Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[cobben]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It looks like we've found something other than gold that Saudi Arabia and the UAE will gladly accept in exchange for oil! All we have to do now is flood the Middle East with advanced weaponry, and everything will be fine!

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

Sweden seems to be lagging, arms exports down 30% last year?!
Have to get busy to keep that nr. 1 position in the world for arms exports per capita and support my pension.


Bildt: Nothing wrong with weapons export

: onsdag 4 april 2012

The Foreign Minister Carl Bildt does not consider Sweden’s weapons export to dictatorship Saudi Arabia a problem, newspaper Dagens Indstri reports.

Bildt told the newspaper that the sale of Swedish anti-tank missiles to Saudi Arabia happened before he was in office. However, he said, he would not have stopped the deal had he been in office at the time.

According to Bildt, it is important for Sweden to maintain a good relationship with Saudi Arabia. He describes the country as a family business.


Saudis second largest Swedish arms buyers


India and Saudi Arabia were the Swedish weapons industry's top clients in 2012, a year which nevertheless saw Sweden's arms exports drop 30 percent from the year before.


Sweden: Arms exports reach record level


Posted on Fri, 2012-02-24 15:49
Swedish disarmament campaigners are outraged after a new report shows Swedish arms exports are higher than ever, reaching a total value of over 2 billion USD in 2011. Sweden is currently the world’s largest arms exporter per capita. The Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society said, "Among the largest buyers in the last year, we notice Thailand, Saudi Arabia, India, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. These countries, where serious human rights violations take place, received about 60% of the total arms exports from Sweden". Sofia Walan of IANSA member Swedish Fellowship of Reconciliation (SweFor) said, "This is shameful and it is clear that there are strong commercial interests affecting how the laws are interpreted". The campaigners have issued a motion of censure demanding that the government put an end to irresponsible arms exports. Sign it here.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It looks like we've found something other than gold that Saudi Arabia and the UAE will gladly accept in exchange for oil! All we have to do now is flood the Middle East with advanced weaponry, and everything will be fine!

I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

US weapon systems sold to the likes of Saudi/Kuwait/Qatar/UAE is not only the aforementioned petrodollar recycling exercise(and means for royals and those connected to skim off the top considerable billions), but it's also a recurring revenue stream in the form of contractor jobs.

There are HEAPS of expats who are well paid to maintain GCC military equipment.

So it's not a one off expense....it's an ongoing and recurring revenue stream

The Saudis would be hard pressed to be able to start up an F15 without contractor assistance.

It's NOT like Iran in the 1970's........the Saudis outsource pretty much all of the military heavy lifting whenever and wherever possible.

With one possible exception.....regime continuity....and even that role has a fair few(but smaller proportion) foreigners.

The thousands of M16s stolen out of a Kuwaiti arms depot quite recently is worth worrying about....eek!

Saudi F15's and other gold plated petro recycling pawns? not so much.....without contractor support these toys are essentially useless in their org model.

PLUS......it's an inside joke that the Saudi fighter fleet is like the world's most expensive substitute for a polo pony club......connected princes become fighter pilots and fly when they feel like it.

It's funny looking at GCC weapons contracts...when you try to perform an "apples to apples" cost exercise with non GCC countries you often find significant differences in unit cost they try to obscure.

Because hidden in these inflated numbers is the royal and sycophant money gravy train...or at least a healthy chunk of it.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

EU to lift Syrian arms embargo

The Associated Press Posted: May 27, 2013 7:01 AM ET
Last Updated: May 27, 2013 7:03 PM ET

The European Union has decided to lift the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition while maintaining all other sanctions against President Bashar Assad's regime after June 1, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said late Monday.


The decision "sends a very strong message from Europe to the Assad regime," Hague said after an all-day meeting that laid bare EU hesitation on feeding arms in a foreign conflict only months after it won the Nobel Peace Prize.


Hague insisted that Britain had "no immediate plans to send arms to Syria. It gives us flexibility to respond in the future if the situation continues to deteriorate."


No other EU member appeared to have immediate plans to send arms to the rebels. "I have not detected any readiness from anyone at this time to contemplate that particular option," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.


Britain and France — the EU's biggest military powers — had been pushing the bloc to lift its embargo on delivery of weapons into Syria to help the embattled opposition...

