Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[c1ue]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

How much did Saddam and his choices play in the cost and recovery?

What might be worth further retrospective debate on is how the US flip-flopped with it's post Gulf War effort to support the Iraqi Arab and Iraqi Kurd uprisings.

The US didn't want Saddam around, but they didn't want him to go(to prevent another conventional/unconventional conflict with Iran).

Based on that US foreign policy choice it tells me the US got exactly what it wanted......a crippled Iraqi strongman.

It suited the US in it's posture towards Iran

It suited Saudi/Kuwait in cutting off Saddam's military leverage against Saudi/Kuwait while keeping a buffer with Iran

It suited Israel in keeping the greatest Arab threat to it in a greatly weakened but stable tyrant state(think Syria post Hama Massacre and getting slaughtered by Israel in 1982, but pre Civil War...externally weak bar proxy support for Hez)

I'd also note that there were sanctions that started in 1990 - and were around until after W. Bush's invasion (2003?). I'd suspect that the sanctions played the largest role - not Hussein.

As for Iran-Iraq vs. Desert Storm - I agree Iran-Iraq did more damage militarily, but the numbers that I've seen regarding electricity generation, for example, show net growth from the period starting after Iran-Iraq, including Desert Storm (a 1 year minor dip), up until 1995 - and only last year has electricity generation approached the previous level (I cannot find data from 1995 to 2001).

Iraqi central government certainly don't WANT excessive influence/control in the hands of Kurds up North, but can they actually STOP it from happening?

We were busy talking about mostly Afghan stuff in Kabul, but a few senior folks I met up with were pretty clear on the point that regardless of what the Iraqi central government say, NOTHING of substance can get done without approval/buy-in from key players in the north.

If you want to move anything from point A into Iraqi Kurdistan point B you better be using Kurds and/or have it blessed by Kurds otherwise it ain't happening.

If there's a no-fly zone, the Iraqi central government could not. But if there is, then historical example also seems to show that the Kurds in Iraq can be controlled.

I'm a bit confused by this last bit you wrote.

I perhaps phrased it badly. What I was trying to say was: with the change of regime in Iraq (i.e. no more counterbalance vs. Iran), Qatar and Saudi Arabia faced the prospective unhappy situation of having to deal with Iran alone.

In this context, destabilizing nations with Sunni majorities but with rulers that are anti-Saudi Arabia/anti-Qatar, or even merely neutral, is a no-lose situation.

I'm also a bit confused by seeming contradictory decisions coming out of Qatar(I havent' read/seen/heard much out of Saudi to be honest).

Qatar's public flip-flop on economic support for Egypt is interestingly erratic......especially with how quickly Egypt could possibly default if pulled.

Same with Qatar's Emir supporting the Palestinian Authorities to the tune of a reported $250-500 million where the visit was reportedly fast tracked/erratic for security reasons maybe? Or just erratic?

Then Qatar's clandestine and overt support for Libya and Syria.

In some ways I'm wondering if Qatar is the new Libya(circa 1970's-80's supporting all kinds of random folks like Idi Amin and every terrorist/freedom fighting org on the planet) but with a bit more brains, money, and hubris behind it.

Is current and future Qatari policy even able to be predicted? It just seems so random in some respects.

From my view, I think Qatar is seeking to make itself a 'Sunni leader' rather than be Saudi Arabia's convenient sidekick.

Others have said that Qatar is just being the US' hand-puppet.

Either way, flip-flopping behavior is perfectly understandable - and in fact historically there is no consistency in foreign relations by any nation. Once goals change, so does behavior.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

If there's a no-fly zone, the Iraqi central government could not. But if there is, then historical example also seems to show that the Kurds in Iraq can be controlled.

Current and near future Iraqi Army and Air Force capability compared to Kurd Peshmerga would tell a different story.

Iraq's combined arms military capability against a regional domestic insurrection is far less capable than it was under Saddam and the Pershmerga are far more capable than they ever were. And that's right from the mouths of folks who work with them.

I perhaps phrased it badly. What I was trying to say was: with the change of regime in Iraq (i.e. no more counterbalance vs. Iran), Qatar and Saudi Arabia faced the prospective unhappy situation of having to deal with Iran alone.

In this context, destabilizing nations with Sunni majorities but with rulers that are anti-Saudi Arabia/anti-Qatar, or even merely neutral, is a no-lose situation.

