by donshan » Thu 22 Jun 2006, 14:20:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', 'S')o what happens if we (the UK & the US) pull out?
That could mean:
- our political system is weakened
- a left-wing US government may take over
- our troops will be severely demoralised
- our people will feel cheated in various ways
- outside countries will view us as weak powers
- we lose a foothold in an oil rich area
- radical Islam will seize Iraq and probably more will die per day than at present
- we would probably lose our influence in Saudi Arabia too.
To summarise: We will end up separated from the oil areas, with a weak government and a dissillusioned army & populace. The US & UK probably could not mount a similar operation ever again. Pulling out could significantly threaten out future in the West.
Yep. Let's pull our troops out tomorrow. Might as well swallow cyanide whilst we are at it.

I understand your position- it is widely held in the US. My view is the American people are woefully misinformed by the media, politicians and pundits as to the complexity of the threat we face, and everyone seeks simplistic solutions that sound good in a 15 second sound bite.
I would like to refer you to two outstanding essays that were prize winners in an essay contest sponsored by the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Both are written by serving military officers. Both are remarkable in receiving prize awards since they are at odds with current US political and military policies.
The first is by Lieutenant Colonel Michael F. Morris, USMC titled "al Qaeda as Insurgency". The paper can be downloaded at:
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1039.pdfCol. Morris discusses military strategy and "who is our enemy?" You will find he concludes that our enemy is not confined to just Iraq, but identifies radical Islam known as Wahhabism which teaches "Salafist jihadist ideology as our main enemy. What Col. Morris probably could not say is this religious teaching is the State Religion of Saudi Arabia, and it is this teaching in hundreds of Islamic schools all over the Muslim world that are creating an endless supply of young jihadists.
It is this Jihadist teaching that lead to the bombings in Madrid and London, and the recent arrests of a jihadist bomb plot in Canada. We cannot win unless we understand our enemy, and our enemy is an ideology, not just insurgents in Iraq, with an endless supply of replacements.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The Strategic Challenge
Such an assessment dictates a different kind of response at the strategic level. The conflict is between competing visions of Islam. Moderate Islam is willing and able to accommodate modernism; radical Islam insists that the religion return to the halcyon days of the 7th and 8th centuries. This is a kind of civil war, and the West is poorly positioned to referee it or encourage its end. The contest is not the venue of an information operation writ large. Rather it is the age-old debate on religion’s role in governance. Each people must make its own choice; Madison Avenue marketing and Western-style politics are neither necessary nor sufficient to sway the result. Instead, a sophisticated form of political warfare must support and encourage moderate governments that champion tolerant forms of the Islamic faith while opposing religious fascism. The National Security and Combating Terrorism strategies mention but do not stress this war of ideas. It deserves more emphasis and attention because failure in this arena will render moot even the destruction of al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden’s movement is merely representative of the threat posed by Salafist theology. Other groups, though less well known, harbor similar political objectives and the conflict will continue until the underlying ideas are rejected by the Muslim umma. The threat posed by radical Islam today resembles that posed in 1917 by communism—a bad idea poised to justify the spread of totalitarianism."
The other prize winner was by Lt. Col John M. Amidon, USAF titled " America’s Strategic Imperative: A “Manhattan Project” for Energy". Col Amidon goes though an analysis of the military costs of defending our MidEast Oil supply, discusses peak oil, and alternatives and concludes america could solve the energy problem more cheaply by a non-military "Manhattan" Style energy program. He calculates military costs in the MidEast have cost American tax payers $1.28 per each gallon of fuel used:
The current world energy situation poses a national threatunparalleled in 225 years. The economy, particularly the transportation component, has become heavily dependent on foreign oil. Concurrent with rising demand are indications that world production may soon peak, followed by permanent decline and shortage. Moreover, most of the remaining oil is concentrated in distant, politically hostile locations, inviting interdiction by enemies.
Over the last 60 years, policymakers have repeatedly applied diplomatic and military triage to the problem of national energy security while generally ignoring the economic prospects for a solution. Today, the Nation is engaged in a global war on terror throughout the same resource-rich area on which the safety of its economy hinges.
Economicstagnation or catastrophe lurk close at hand, to be triggered by another embargo, collapse of the Saudi monarchy, or civil disorder in any of a dozen nations. Barring these events, rising world demand and falling productioncould place the United States in direct military competition with equally determined nations. It is doubtful that any military, even that of a global hegemon, could secure an oil lifeline indefinitely. Failing to take urgent economic steps now will necessitate more painful economic steps later and likely require protracted military action.
Meeting this dilemma with a technical solution plays on America’s greatest strengths, those of the inventor and the innovator. Rapid execution of a two-phase Manhattan Project for energy will provide near-term relief measures while laying the foundation for the long-term establishment of an “Energy Power Shift” economy. Reduced dependence on imported oil would also allow the Nation to pursue a more pragmatic foreign policy, freed of the necessity to engage in all episodes of Middle East or OPEC history. This strategy denies al Qaeda and its allies a key argument in their war against the United States; reducing the strategic importance of the Middle East will obviate the need for “us” to be “there” and diminish the cultural friction between Muslims and the West. Absent the plausible charge that the U.S. role in the Middle East is motivated solely by oil, U.S. efforts to nurture democracy, and local perception of those efforts, could result in a new era of good will."