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

EU to lift Syrian arms embargo

The Associated Press Posted: May 27, 2013 7:01 AM ET
Last Updated: May 27, 2013 7:03 PM ET

The European Union has decided to lift the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition while maintaining all other sanctions against President Bashar Assad's regime after June 1, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said late Monday.


The decision "sends a very strong message from Europe to the Assad regime," Hague said after an all-day meeting that laid bare EU hesitation on feeding arms in a foreign conflict only months after it won the Nobel Peace Prize.


Hague insisted that Britain had "no immediate plans to send arms to Syria. It gives us flexibility to respond in the future if the situation continues to deteriorate."


No other EU member appeared to have immediate plans to send arms to the rebels. "I have not detected any readiness from anyone at this time to contemplate that particular option," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said.


Britain and France — the EU's biggest military powers — had been pushing the bloc to lift its embargo on delivery of weapons into Syria to help the embattled opposition...

The Syrian regime has been making some gains lately(although their increasingly desperate financial state, at least to me, makes the endstate of this conflict inevitable).

Senator John McCain appears to have spent Memorial Day in rebel controlled territory....in Syria.

And Lebanon is getting sucked into the vortex:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/26/wo...nce/index.html

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

is there a combatant that the eu members would like to support? i doubt it's assad, but otoh my impression is that the "rebels" are dominated by sunni extremist/al queda/taliban types. but i haven't been following closely, perhaps syria is that hotbed of arab moderation we've been looking for.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

is there a combatant that the eu members would like to support? i doubt it's assad, but otoh my impression is that the "rebels" are dominated by sunni extremist/al queda/taliban types. but i haven't been following closely, perhaps syria is that hotbed of arab moderation we've been looking for.

A very good friend and professional associate spent some time in Lebanon a few months ago trying to get an answer for that and other question.

Two other friends are in Lebanon now to work and will hopefully add to my limited understanding of events in Syria when they return home.

As best I can tell, the Libyan "success" is a bit like "success" in Iran/Guatemala in the early 1950's. And just like then, it's likely to get worse from here.

It's also worth looking at places like Indonesia during the 1950's and 1960's as well as Ethiopia/Somalia in the 1970's when Superpowers "flip-flopped" their support for combatants.

Stranger things have happened.

Syria REALLY seems like an extremely caustic and toxic soup of crazy:

*Turkey displaying signs of shifting away from secularism as well as a conduit for Syrian resistance
*Kurds desire for their own independence agenda right in the artificial western tri-border of Turkey/Syria/Iraq
*Kurd rebels just did a deal with Turkey, moving them all into Iraq....pissing off Iraqi government
*Iraq failing to bring it's oil rich, but Kurd heavy north under heel and cowering to Iran's arms overflights to Syria
*Syria's regime battling to maintain minority control
*Syria's rebel opposition alphabet soup with multiple and conflicting agendas
*Lebanon's Hezbullah compelled to support Syria's regime, the conduit for Iran's proxy logistics management of Hez
*Lebanon getting sucked into Syria's Civil War would suit some agendas
*Jordan's reformist King is under considerable pressure internally as well as a conduit for supporting Syrian resistance
*Israel wants a weak but stable Syria(Syria year 2000), a Syrian implosion that pulled Lebanon and/or Jordan into the mix would be a security nightmare for Israel.
*Iran is neck deep in support of the Syrian regime with few allies and at risk of losing it's rat line conduit to attack Israel
*Qatar is paying for a lot of this mess(as in Libya), I presume to counter Iran's regional ambitions
*Egypt is not Syria, but as GRG55 said we may be looking in the wrong direction for things to go "boom"!
*Saudi Arabia? Wouldn't have a clue, but suspect they would also like to see reduced Iranian influence in the region.

That's just scratching the surface, but hits some of the key big picture items.

-------

Not looking good, but "glass half full" at least it's not November/December 1979:

November 4: US Embassy stormed and hostages seized in Tehran, Iran
November 15: Iran cancels all contracts with US oil companies
November 20: Grand Mosque Seizure in Mecca, Saudi Arabia
November 22: US Embassy stormed and burned to the ground in Islamabad, Pakistan
December 13: Saudi raises crude oil price market to $24 a barrel
December 24: Soviet invasion of Afghanistan

Now THAT was a bad couple of months.......after earlier in the year saw:

*Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Shah
*1979 Energy Crisis:
*Spot prices on Oil spiking
*OPEC price increases that were pretty big
*Refined Petroleum shortage

Let's hope 2013+2014 are not as exciting as 1979.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

is there a combatant that the eu members would like to support? i doubt it's assad, but otoh my impression is that the "rebels" are dominated by sunni extremist/al queda/taliban types. but i haven't been following closely, perhaps syria is that hotbed of arab moderation we've been looking for.

