European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

What can be expected of Europe in Iraq?

by Migeru
Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 08:58:22 AM EST

It seems that European (Union) involvement in sorting out Bush's Iraqi misadventure has become a hot topic again:

An opportunity for Europe to remove the U.S. from Iraq by Magnifico on June 7th, 2008
On Iraq, it's Time to Call Europe by Joerg in Berlin on June 5th, 2008

Jörg's diary especially got me thinking about what could be expected of European Union involvement in Iraq, and what a European strategy should be. My tentative answer is based on two principles: human rights and riding the wave.

Human Rights

It may be unrealistic to think of the EU as postcolonialist, but in any case I personally would like to see European Union foreign policy built around a true concern for Human Rights (counterexample). It is true that Iraq is everyone's problem even if the blame for the current mess can be pinned almost exclusively on the US. A spillover of violence from Iraq would be of concern to Europe, the Middle East is relatively close and accessible, and we need the oil, too. But instead of traditional geopolitical power-plays and grand-chessboard strategy, assume that the EU's concern would simply be to help Iraq contain the bleeding, restore a semblance of dignity and respect for human rights, and allow a civil society to emerge from the ashes. What would be the strategy, and what would be the roadblocks along the way?

Riding the wave

One metaphor that is sometimes seen in geopolitical discussions is that of Judo - use the opponent's momentum for your own goals. This, of course, requires adapting one's goals to the direction in which the opponent is going. Or, in less adversarial terms, going with the flow, riding the wave, following the Tao.

So the first thing to consider is where the flow is going, what the likely outcome would be if things were left to themselves, and whether that can be modified slightly to conform to the EU's goal (again: dignity and human rights in Iraq). I would claim that Iraq is in a civil war and that the likely outcome of political developments in Iraq would be either partition or a loose federation, both along ethnic lines with a special treatment needed for Baghdad and Kirkuk. Also, I would claim that the EU could live with a partitioned Iraq. The goal of respect for human rights is compatible with it as long as efforts are made to accommodate minorities instead of ethnically cleansing them. Politics might become less sectarian along ethnic lines in each of the successor states to a partitioned Iraq, which would help. In a country with three large ethnic groups it is very easy for the system to degenerate into shifting alliances where two of them gang up on the third and that is inherently undesirable.

Short of partition, one could have a confederation or loose federation consisting of Sunni Iraq, Shia Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan, with Baghdad and Kirkuk as multi-ethnic city-states.

Roadblocks

Who would stand in the way of such an endpoint and why? First of all, the Iraqi Sunni would be left with very little water or oil. In addition, they used to be the politically dominant ethnic group under Saddam and would resent either losing access to resources or a marginal role (compared to the Shia) in a federal Iraq.

The Shia Iraq would emerge as the strongest of the parts, to the benefit of Iran. This is not good news for Saudi Arabia. Not only is its particularly toxic Wahhabi regime in the antipodes of Iran theologically, but also Saudi Arabia's oil is sitting under the region where its own Shia minority lives, along the border to Iraq. An independent and oil-rich Shia Iraq would appear to pose a serious internal threat. In fact, it appears that Saudi Arabia would prefer to have another Sunni leader subjugate the Shia regions. They probably would not mind a new Saddam.

It also appears that Turkey wouldn't tolerate an independent (or even an autonomous) Iraqi Kurdistan. This is for internal reasons as Turkey has an unresolved issue with its own Kurdish minority, as well as because there is a Turkmen minority in the Iraqi Kurdistan which Turkey would feel compelled to assist. The conflict around Kirkuk involves this Turkmen minority as well as oil. Note that Turkey is a NATO member.

The US would side with Saudi Arabia and the Iraqi Sunni against Iran and the Iraqi Shia and probably be ambivalent about the Kurdish/Turkish side of the conflict.

Turkey

The EU could potentially broker an understanding between the Turks and the Kurds, using EU accession to bargain with Turkey. In this respect, it would really help if the European right wing (and notably the French) stopped posturing against Turkey.

The EU would point out to Turkey that EU accession is impossible without respect for minority rights which entail recognition of the Kurds in Turkey and the granting of some sort of political autonomy.

