[evilgenius]

Okay, evrybody is saying that can't happen. The US has all of this superior weaponry. It has this tremendous nuclear umbrella. It has an incredible industrial capability. And never mind its ability to carry out logistical support.

So, the question is not how per se, except that how might actually play a role in what comes after, but what will be the consequences if the US is defeated?

There are probably two scenarios by which this could take place. The first is nuclear defeat. That involves a lot of nukes being thrown around in retaliation, doesn't it?

The second is probably the scariest for the Ameri-jingos. What if the US is defeated conventionally? Again, forget whether this is possible, except that how might have a bearing on what comes after. How might be a terrible strategic blunder on the battlefield or betrayal by an ally that leads to a weakness that is exploited by the enemy to success, see it can happen. Talk about what it would mean should it happen.

[gg3]

It's already happening.

The insurgency in Iraq has been wearing us down and making it difficult (nearly impossible) to establish viable civilian governance.

Iraq is becoming a satellite state of Iran, whose leadership once called the US "the Great Satan" and hasn't changed its opinion much since then.

In other words, we're losing Iraq to a country that has for a long time considered us an enemy.

And the Bush Administration's proposed new budget has omitted further funds for Iraqi reconstruction. I call that an abject admission of defeat.

Where do we go from here...?

Increasing proliferation of insurgency & decentralized warfare, destabilization of other Middle Eastern regimes by fundamentalists, and eventually a viable threat in Saudi.

By which time the US public will have grown cynical of military adventures in the Middle East, and so we shall see the fall of the House of Saud and the rise of the Persian Empire.

[TorrKing]

I don't think any armies currently are able to defeat the Americans conventionally. But the US military is extremely reliant on fossile fuels. Due to spoiled soldiers and inefficient resource use they require a lot more supplies per unit than any other army.

So with sustained very high oil prices there is a chance the troops stationed there will be left to themselves. Then they will be slaughtered. And the Israelis next.

This will lead to a completely unstabilized region and lots big wars between the different groups. My belief is that if the US is kicked out of Iraq, Saudi-Arabia will quite soon be in a state of anarchy or civil war and anyway world oil supply will be totally disrupted. Woops, there goes civilisation!

Torjus Gaaren

[bartholland]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ncreasing proliferation of insurgency & decentralized warfare, destabilization of other Middle Eastern regimes by fundamentalists, and eventually a viable threat in Saudi.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', ' ')By which time the US public will have grown cynical of military adventures in the Middle East, and so we shall see the fall of the House of Saud and the rise of the Persian Empire.

[gt1370a]

What exactly constitutes failure? Withdrawal and collapse of Iraq into civil war? Region-wide conflict between Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites? Or simply a stable Iraq ruled under a strong-arm theocracy?

Failure could result in a range of problems from simply an increase in the influence Iran and other OPEC nations have to a civil war in Iraq and a coup in Saudi Arabia which could possibly disrupt 12 Mb/day of production between the two (or more if Persian Gulf traffic is affected).

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gt1370a', 'W')hat exactly constitutes failure? Withdrawal and collapse of Iraq into civil war? Region-wide conflict between Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites? Or simply a stable Iraq ruled under a strong-arm theocracy?

Failure could result in a range of problems from simply an increase in the influence Iran and other OPEC nations have to a civil war in Iraq and a coup in Saudi Arabia which could possibly disrupt 12 Mb/day of production between the two (or more if Persian Gulf traffic is affected).

[Teclo]

It occurs to me that the US will be forced to retreat from the mid-east, due to economic reasons, as peak oil colides with the debt ridden system. but that won't stop the islamic fighters claiming they won. in a sense they were just at the right place and the right time where a small band of poorly armed maniacs can 'win'. The arrogance of the us elite is a large part to blame, they think they are invincible but all empires fall due to arrogance in the end. its unimaginable but it could happen, bin laden the new saladin?
The alternative is a deparate occuptation of the mid-east with a us draft backed up by nuke threats. will the us let those oil fields or isreal fall into islamic fundamentalist hands?
the us could go isolationist, austerity use technology to innovate its way off oil in double quick time - but then u have islamic power base with nukes
do they take out iran's nukes in a small war then leave, maybe
or do they go for an all out occupation?
This debate could be the new 60's, split the nation into pro and anti factions. If the US goes for full occupation - WW3?
At the moment I can't see a way out of this

Martin

[Itch]

I don't think total loss would happen; if it did, that would mean that 100% of the work would be done by mercenaries, instead of 90%. Most of the logistics, cooking, and construction is being done by private companies like Halliburton and KBR. Much of the ground work is starting to be done by mercs, too. So I think that most of the US military will not be needed, maybe with the exception of air power.

Perhaps a great many US military personnel will be sent home, though many will go back to work for Blackwater or whoever, since they would be doing the same work for far better money. The news will jerk off to the thought that the troops are coming home, and the public will settle down. The government will be able to rip off the veterans just like they did after World War 1; most of the promised money benefits will go to private contracts.

Most of the ground work is replaced by various mercenary companies. It is the same work that the US was doing, only the pay is far better, and they have a broader market to find workers. There will be work for everyone in all different countries: Chilean guys who have death squad experience, broke US commercial truckers who are willing to get blown up for a few extra dollars, construction crews who used to build bloated houses for bloated people. For many, working for Blackwater, KBR, Aegis, Dynorp, and Halliburton would be quite viable.

As for Iraq, parts of it will be going through home grown and instigated civil war, though most of the moderate citizens will establish independent city states, who will want no affiliation with the fundamentalists and foreigners.