In typical Arab fashion there's no cohesive organized opposition in Syria, just as there was no cohesive opposition to Saddam in Iraq, Mubarak in Egypt or Gaddafi in Libya. It's fragmented, tribal, with all the usual squabbling. And there most certainly does not appear to be any potential for any "hotbed of Arab moderation" to emerge in the region now.

The "Arab Spring" is morphing into a broader regional conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. The former backed by Iran and its armed militia Hezbollah, the latter backed by Saudi Arabia. Russia has aligned with Iran and the "western powers" (USA and western Europe) have aligned with Saudi. The Great Game redux. The two current hot spots for the conflict are Syria and the Kingdom of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf...where Iran is trying to preoccupy Saudi right in its own back yard. Bahrain's economy has all but collapsed with the uprising and it is essentially a ward of Saudi now. The Saudis fear the creation of a Hezbollah-type armed Shi'a militia in Bahrain, which would be a considerable threat as Saudi's Eastern Province (which contains most of its oil fields) is Shi'a majority and connected by causeway to the main island of the Bahrain archipelago. I am getting unconfirmed reports that Qatar is playing both sides of this game now...sponsoring the Shi'a in Bahrain to undermine the ruling Al-Khalifa family to help keep Saudi preoccupied so the Qataris can exert more influence elsewhere, such as Egypt and Palestine.

What seems to be emerging is a desire by enough of the players on both sides to restore some semblance of the caliphate in the Levant. But of course neither side is willing to accept the form of a "single Muslim nation" that the other envisions. If any iTuliper doubts the level of hatred that exists between Shi'a and Sunni, think back to the bloodshed in Iraq (after the Americans put away their planes and bombs) that still hasn't completely stopped...and likely never will.

66 dead after blasts in mainly Shia areas of Iraq
Two-week wave of sectarian violence sweeps across Iraq
The Associated Press Posted: May 27, 2013 12:08 PM ET Last Updated: May 28, 2013 12:49 AM ET
A coordinated wave of car bombings tore through mostly Shia areas of Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 66 people and maiming nearly 200 as insurgents step up the bloodshed roiling Iraq.

The Sunni's, sponsored mostly by Saudi and Qatar, seem to have concluded that a string of conservative Muslim Brotherhood governments in an arc from Egypt through Palestine, Syria and ultimately into Iraq is the only feasible way to contain Iran's growing influence. Hence the considerable support to try to stabilize the Morsi government in Egypt to anchor one end of the strategy. They are also playing the strategy that maintaining the conflict in the Levant will prevent it from spreading at home in their own territories in the Gulf.

A century ago it was the British Royal Navy that was the instrument to dampen the enthusiasm for the factions to wage war on each other. The British did this to secure its trade routes in the region. The British gave way to the USA (the US Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters are in Bahrain) which took on the role mostly to secure shipping lanes for oil supply. The USA appears to be withdrawing (Fortress America) with only the threat of increasing Russian (and perhaps Chinese?) influence slowing that process it would appear...

[Polish_Silver]

Damned Blefuscudians!

...

If any iTuliper doubts the level of hatred that exists between Shi'a and Sunni, think back to the bloodshed in Iraq (after the Americans put away their planes and bombs) that still hasn't completely stopped...and likely never will.

..

Good to here from someone who has actually been there. What you usually get from MSM is:
the division is mainly administrative, the two groups happily worship in the same mosque,etc.

Well, they probably do share the same mosque in Pennsylvania, because the people who move to Pennsylvania are not the ones who want to blow up stuff or be blown up.

It seems to be something like an "honor culture", something I don't understand very well.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

[/INDENT]

Good to here from someone who has actually been there. What you usually get from MSM is:
the division is mainly administrative, the two groups happily worship in the same mosque,etc.

Well, they probably do share the same mosque in Pennsylvania, because the people who move to Pennsylvania are not the ones who want to blow up stuff or be blown up.

It seems to be something like an "honor culture", something I don't understand very well.

Speaking of mosques, there seems to be a bit of an undeclared "War of the Mosques" in some places.