The EU would also put pressure on the Iraqi Kurds on the issue of minority rights for the Turkmen in Iraqi Kurdistan, and point to its parallel efforts to help the Turkish Kurds. The argument would be that both problems must be solved together and that if the Iraqi Kurds don't play along and make Turkey feel threatened there's little the EU can do to prevent Turkey from attempting to occupy the Iraqi Kurdistan.

On this, one has to assume a modicum of good will and sanity on both sides. If the Kurds make Turkey feel it cannot afford not to invade them, there's nothing the EU can do to stop Turkey. And, worryingly, all the anti-Turkish rhetoric in Europe is reducing the EU's leverage.

The Sunni

The Saudi are, as I said above, a toxic regime. But could a moderate faction be found in Sunni Iraq which would be content without access to Iraq's oil in exchange for a favoured economic relationship with the EU? Is development aid and economic partnership agreements enough of a carrot to get the Sunnis to give up on a war they cannot win given the demographics?

Iran

Iran would have no problems with this scenario - except that any or all of Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US might feel tempted to attack Iran if it appears to be getting too powerful. The EU might try to tie this to the ongoing negotiations about Iran's nuclear program. The EU could provide a credible guarantee that Iran is not going for the Bomb while helping Iran use its oil wealth to develop alternative energy resources (possibly civilian nuclear but that would make those credible assurances harder to believe by a paranoid Israel, Saudi Arabia and US).

Possible bad outcomes

The first is that Turkey invades and occupies Iraqi Kurdistan.

The second is that the US extends the conflict to Iran.

It seems to me there is a relatively high likelihood that within 5 years Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan will all be in flames (and Pakistan, too) which is definitely the outcome the EU should be trying to avert.

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? | 137 comments (137 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 9)

If you think (only) Europe can save the world, I'm sorry to disappoint you.

But there are some things that the EU could work on.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM EST

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 7)

European Tribune - What can be expected of Europe in Iraq?

It seems to me there is a relatively high likelihood that within 5 years Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan will all be in flames (and Pakistan, too) which is definitely the outcome the EU should be trying to avert.

At which point Obama's 'undivided Jerusalem' rhetoric starts to look like a very bad thing.

While everyone is in raptures over Obama's non-Bush-ness and the fact that his teeth aren't yellow, Obama's foreign policy may be a disaster waiting to happen.

No one likes posters who who say this over at the Big Orange Satan.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 2)

Sure. Unfortunately, so are the policies of all the other possibilities.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 3)

Obama's 'undivided Jerusalem' rhetoric

was appalling. It is such a grotesque ritual for US politicians to grovel before AIPAC. And it totally stymies any chance for a resolution of the Palestinian question. Another reason to pray that with Jim Webb's help, the Dems can peel away enough Scots-Irish to enable them to win without major support from the Jewish community. Then we could perhaps have a rational foreign policy--at least under Democratic administrations. But I dream.

But actually, this would be in the interest of Israel and all of their American sympathizers. It could be the only way that we don't end up with a Monument to the "World's Three Great Monotheisms" in the area now occupied by Al Asqa Mosque and the remains of the Second Temple. That monument being a mile wide, five hundred food deep glass lined crater where those two religious artifacts now stand.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 12:56:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 1)

His rhetoric was indeed surprising. As a neo-con, I would probably be, well, crucified if I brought that up here, so I'm glad you did.

However, I wouldn't take it too seriously. From my perspective as a long-time consumer of US politics, it is clearly triangulation. Obama's politics of hope may end up meaning "say everything and anything and hope for the best".

I have two, mutually exclusive theories about what Obama meant:

1) It wasn't just triangulation, it was clumsy triangulation, revealing his lack of experience and delicacy on this matter. Obama could have easily met expectations at his AIPAC address by repeating boilerplate Democratic talking points that stop well short of what he said. The Jewish vote in the US is influence by AIPAC, but not controlled by it; Obama's demographics favor white collars and academic robes, which is generally speaking the Jewish demographic as well. So he already has most of their vote without pandering to AIPAC, and it isn't like he is so desperate for money that he needs AIPAC fundraising. And AIPAC knows a pander when they see it.

Obama is a quick study, and will probably clean up his rhetoric in time for the general election. But he will pay a certain price for absurdly and unnecessarily trying to get to the right of McCain on this.