Unless of course all those unemployed and/or unpaid soldiers from regimes the Saudis/Qataris are undermining that possess skills are offered an opportunity at the big prize, Mecca.

From my view, I think Qatar is seeking to make itself a 'Sunni leader' rather than be Saudi Arabia's convenient sidekick.

Others have said that Qatar is just being the US' hand-puppet.

Either way, flip-flopping behavior is perfectly understandable - and in fact historically there is no consistency in foreign relations by any nation. Once goals change, so does behavior.

Flip-flopping like the US and SU with Ethiopia and Somalia in the 1970's/80's, but flip-flopping financial support by Qatar towards Egypt within a couple weeks is just erratic.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Perhaps. But then that is not something the powerful Gulf Ruling Families, nor the wealthy merchant families that support them, want to see. But sometimes one must choose from the lesser of multiple "evils". After a long period of watching Shia Iran exert increasing influence in the Levant through Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Alawi in Syria, and now trying to link that together in a continuous arc through Shia governed Iraq (thank you America) it is now the Sunni, sponsored by the oil rich Gulf emirates that are on the offensive.

They do not want a restoration of the Sunni caliphate, but there seems a view that it would be far better to deal with a Muslim Brotherhood dominated region from Egypt to Iraq, and push Iran back to Persia. Sort of a "half-loaf is better than nothing" for the Islamists...

Don’t Underestimate Iran’s Election Upset

ByShashank JoshiJun 16, 2013 4:21 PM MT

Iran’s presidential election presents a paradox. The vote was free enough for Hassan Rohani to score a shocking win and for the favored conservative candidate to finish a dismal third. And yet it was blatantly unfair because hundreds of reformist and pragmatic candidates were blocked from running.

For policymakers in the U.S. and Europe, this presents a challenge: How should they respond to this remarkable upset victory for Rohani, who was the eventual candidate of Iranian reformists and is also a regime-approved insider?

In answering this question, it is essential that governments don’t just focus on how much influence the new president will or won’t have on the Iran’s nuclear negotiations with the major world powers. What he does to expand individual liberties within the country will be at least as important.

To borrow a slogan from President Barack Obama’s first election campaign, this vote was about hope and change. Iranians were deeply disillusioned by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stolen re-election in 2009. That ballot box theft and the failure of huge popular protests to overturn it made Iranians skeptical of their ability to change anything. Nevertheless, turnout on Friday exceeded 72 percent according to the interior ministry, a level the U.S. hasn’t managed in a century.

Under the most difficult political circumstances, Iran’s electorate broke with eight years of Ahmadinejad’s intemperate rule and cast scorn on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s apparatchiks. Voters chose in Rohani a man who had promised to establish a ministry for women’s affairs, aimed at restoring some of their “trampled rights,” and rejected former nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, who said during the campaign that women are best kept as mothers. Rohani won almost 51 percent of the vote, according to preliminary results, avoiding the need for a run-off...

...Rohani’s power to shape policy in the two areas of great interest to the U.S. and Europe -- Iran’s nuclear program and its assistance to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad-- will be limited, constraining his ability to deliver on campaign promises to ease tensions and thereby ease Iran’s economic woes.

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a parallel military organization to the regular army and a major player in the Iranian economy, is deeply invested in the Syrian civil war, and may even benefit from the smuggling opportunities created by sanctions. The negotiations over the nuclear program, meanwhile, have fallen increasingly under the purview of Khamenei since Rohani led them as chief negotiator in the mid-2000s...

Meanwhile Al Arabiya and the UK Independent are reporting:

Last Update: Sunday, 16 June 2013 KSA 09:01 - GMT 06:01

Report: Iran to send 4,000 Revolutionary Guards to bolster Assad’s forces

Sunday, 16 June 2013

Iran is to reportedly send 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad in the fight against opposition forces, according to the The Independent on Sunday.In what was described as an Iranian “military decision,” the British newspaper said Iran was now “fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime,” citing unnamed pro-Iranian sources.The sources “have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel,” The Independent’sRobert Fisk wrote.The decision, allegedly made before this week’s presidential election, was “to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad's forces against the largely Sunni rebellion,” Fisk reported.Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim country, and a close ally of President Assad, who belongs to the Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam...

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

This is almost unheard of in the Arab world:

Qatar emir hands power to son, no word on prime minister

DOHA | Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:50am EDT

(Reuters) - Qatar's emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani handed power on Tuesday to his son, Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim, taking the rare step for a Gulf Arab ruler of voluntarily ceding power to try to ensure a smooth succession.