I know in Iraq there has been massive sectarian violence.

In Afghanistan I've seen first hand some very strange overcapacity with mosques.

It would appear mosques are an effective means of influence, almost like little religious embassies/consulates.

With some of them you can accurately guesstimate who is funding them based on architecture without even having to ask/investigate.

It's not uncommon to see small communities where one would expect to have a single mosque, gaining 2-3.

It's not necessarily a bad thing as a theory that is growing on me supports the direct investment in centres of gravity for moderate islamic teaching to counter radical/fundamentalist teachings or the use of mosques/madrassas as a base of operations for things other than the practice of religion.

Apparently there was an opportunity to invest in a regional islamic learning centre which might have seen the injection of islamic moderation from a fairly high and respected level possibly creating a force multiplier effect.

But the opportunity was missed.

And may not have even worked.

Ultimately, I reckon the common western perception that Islam and all Muslims are united against us is just as wrong as Communism and all Communists out to get us during the Cold War.

Yup......lots of Muslims hate us......and some are unified against us(especially when it is in their collective interest), but just like some Communists hated each other more than us, same goes for many Muslims hating each other more than us.

[c1ue]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

What seems to be emerging is a desire by enough of the players on both sides to restore some semblance of the caliphate in the Levant. But of course neither side is willing to accept the form of a "single Muslim nation" that the other envisions. If any iTuliper doubts the level of hatred that exists between Shi'a and Sunni, think back to the bloodshed in Iraq (after the Americans put away their planes and bombs) that still hasn't completely stopped...and likely never will.

Interesting, and counter to what the Asia Times correspondent is saying: that what we're seeing in Libya, Egypt, and Syria is blowback for the Shia-ization of Iraq.

Essentially that the US intervention in Iraq converted what had been a non-sectarian (except in the Hussein sect sense) counterweight against Iran into a slight positive for Iran - and that the Sunni leadership in Qatar and Saudi Arabia responded by attempting to swing other, previously non-Sunni Arab nations into slightly Sunni positive: Egypt (Morsi, Sunni), Libya (largely Sunni, but previously with a non-religious strong man), Syria (also largely Sunni with a non-religious strongman).

Under this view - it is nothing about a caliphate but all about Saudi Arabia and Qatar protecting themselves against a surging Iran.

Apparently there was an opportunity to invest in a regional islamic learning centre which might have seen the injection of islamic moderation from a fairly high and respected level possibly creating a force multiplier effect.

But the opportunity was missed.

Perhaps. There are also those who say that the ultimate goal wasn't control or even 'civilizing', but more in the line of a spoiling attack.

I certainly think that the effect thus far has been that of a spoiling attack - the development of society and infrastructure in Iraq has been set back decades. Afghanistan, likely less so but they were lower to start with.

Whether that was the original objective is far from clear. Certainly a spoiling attack would not have necessitated spending so much blood and money attempting to 'civilize' Iraq for multiple years after the 'win'.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I If any iTuliper doubts the level of hatred that exists between Shi'a and Sunni, think back to the bloodshed in Iraq (after the Americans put away their planes and bombs) that still hasn't completely stopped...and likely never will.

It would appear that Iraq's future may be intertwined with Syria's. There's certainly indicators(and communication coming from Iraq) that the fall of the Assad regime could very likely result in Iraqi Civil War 2.0.
The Sunni's, sponsored mostly by Saudi and Qatar, seem to have concluded that a string of conservative Muslim Brotherhood governments in an arc from Egypt through Palestine, Syria and ultimately into Iraq is the only feasible way to contain Iran's growing influence. Hence the considerable support to try to stabilize the Morsi government in Egypt to anchor one end of the strategy. They are also playing the strategy that maintaining the conflict in the Levant will prevent it from spreading at home in their own territories in the Gulf.

A century ago it was the British Royal Navy that was the instrument to dampen the enthusiasm for the factions to wage war on each other. The British did this to secure its trade routes in the region. The British gave way to the USA (the US Navy Fifth Fleet headquarters are in Bahrain) which took on the role mostly to secure shipping lanes for oil supply. The USA appears to be withdrawing (Fortress America) with only the threat of increasing Russian (and perhaps Chinese?) influence slowing that process it would appear...