And, it could mean that his foreign policy in office will be equally ad hoc, which could be, as you say, a disaster waiting to happen.

OR...

2) It was clever triangulation. The purpose was to make headlines, and to insulate him from his past association with Palestinian radicals (in my opinion) like Rashid Khalidi (about whom AIPAC audience members quizzed him). An intriguing possibility is that the undivided Jerusalem rhetoric was designed to get Hamas to withdraw its "endorsement". Which they did, conveniently just a few days after the remark, but with remarkably mild rhetoric (for Hamas, that is). Obama, having got what he wanted, will probably "clarify" that he meant an undivided "open" city, not an undivided Israeli city, or perhaps pretend he never said it and reiterate US policy boilerplate. Or something like that.

This could mean that his foreign policy will be downright Machiavellian!

So, I don't know if 1) or 2) is correct, but either way, I can guarantee you he didn't mean it as a serious statement of policy.

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 03:47:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

If I had to choose I'd go for 2) because Obama's campaign has proved too media savvy for a blunder like 1). After all, the timing was chosen carefully to be the first major policy speech after the end of the primary voting season.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 05:18:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 1)

If you recall, a while ago his allegedly media savvy campaign leaked that they had privately reassured the Canadians that he didn't mean all that scary stuff about ending NAFTA.

But that leak blew up in his face, big time. Progressives alienated, Canada embarrassed, advisors resigned or sidelined, etc.

If on the other hand we assume his team was being clever in the NAFTA incident, what does it mean that he reassured Canada, but not Mexico? Under this theory, he is sending the message that his anti-NAFTA rhetoric was directed mainly against Mexico, which sounds uncomfortably like a racist pander to steal Anglo blue-collar votes away from Clinton. And, there's plenty of anti-Hispanic animus in the African-American community, although it is taboo to talk about it.

So, you may be right, but I am still torn between 1) and 2).

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 09:50:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

No, I had missed that incident.

Maybe he's just the least incompetent of a field of 16 incompetent presidential candidates.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 10:16:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iran (4.00 / 3)

The second is that the US extends the conflict to Iran.

How will Europe prevent this then? "Limited" attacks on Iran by the U.S. are scheduled for August if the report in the Asia Times is to be believed? And if the U.S. doesn't attack, then Israel will likely attack Iran according to The Guardian.

If an attack on Iran is allowed to happen, what are the chances that Europe will escape being drawn into a greater conflict?

If Iran's nuclear program is for energy, which makes sense to me, then how is it any different than the nuclear programs Bush and Sarkozy have been delivering across the Middle East and North Africa?

Would Europe use its clout to tell the Bush administration and Olmert administration that if they attack Iran, then there will be considerable economic and diplomatic consequences?

What should European nations and the EU be doing to prevent the spread of war into Iran?

by Magnifico on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 02:00:43 PM EST

Re: Iran (4.00 / 3)

Asia Times: Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August' (May 28, 2008)

The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Oh, goody, and that's supposedly legal under US law, now?

AFP via Google: US Senate brands Iran Guard 'terrorist organization'
(Sep 26, 2007)

The US Senate has called for Iran's Revolutionary Guards to be officially designated a "foreign terrorist organization," a day after the House of Representatives passed a similar measure.
The Senate on Wednesday voted 76-22 for the non-binding amendment sponsored by Republican Jon Kyl and independent Joseph Lieberman to place the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, or Pasdaran, on the US terrorist blacklist.
Such a designation if adopted by the US government would open the corps and affiliated companies to economic sanctions.

The Guardian: Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons (June 7 2008)

Israel "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be "unavoidable" if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs.
Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."

The transport minister, huh?

Ehud Barak, the defence minister and Labour party leader, said Israel needed to do everything possible to ensure that the Iranians did not obtain nuclear power.

Did I read that right? Israel doesn't want Iran to obtain nuclear power? Or is this a mistranslation of become a nuclear power?

The only thing the EU can do is convince Iran of the seriousness of this threat so it takes steps to remove any excuse for an attack by either the US or Israel. This seems to be happening

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, is shortly to lead a team of high-ranking diplomats from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany, who will present a package of incentives to persuade Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has rejected it in advance.