But the 61-year-old emir made no immediate mention of the public face of Qatar's assertive foreign policy, prime minister and foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, a veteran politician who had been expected also to step down.

In a seven-minute speech aired on state television, the emir said it was time for a new generation to take over following his 18 years at the helm of the small, rich state.
"The time has come to open a new page in the journey of our nation that would have a new generation carry the responsibilities ... with their innovative ideas," said Sheikh Hamad, reading a prepared text behind his desk, where Qatar's deep red and white flag was perched nearby.

"I address you today to inform you that I will transfer power to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. I am fully confident that he is qualified for the responsibility and is trustworthy."...

...Diplomats have said the emir, who overthrew his father in a bloodless coup in 1995, had long planned to abdicate in favor of 33-year-old Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim.

Tuesday was a national holiday in the country of a one-family absolute monarchy has ruled over for more than 130 years. The royal court has invited Qataris to go to swear allegiance to Sheikh Tamim on Tuesday and Wednesday...

...The emir has elevated Qatar's global profile through the development of the Al Jazeera television network, as well as its successful bid to host the 2022 soccer World Cup tournament.Qatari state media said Sheikh Hamad had formally informed family members and top decision makers in the U.S.-allied state of his decision at a meeting in the capital Doha on Monday...

...Arab and Western diplomats said they understood the motive was the emir's desire to have a smooth transition to a younger generation. Such a transition would be unusual for Gulf Arab states, where leaders usually die in office...

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

This is almost unheard of in the Arab world:

Qatar emir hands power to son, no word on prime minister

DOHA | Tue Jun 25, 2013 2:50am EDT

(Reuters) - Qatar's emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani handed power on Tuesday to his son, Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim, taking the rare step for a Gulf Arab ruler of voluntarily ceding power to try to ensure a smooth succession.

But the 61-year-old emir made no immediate mention of the public face of Qatar's assertive foreign policy, prime minister and foreign minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim, a veteran politician who had been expected also to step down.

In a seven-minute speech aired on state television, the emir said it was time for a new generation to take over following his 18 years at the helm of the small, rich state.
"The time has come to open a new page in the journey of our nation that would have a new generation carry the responsibilities ... with their innovative ideas," said Sheikh Hamad, reading a prepared text behind his desk, where Qatar's deep red and white flag was perched nearby.

"I address you today to inform you that I will transfer power to Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani. I am fully confident that he is qualified for the responsibility and is trustworthy."...

...Diplomats have said the emir, who overthrew his father in a bloodless coup in 1995, had long planned to abdicate in favor of 33-year-old Crown Prince Sheikh Tamim.

Tuesday was a national holiday in the country of a one-family absolute monarchy has ruled over for more than 130 years. The royal court has invited Qataris to go to swear allegiance to Sheikh Tamim on Tuesday and Wednesday...

...The emir has elevated Qatar's global profile through the development of the Al Jazeera television network, as well as its successful bid to host the 2022 soccer World Cup tournament.Qatari state media said Sheikh Hamad had formally informed family members and top decision makers in the U.S.-allied state of his decision at a meeting in the capital Doha on Monday...

...Arab and Western diplomats said they understood the motive was the emir's desire to have a smooth transition to a younger generation. Such a transition would be unusual for Gulf Arab states, where leaders usually die in office...

as i read that story in yesterday's ny times i wondered if you had any thoughts on it, grg? especially in light of qatar's high level of international activity in recent years. i'd be interested in even the rankest speculation. the only parallels that occur are distant: lee kuan yew, deng xaioping. or am i being too generous?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

as i read that story in yesterday's ny times i wondered if you had any thoughts on it, grg? especially in light of qatar's high level of international activity in recent years. i'd be interested in even the rankest speculation. the only parallels that occur are distant: lee kuan yew, deng xaioping. or am i being too generous?

I'm sure GRG55 will throw in, but my thought is that any serious comparison with Lee Kuan Yew is probably flawed.

Lee Kuan Yew and the people of Singapore were blessed with a natural harbour......but surrounded by a malaria infested mangrove.

Qatar on the other hand is blessed with an incredible level of natural resource wealth sought and consumed by the entire planet.

While both nations have built up considerable military capability, it's been Qatar that has chosen to use it's military capability as well as it's financial resources to reduce regional stability rather than to increase it.

Qatar's been hip deep in Libya and now Syria(as well as elsewhere).

