As the Democrats continue to posture and bluster about progress in Iraq and by neglect propose surrendering to Al Qaeda, the Sadrists, and Cowardice, it’s time to continue delving into the potential outcomes of surrender. [Update: More on the planned Al Qaida State in Iraq at LGF.]
We covered the consequences to the children of Iraq in my earlier post, this post will continue to look at the longer-term geopolitical and global economic consequences.
In countries that the US has conquered, the ones best off were occupied for long periods, and have standing US bases by reciprocal agreements between governments. They are allies, have strong economies, and they are democratic with large measures of protections to civil liberties. Yes, I speak of Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and Spain (referencing Puerto Rico.)
In countries where we left immediately without alliances or where we retreated, things did not go as well. Viet Nam is a prime example, but you could also count East Germany and North Korea in the mix of countries where we retreated and did not establish an alliance or bases. Afghanistan is another fine example – a little nation-building there would have benefitted us much more than the “Peace Dividend” Reagan left us with and that congress squandered to buy votes in later elections.
So judging from the past the future looks bleak for Iraq if we don’t establish an alliance and small but continuous military presence there.
Facing reality if there’s a power vacum in an Islamic country there will be a power struggle, and we’ve gone into the potentials of neighbors interferring already in the previous post. Whether it’s Al Qaida still trying to establish a base by murdering fellow muslims, sectarian strife, the Kurds trying to take all of the oil fields, or the Sadrists, it doesn’t matter –if we pull out the balloon will go up and the neighbors will jump in.
The effect to the oil supply, and the world economy is hard to calculate, but it’s a safe bet that prices would rise. Iran might jump in, or might wait to pick up the pieces. Either way they are positioned to block and control access to the Persian Gulf, and their military has extensive plans for this drawn up already.
There are Islamic governments, and there are Islamist governments. Islamic governments exist in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Bangladesh. All of these are fragile, like feathers upon the sand awaiting the deathwind of Jihad.
The Islamist countries always wish to expand their boundaries and to establish Muslim shariat rule across the world, much as the Soviet Union wished to establish Communism across the globe. The Islamists learned well from the Soviets, and they always have agents in the other countries, inciting them to become Islamist instead of Islamic.
The expansion of the Muslim brotherhood throughout the Islamic world, and their popularity, is proof enough of this. The Islamist nations attempt to remake their neighbors in their image, but really this is an ancient game of tribal ascendency that even predates Islam. Extreme shariat and Jihad just happen to be a very good tools to use in this pure power struggle. [see previous essay “Ancient Enemies“]
There are two Islamist governments in the region: Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Arab Sauds are much slyer and more subtle than the Persians about exporting jihadism, but they do it nonetheless.
The method is to pick at sores: the divisions in sect, class, and race within the muslim world. The Islamists export radical cells to all countries to build mosques and madrassas to incite the young. Eventually they destabilize or even topple the existing government, turning the country to their use while remaining unharmed and out of the fray themselves. This is why the muslim world remains in chaos and behind the rest of the world.
If you are working to destabilize Pakistan, you pick at the sore of Kashmir, if it’s Palestine it’s easy to point at Israel, or the US as Satan — especially if you don’t want the focus to be on you.
Neither Iran nor Saudi Arabia would allow Al Qaida to take Iraq, and they might go to war for control when push comes to shove mid-country as the Shia battle the Sunni. It would be the 8 year Iran-Iraq war over again, but on a much larger scale.
With the region in chaos, oil prices high, and maritime trade interupted, what would follow?
Extreme duress would be experienced by citizens of all countries in the region from interupted food supplies and disrupted economies. There would be famine in Bangladesh and Africa again. The third world countries that have recently pulled themselves out of the ditch of extreme poverty would fall back into it from the collapsing world economy.
Other nations would excercise their expansionist options hoping to be ignored in the larger strife. Sudan would press more strenuously in Darfur, and it’s likely that Hamas and Hiz’Allah would take more shots at Israel, perhaps with Iran or Syria joining in.
Do you think there might be effects from this in Pakistan and Afghanistan?
What about Libya? What would they do? Algiers — what would happen there? Where would the Islamist states focus next? What would demands increase to? Would we see World War IV? In the chaos what would happen in North Korea? Venezuela? Bolivia? What would China and Russia do?
Now picture all of those potentials with Democrats controlling congress and the presidency. Think you can handle it liberals?
Your ascendency if even a quarter of this occurred, (and some of these scenarios are very likely,) wouldn’t last two election cycles. You would become known forever as the party who surrendered in two wars and who ushered in two genocides.
That’s why if you are a liberal partisan it’s time you came to your senses, to let things play out, to stop heeding the radicals within your party. If it was a mistake to rush to war, it would be an even greater mistake to rush out of it. Doing so will hurt all of your causes in the end and kill millions again.
Of course most democrats don’t think beyond next election cycle, so I don’t expect the logic to sway many of them.