Of course Iran has rejected this, but the diplomatic mission will still proceed and Iran might announce it is suspending enrichment and allowing IAES inspectors into its facilities.

As to the attack by the US... well, it cannot be prevented if the US is committed to carrying it out, but if those Senators confirm the rumours the EU diplomats should remind the US that is an illegal action.

You ask If an attack on Iran is allowed to happen, what are the chances that Europe will escape being drawn into a greater conflict? but I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies, or by Israel or the US, or why it should rush troops to the assistance of the US. I don't believe Iran responding to an illegal attack by the US is grounds for application of NATO's Article 5, but I could be wrong. In any case, if the US demanded it this could be the end of NATO

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

Iran already had a possible casus belli with the arrest of that British boat, but should know better than to give the US an excuse for an attack. Maybe the diplomatic mission by Solana will also discuss this.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 3)

Migeru:

I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies, or by Israel or the US, or why it should rush troops to the assistance of the US. I don't believe Iran responding to an illegal attack by the US is grounds for application of NATO's Article 5, but I could be wrong. In any case, if the US demanded it this could be the end of NATO

It would be Iraq 2.0. And since Iraq 1.0 (the original 1990 attack was the beta release) gained almost unwavering support from a lapdog EU I wouldn't expect anything different this time around.

It's the US which needs a diplomatic onslaught, not Iran. Not that it would help the outcome, but it would put some distance between an insane US regime and an EU which so far has been complicitly compliant, offering only token resistance.

If Brussels grew a spine, Iran could turn into the US's own Suez. But Brussels won't, so we can look forward to even more expensive oil, and one last military disaster.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 03:33:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 4)

It's not Brussels, it's the member states.

I was shocked at the bile displayed by the guy from the Commission's US desk as he briefed us on EU-US relations when I visited the Commission last November.

No love lost, I can assure you.

But foreign policy is a National issue.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:14:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 3)

Wasn't Barroso the host of one of those strategy meetings Bush, Blair and Aznar used to have before they started the Iraq war? And Solana was General Secretary of NATO. Are you sure this animosity isn't restricted to the lower and medium ranks?

The plural of anecdote is bullshit.

by generic on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 3)

Yes and yes.

I'm talking about the career civil service people, not the political appointees.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 2)

Solana is European Council, not European Commission. (He's Secretary General of the Council, interestingly, as well as Mr. CFSP)

Solana was the NATO civilian head during the Serbia bombing campaign - while I still respect his intellectual and diplomatic capacity I think he's a total sell-out.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (none / 1)

Iraq 1.0 (the original 1990 attack was the beta release) gained almost unwavering support from a lapdog EU

You exaggerate.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 3)

Or not.

I mean unwavering tacit support for rendition flights, intelligence gathering and sharing, and other essentials.

Brussels is of course shocked that these things have happened - not that they continue to, naturally - but I don't remember there being a great deal of action to stop them.

The EU is good at making a disapproving noise about US adventuring, but doesn't seem interested in doing anything much that might put real pressure on the US - like sanctions, or even just giving senior US diplomats a formal stern talking to.

There certainly weren't any sanctions against any of the member states who chose to send troops to Iraq.

How illegal is a war if no one is prosecuted for it?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 06:11:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 2)

Again, all of that is the exclusive competence of the Member States individually or collegiately as the Council.

The European Parliament issued a scathing report on the rendition - completer despite their inability to subpoena anyone or to hear evidence that a member state considers critical to their "national security".

Dick Marty of the Council of Europe also produced a substantial report.

None of this is about "Brussels", it's about the national governments.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 06:15:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (none / 1)

Scathing reports are exactly as useful as sternly worded letters.

To date Brussels has threatened sanctions against Italy, Israel, the Saudis and Iran, for various reasons.

The EU also threatened sanctions against Poland and Romania for hosting CIA jails. So Brussels certainly does have leverage, and is willing to consider using it.

