not the issue of providing aid, but of using the country as a military base, and the fact that any imposed ‘democractic’ government is likely to be rather feeble, and not much of democracy, for some time to come (bit like South Korea post-conflict, come to think).
Note: I don’t pretend to an expert on all the nuances here, so please don’t pummel me too hard.
Duh, Iran’s western border, of course.
OK, no sea of enemies.
Sea anemones?
An American can go wandering around Israel with a near-zero probability of being shot by Israelis. He might get shot by Palestinians, blown up by Syrians, attacked by various nut groups, or spat upon out of general principle… but it is highly unlikely he will be harmed by Israelis.
An American wandering around Iraq right now is likely to have any NUMBER of people trying to do any NUMBER of things to him.
So, no, I wouldn’t say it would be anything like Israel. For one thing, ostensibly, once they set up their own government, we’re gone.
I am terribly interested to see if we’re actually going to do that.