I reckon China is a bit of a wildcard, not in a "shoot from the hip" way as I think China tends to take a fairly conservative viewpoint thus far with hard power, but simply in the unknown [INSERT 2015-2030 CHINESE REGIONAL FOREIGN POLICY HERE] way.

I don't see Russia adding much to the equation as they literally don't have much(in terms of influence/control), other than the ability to spoil the implementation of others' foreign policy efforts.

What I fear(beyond poor foreign policy and implementation by the US and other influential parties) is IF the US Administration actually HAD a decent foreign policy TO implement, I doubt it possesses the intestinal fortitude to put sufficient pressure on Russia to get them to back off.

The Russians just left SecState John Kerry in a waiting room for half a day. Diplomacy with the Russians is "different" and I think the US is losing.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

Under this view - it is nothing about a caliphate but all about Saudi Arabia and Qatar protecting themselves against a surging Iran.

If I could, I'd be keen to spend a couple months in Iran traveling and getting some ground truth. I was not far away recently, and some of the folks I worked with had spent the majority of their lives in Iran and provided some interested anecdotal background.

The failed protests a few years back were interesting to watch, and after talking to some folks who've lived there seemed to be largely supported by the educated middle class/affluent, NOT the working class critical mass.

THAT, along with the superficial appearance of Turkey slowly shifting away from secularism leave me wondering what the heck is going on?

Iran's centres of gravity(political/military/economic) DO genuinely seem to have an excessive amount of IRGC/Quds Force influence and control, which is a VERY considerable worry.

But what's the story in neighboring Turkey(another place I plan on, and unlike Iran actually can spend some time in)?

Isn't the Turkish economy booming relative to the EU?

Isn't the direction of Turkey moving counterintuitively to what one would expect in terms of positive economic/quality of life/standard of living metrics going against the secularism trend?

Is that situation in Turkey just a short term conservative spike within the larger long-term secular trend?



Perhaps. There are also those who say that the ultimate goal wasn't control or even 'civilizing', but more in the line of a spoiling attack.

I certainly think that the effect thus far has been that of a spoiling attack - the development of society and infrastructure in Iraq has been set back decades. Afghanistan, likely less so but they were lower to start with.

Whether that was the original objective is far from clear. Certainly a spoiling attack would not have necessitated spending so much blood and money attempting to 'civilize' Iraq for multiple years after the 'win'.

It's worth noting that prior to 2003 Iraq's infrastructure wasn't exactly world class.

Iraq was quite enviable until 1980 and the invasion of Iran and it was a very long and very deep decline from there, up through 2003. But granted, 2003 forward would have seen Iraq descend yet another couple decades on top of the previous decline.

It is worth noting that amongst the "soup" of government/private parties in Kabul recently there was a strong desire that was nearly universal to personally get out of Afghanistan and into Iraq(again for a good few of them).

It's also worth noting that it's worth thinking of Iraq a bit less like a single entity and a bit more like a couple of pieces.

While your description of Iraq may be relevant in places like the South, it certainly doesn't apply to Iraqi Kurdistan from everyone I know who has been there over the past decade.

But Iraq is after all a recent western construct.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

Further to the Sunni-Shia fight:



Egyptian jihadists call for attacks in Shiite countries

By THOMAS JOSCELYNMay 29, 2013

Al Faroq Media regularly publishes Mohammed al Zawahiri's statements and propaganda. The outfit published a statement from 20 Egyptian jihadists, including al Zawahiri, calling for attacks inside Shiite-led countries.

Twenty Egyptian jihadists have issued a statement calling upon Sunnis to launch attacks in Shiite-led countries


Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...#ixzz2UigYhEcd

[c1ue]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

It's worth noting that prior to 2003 Iraq's infrastructure wasn't exactly world class.

Iraq was quite enviable until 1980 and the invasion of Iran and it was a very long and very deep decline from there, up through 2003. But granted, 2003 forward would have seen Iraq descend yet another couple decades on top of the previous decline.

Quite true, but then again, Bush I - Iraq was absolutely nothing but a spoiling attack, and clearly carried out for that specific purpose. Thus I would agree the Iran-Iraq war was a factor, but I do wonder what the relative ratios are between what damage was inflicted in Desert Storm vs. the Iranians.

While your description of Iraq may be relevant in places like the South, it certainly doesn't apply to Iraqi Kurdistan from everyone I know who has been there over the past decade.

