Wednesday, August 17, 2005


Interesting Intel Dump post by Jonathan Caverly on the emerging situation in Iraq.

I'd like to write something trying to put some sort of context into the recent coverage of the situation in Basra following Steve Vincent's murder but to be honest I just can't summon up the energy to do so yet.

On the issue of whether Iranian influence is increasing the answer, it seems to me, is an unequivocal Yes.

On the issue of permenant American bases, IF that comes on the table - while it's plausible that there will be Iraqi politicians concerned about growing Iranian influence in Iraq (Sunnis and some Shia) it is going to be well nigh impossible to make the case that permenant American basing in the country once the insurgency is suppressed is in any way whatsoever representative of the will of the Iraqi people. Hell, I don't believe it. I'll say that flat out right now. I would also throw into the mix the notion that it might actually result in the replacement (or augmentation) of a Sunni insurgency by a Shia one.

Anyway, enough of that for now. Go read the Intel Dump piece and give it a chew over


Blogger Alex said...

Any attempt to retain bases in Iraq would be positively quixotic at the moment. There's a meme about British defence policy after WW2 that we constantly sought to establish secure base areas to cope with crises, but then found that the crisis would break out in the base area - from the Suez Canal Zone to Cyprus and Kenya to Aden, the British seat of power in the broad ME kept moving but failed to find a secure home, as the insurgency kept breaking out.

I suppose you could say we managed to retain an "enduring base" in Cyprus, but that was a very different case - this would be much more like the attempt to keep a lump of South Yemen to protect RAF Khormakshar...and we all know how that ended up. If there are "enduring bases", they will be bases in which one endures enemy fire.

10:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home