It's Qatari C17 transport planes that have been flying some interesting circuits between Libya and Turkey lately.

I wonder what they're hauling?

While there were a LOT of largely unreported incidents in and around Singapore in the 50's thru the 80's, I don't think any of them would come anywhere near the scale of Qatar's foreign policy choices.

----------

I don't know what the story is with the transfer of power in Qatar, but I'm certainly keen to learn what's underlying it.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

tthe parallel i had in mind is the unquestioned supreme leader voluntarily stepping aside to continiue in the role of eminence grise/advisor. the current emir deposed HIS father, so i assume HIS father didn't get such an option.

and recently the nytimes had a front page photo on its internet site, at least, of recoilless rifle ammo transhipped from libya to syrian rebels, presumably paid for by the qataris. so that kind of activism makes me wonder about this abidcation: was there resentment at home about squandering the family treasure abroad? or, if not, will qatari international activism remain at its current high level?

and i'm not sure it's correct to say that qatar's interest is reducing regional stability. surely, it is maneuvering as part of the great shiite-sunni struggle.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

tthe parallel i had in mind is the unquestioned supreme leader voluntarily stepping aside to continiue in the role of eminence grise/advisor. the current emir deposed HIS father, so i assume HIS father didn't get such an option.

and recently the nytimes had a front page photo on its internet site, at least, of recoilless rifle ammo transhipped from libya to syrian rebels, presumably paid for by the qataris. so that kind of activism makes me wonder about this abidcation: was there resentment at home about squandering the family treasure abroad? or, if not, will qatari international activism remain at its current high level?

and i'm not sure it's correct to say that qatar's interest is reducing regional stability. surely, it is maneuvering as part of the great shiite-sunni struggle.

I completely spaced it on Lee Hsien Loong, Lee Kuan Yew's eldest son and current PM of Singers.

Lee Kuan Yew's recent role as Minister Mentor slash Singapore Inc Chairman Emeritus has been an interesting role in a heavy handed democracy.

I DO wonder how the regional culture will impact on Hamid bin Khalifa's abdication.

He is still an immensely wealthy, powerful, and influential figure.

And he's only about 60 years or so old. Assuming his health is good, he could be around for a few decades more.

Maybe a question to ask is if there is a GCC precedent/parallel for a Lee Kuan Yew type mob boss semi-retiring to consigliere?

Too bad Tamim bin Hamad's commissioning course report from his days as a cadet at Sandhurst is not in the public domain. It would probably make for interesting reading.

I know an NCO who instructed there who had some very funny stories about a nameless GCC prince.

There's stuff in the public domain now about Qatari military airlift and SF playing an active role in Libya/Syria besides just spending money like others often do, some of the Qataris are actually getting their hands dirty.

Whether they are ethnic Qatari or just wearing Qatari uniforms is another story.

Personally, I don't see how Qatar's very active measures regarding Libya and Syria could in any way contribute to regional stability in the short to medium term(say next 5 years).

There's pretty substantial evidence that "easy" Libya has both directly and indirectly contributed to decreasing stability in North/West Africa with Mali being one very clear example.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

what makes you think that "regional stability" even enters into the qataris thinking? when the sunnis and shias are killing each other in iraq, are they interested in "regional stability"?

[cobben]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

as i read that story in yesterday's ny times i wondered if you had any thoughts on it, grg? especially in light of qatar's high level of international activity in recent years. i'd be interested in even the rankest speculation. the only parallels that occur are distant: lee kuan yew, deng xaioping. or am i being too generous?

I'm curious if there is anything particular to watch out for in Qatar. We have an acquaintance who is planning to go work there, as a specialist for a European company.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Years ago I made the observation on another iTulip thread that real trouble in the Middle East would originate not in Iran or Iraq, but from some other place that was not then on the radar screen. Having spent a lot of time there building a business venture in the country, my view at the time was that Egypt was the front runner at risk of "blowing up". Long before the Saudis and Emiratis became wildly wealthy on oil, Egypt was the wealthiest and most influential country in the Arab world. It had the largest population, the most diversified economy, the most advanced universities, and even today remains the center of the influential Arab film industry. If iTulipers are wondering why I seem so focused on Egypt in the posts on this thread, what happens in Egypt plays a much bigger role in influencing Arab opinion than anything happening in Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

Egypt protesters torch buildings, try to target Suez Canal

Sat Mar 9, 2013 10:49am EST

* First major attempt to disrupt canal traffic fails

* Fans torch police club, soccer headquarters in Cairo

* Islamist government struggling to keep law and order

* Police on alert for jihadist attacks in Sinai

PORT SAID, Egypt/CAIRO, March 9 (Reuters) - Egyptian protesters torched buildings in Cairo and tried unsuccessfully to disrupt international shipping on the Suez Canal, as a court ruling on a deadly soccer riot stoked rage in a country beset by worsening security...