I think the supposed unity of the Kurdistan part of Iraq is true only in respect to the rest of Iraq. The reality is that the nation-state of Iraq - whoever is in control - is not going to want to let its oil rich Kurdistan part go its own way. And that's not even taking into account the whole thorny Turkish Kurd question.

Be that as it may, the destabilization of Syria - and indirectly the presently Shia-dominated Iraqi government - seems to be a no-lose situation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. At the worst case, the resulting governments will be unhappy with Sunnis (which they kind of were already). In the best case, they become pro-Sunni. In the more likely case - they become so destabilized that they no longer provide any benefit to the Shia side.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Damned Blefuscudians!

Quite true, but then again, Bush I - Iraq was absolutely nothing but a spoiling attack, and clearly carried out for that specific purpose. Thus I would agree the Iran-Iraq war was a factor, but I do wonder what the relative ratios are between what damage was inflicted in Desert Storm vs. the Iranians.

The Iran-Iraq war certainly suited some, such as:

Israel....taking a regional economic/military adversary off the table(bar any unconventional warfare blowback/instability) off the table indefinitely

It also benefitted global arms traders to an enormous degree(in this exceptionally rare case the US military export industry almost completely sat on the sidelines as a rounding error of the total sold to combatants during the 80's), largely the USSR and France being to two biggest military export victors by far, with many others enjoying lesser benefits.

The Iran-Iraq War is probably the most under-reported conflict(based on combined economic/human cost compared to reportage) in modern human history.

The cost of the war for the two combatants would very roughly add up to about 1 million lives and $1 trillion bucks.

Iraq's attacks on Iranian population centres "War of the Cities" following the Iraqi initiated "Tanker Wars" were two big examples of Iraqi escalation of the conflict, assumed to be in hopes of forcing Iran to seek an end to the war on Iraqi terms. Those two examples alone would have resulted in considerable economic infrastructure damage.

The Gulf War/Desert Storm has some data:

Approx 30,000 dead(mostly Iraqi)
Cost is harder to gauge:

Countries like Jordan got smashed economically as a bordering non-combatant.
It cost the US about $60 billion or so directly, much of it paid for by Saudi/Kuwait/GCC
Germany and Japan handed over about $15-20 billion to the US due to legal/political inability to directly participate
GCC spent another $10-20 billion spreading the love, I presume to countries like Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey

Cost to Iraq? Hard to find data that doesn't include a lot of partisan spin RE: a jillion babies dead because of depleted uranium.

But it's safe to say that while the US led(and dominated) effort to remove Iraq from Kuwait that not only did the US utterly destroy the Iraqi military in Kuwait allowing for it's easy reoccupation by the Kuwaiti royal family, but it also caused some quite considerable damage to Iraqi duel use national infrastructure...particularly transport/logistics, communications, utilities that would inhibit Iraqi command/control/communications and their ability to conduct/support operations in Kuwait and southern Iraq.

But I'd guess quite expensive.

While the US plastered Iraq, it's air campaign(it was mostly an air war campaign) lasted only 5 weeks.

And while the US didn't benefit from much in the way of military exports during the Iran-Iraq War, it did supply the Shah's military that the Iranian Revolution inherited.

The Iranian military, particularly it's Air Force, conducted many extremely successful operations against Iraq that caused a massive amount of damage during the nearly decade long war, even though it was effectively embargoed from western military sales(bar limited Iran-Contra swap).

5 weeks of future war, compared to almost 10 years of high tech WWI.

Looking at Lebanon and the Lebanese people, they've seen their country destroyed god knows how many times through foreign/proxy/internal conflict, and magically recreating it very quickly.

Iraq didn't and/or couldn't. And pre Iran-Iraq War secular-ish Iraq would possibly have been the closest thing to replicating the successful Lebanon/Lebanese formula in the Middle East.

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 think the supposed unity of the Kurdistan part of Iraq is true only in respect to the rest of Iraq. The reality is that the nation-state of Iraq - whoever is in control - is not going to want to let its oil rich Kurdistan part go its own way. And that's not even taking into account the whole thorny Turkish Kurd question.

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.

Be that as it may, the destabilization of Syria - and indirectly the presently Shia-dominated Iraqi government - seems to be a no-lose situation for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. At the worst case, the resulting governments will be unhappy with Sunnis (which they kind of were already). In the best case, they become pro-Sunni. In the more likely case - they become so destabilized that they no longer provide any benefit to the Shia side.

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

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.