[mekrob]

One good thing is that the north is very strong and they have a decent army in the peshmerga. Much of Kurdistan is in Turkey as well as Iran which is why Iran doesn't want a broken Iraq. Kurds would then have a major insurgency in Iran, trying to expand their nation to include all or at least a vast majority of Kurds. Just something that we can use against Iran if Iraq splits up. Nothing that would ensure a victory over Iran, but a nice card to call upon.

[RdSnt]

The US cannot leave the ME, not only for historical reasons relating to previous defeats, but because of the overreach that they have put themselves in.
The Vietnam defeat is still a significant historical memory and another retreat like that would cause a huge blowback on the political elite by the US public.

The overreach is just that, the administration has placed the US beyond the point of recovery and must move in the direction chosen. They need the oil, they need the excuse to maintain the military infrastructure and contracts to friendly companies.
There is simply not retreating path to move along. Everything leads to a collapse, both economically and socially. The choice is what territory do the stand on when things fall down.
When the collapse comes if the US is not embedded in the ME like a bad tick they are finished as a significant power and I would say, coupled with the blowback, finished as a country.

[Daryl]

Maybe some of you guys would like to speculate about what how things in the Middle East would play out if the US wasn't involved. Let's go back to the end of the Cold War. US stays home, minds its own business starting in 1990. That's 15 years ago. What would it look like now? Any takers?

[evilgenius]

RdSnt,

There are a few things that really puzzle me about the way that the Neo-Cons have prosecuted this whole Iraq thing. First of all, why didn't they use a proxy instead of so totally placing the geo-political future of the US on the line? If a proxy had failed then the US could simply have withdrawn support when things got too dicey. As it stands now, if a proxy had managed to get this far the US would be able to claim total victory and risk nothing more.

I reckon the only proxy they wanted to back was the only proxy they couldn't back. I think they wanted to back the Iraqi Sunnis, the natural ally to the US's non-Jewish state best friend in the region - Saudi Arabia. They were prevented from engaging the Sunnis, however, until Saddam could be gotten out of the picture. Who can say for sure, but if I am right there will be some changes in Iraq politically and civil war wise after Saddam is executed.

Secondly, why haven't the Republicans launched a massive effort over here to counter possible failure? Yes, they are in the process of decapitating the dollar, but that by itself isn't enough. There needs to be a major infrastructure shakeup that involves high-speed rail, higher fleet fuel efficiency, many billions on advances in electricity generation and solar panel efficiency to name only a few. Two billion over some number of years for hydrogen fuel cell research just isn't going to cut it.

If the Neo-Cons took the necessary steps to prepare then a loss, even if it were calamitous, might not imperil everything. Some people read sinister motives into this lack of preparation. I read stupidity.


Daryl,

I gather that you see a Vietnam type of loss as possible but definitely not a military loss in battle. Your position is definitely the position of sensical reason. What I am pointing out, however is the possibility exists that the US could face its Agincourt or Kursk. What do you think would happen in that case? Would it be total disaster or would the US just wind up having to invite more players to the table? Would it be a poison table?

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', 'w')hy didn't they use a proxy instead of so totally placing the geo-political future of the US on the line?
I reckon the only proxy they wanted to back was the only proxy they couldn't back. I think they wanted to back the Iraqi Sunnis, the natural ally to the US's non-Jewish state best friend in the region - Saudi Arabia.

[ALBY]

The *wishful thinking* re a fuel deprived army being slaughtered in Iraq is not based in reality. major tactical losses on the battlefield would not be tolerated and strategic weapons (nuclear) would be used long before America let abandoned her troops in the desert.

The Spectre of a defeat is quite real, though not in the most of the haters in here can conceive. First of all, the Persians look upon the Iraqi's as being culturally inferior and the Iraqi's know this. They would no more let the Iranians control the Shiite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala than the Americans. The Persians would face the type of Insurgency we face now.

Actually, America's defeat in the middle east would embolden the demographic bubble of disenchanted young male Islamic fundamentalists and their next campaign would be in Europe. If America fails to control that oil and we hand the fundamentalists a victory, then Europe faces a future of Dhimminitude to it's emboldened and restive immigrant population.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ALBY', 'I')f America fails to control that oil and we hand the fundamentalists a victory, then Europe faces a future of Dhimminitude to it's emboldened and restive immigrant population.

[Daryl]

Europe is in the midst of a peaceful takeover by Islam. It's a demographic conquest based on birth rates, immigration and democracy. It may take one or two more generations, but do the math.

The West will not allow a Wahhabist takeover of the Persian Gulf, no matter what the cost. There are many scenarios in the Middle East that involve catastrophic military destruction of the oil infrastructure. It's not that it couldn't be eventually rebuilt, but the consequences of a total shut-off of oil out of the region for even a short period of time would be catastrophic to the global economy and would plunge vast sections of the world into chaos. This isn't a simple issue of soccer moms being subsidized to drive SUVs, as simplistic morons like Kunstler would like you to believe.

[Daryl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('evilgenius', ' ')Secondly, why haven't the Republicans launched a massive effort over here to counter possible failure? Yes, they are in the process of decapitating the dollar, but that by itself isn't enough. There needs to be a major infrastructure shakeup that involves high-speed rail, higher fleet fuel efficiency, many billions on advances in electricity generation and solar panel efficiency to name only a few. Two billion over some number of years for hydrogen fuel cell research just isn't going to cut it.

[ALBY]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ALBY', 'I')f America fails to control that oil and we hand the fundamentalists a victory, then Europe faces a future of Dhimminitude to it's emboldened and restive immigrant population.