Still worth watching...
Morsi and Military Prepare for Collision in Egypt

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

ARMY OUSTS EGYPT’S PRESIDENT

Morsi Denounces ‘Military Coup’; Elections Promised



egypt seems to be following turkey's path of several decades ago, with the army guaranteeing a secular gov't. or at least an inclusive one.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

ARMY OUSTS EGYPT’S PRESIDENT

Morsi Denounces ‘Military Coup’; Elections Promised



egypt seems to be following turkey's path of several decades ago, with the army guaranteeing a secular gov't. or at least an inclusive one.

Today Egypt and Turkey differ in that Turkey now has strong civilian government institutions whereas Egypt's institutions are completely hopeless, with the strongest and most trusted (by the public) institution the Army.

Turkey has institutions that were strong enough for the Erdogan government to put senior military leaders on trial. Part of this shift to moving power away from the military and toward the elected government came about at the urging of the Europeans during the time both were flirting with the idea of Turkey joining the EU. In Egypt the leadership (until Mursi every President since Nasser has come from the military) and the Army have ensured that civilian institutions were never allowed to become any threat to the power of the military, including its rather significant economic interests.

Unfortunately, this is the impossible situation that any non-military leader such as Mursi was going to face. To govern requires the strengthening of the mechanisms of government, while trying to avoid threatening the power of the one organization that is capable of deposing you. In Egypt I don't really think this is so much about secular vs Islamic interpretations of governance, as it is about the distribution of raw political and economic power.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Today Egypt and Turkey differ in that Turkey now has strong civilian government institutions whereas Egypt's institutions are completely hopeless, with the strongest and most trusted (by the public) institution the Army.

Turkey has institutions that were strong enough for the Erdogan government to put senior military leaders on trial. Part of this shift to moving power away from the military and toward the elected government came about at the urging of the Europeans during the time both were flirting with the idea of Turkey joining the EU. In Egypt the leadership (until Mursi every President since Nasser has come from the military) and the Army have ensured that civilian institutions were never allowed to become any threat to the power of the military, including its rather significant economic interests.

Unfortunately, this is the impossible situation that any non-military leader such as Mursi was going to face. To govern requires the strengthening of the mechanisms of government, while trying to avoid threatening the power of the one organization that is capable of deposing you. In Egypt I don't really think this is so much about secular vs Islamic interpretations of governance, as it is about the distribution of raw political and economic power.

the military's excuse, at least, was the complaint of the anti-mursi demonstrators: that although he campaigned saying he'd be inclusive, in fact he has governed like erdogan's dream- imposing the islamist agenda step by step, and without regard for other points of view. majoritarian "democracy", that is a democracy whose sole democratic feature is elections, provides no protection and really no role for those who are not members of the majority group.

a more inclusive gov't which ceded more policy-space to minority views, would have given the army no excuse to intervene.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

the military's excuse, at least, was the complaint of the anti-mursi demonstrators: that although he campaigned saying he'd be inclusive, in fact he has governed like erdogan's dream- imposing the islamist agenda step by step, and without regard for other points of view. majoritarian "democracy", that is a democracy whose sole democratic feature is elections, provides no protection and really no role for those who are not members of the majority group.

a more inclusive gov't which ceded more policy-space to minority views, would have given the army no excuse to intervene.

Yes, that is the way this is being portrayed...the Mursi government was not sufficiently inclusive of minority views so the military has intervened on behalf of "the people". That is easily and comfortably embraced by all of us from "the west" watching from the outside, and certainly makes a good storyline for the media.

However, it requires 1) adopting the implausible position that an inclusive, secular form of government is even possible in an increasingly conservative Muslim majority Middle East region; and 2) adopting the even more implausible position that the Egyptian military has suddenly become the defender of inclusive, secular democratic government of the form with which we are familiar.

There is no such thing as "secular Islam". There is no separation of religion and State...they are intimately intertwined even in the most "moderate" interpretations of the Quran. That is a concept that seems to elude many western journalists, who are trying to explain these events to us...