But Brussels didn't threaten sanctions against any of the countries which sent troops to Iraq. In fact there was a Press Communiqué in 2004 which said:

The EU and the GCC stated their determination to assist the Iraqi people as they enter a new
era in the history of their country.
The EU and the GCC expressed concern about the security situation in Iraq, noting that this
remains a major impediment to successful political and reconstruction processes. They
condemned all violence and terrorist attacks, including the kidnappings and brutal murder of
hostages. They deplored the taking of hostages in all circumstances and called on those
responsible to release immediately and unharmed all remaining hostages and to desist from
any further such activity.
The EU and the GCC expressed their abhorrence at recent evidence of mistreatment of
prisoners in Iraqi prisons. The EU and the GCC condemned any instances of abuse and
degradation of prisoners in Iraq, which are contrary to international law, including the Geneva
Conventions. The EU and the GCC welcomed the commitment by relevant Governments to
bring to justice any individuals responsible for such acts involving the abuse of Iraqi
detainees, and their commitment to rectify any failure to adhere to international humanitarian
law.

This was in a formal statement by official representatives of the EU, speaking for the EU.

So it's not impressive that it doesn't read like a forceful condemnation of an illegal war and occupation, or of a government which had been saying since 2002 that the Geneva Conventions didn't apply to its interrogators.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 06:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (none / 0)

correct link

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 06:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Member states versus the union (none / 1)

As successful as the E.U. in building a strong economy, it seems unable to turn that economic power into diplomatic clout.

The lack of a single security policy by the E.U. member states is what I see as the Achilles' heel of the European Union. Until Europe can speak with one voice internationally, powers such as Russia, China, and the U.S. will continue to play one European nation off another nation.

I find this paradox to be an interesting, but flawed creation. I wonder what the U.S. would have been like if the member states each had their own foreign policy?

by Magnifico on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 11:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (4.00 / 2)

Europe is not powerless to prevent the U.S. from attacking Iran, but standing up to U.S. militancy has great risks.

As to the attack by the US... well, it cannot be prevented if the US is committed to carrying it out, but if those Senators confirm the rumours the EU diplomats should remind the US that is an illegal action.

It could possibly be prevented, but it depends on how badly European nations wanted to prevent it. More on this in a bit.

You ask If an attack on Iran is allowed to happen, what are the chances that Europe will escape being drawn into a greater conflict? but I don't see why the EU would be attacked by Iran or its allies...

You answer this yourself in regards to Iraq. You write, "A spillover of violence from Iraq would be of concern to Europe, the Middle East is relatively close and accessible". Spillover from Iran. Even if it is attacks on Americans in Europe, it will be messy.

So could Europe block an attack on Iran if Europe or Russia aligned itself with Iran? I do not know. Would it make the situation too hot, or would the U.S. think twice before risking war with Russia or any number of European nations and go ahead and attack Iran?

If the U.S. is not prevented from attacking and invading Iran, what is to stop the U.S. from continuing these invasions? Internal U.S. collapse?

Is U.S. being appeased by allowing it Iraq? Will it stop with just Iraq?

by Magnifico on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 11:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (4.00 / 2)

Is U.S. being appeased by allowing it Iraq? Will it stop with just Iraq?

I have been convinced that yes and no for years.

If the U.S. is not prevented from attacking and invading Iran, what is to stop the U.S. from continuing these invasions? Internal U.S. collapse?

The US hasn't put itself on a war footing internally (economically and politically) as it did in WWII. I think the US has the potential to go on for much longer. Especially if the public can be told that the rest of the world is out to get them, which is what they would be told if NATO allies allied with Russia to block an attack on Iran (or after such an attack). Eurabia, the Russians and the Chinese are coming! Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia! Like I said above, where the UK's chip would fall is an interesting question.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 02:55:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (4.00 / 2)

The only way the US could put itself on a war footing against - say - China is by outsourcing all of it weapons production, to China.

There isn't the industrial base needed for a war footing. Not that the next war would necessarily be industrial - at least, not for long - but politically the population wouldn't support a war without physical coercion, and physically the US doesn't have the energy needed to re-industrialise itself.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 12:59:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (none / 1)

There isn't the industrial base needed for a war footing. Not that the next war would necessarily be industrial - at least, not for long - but politically the population wouldn't support a war without physical coercion, and physically the US doesn't have the energy needed to re-industrialise itself.

Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, Ford and General Motors might beg to differ. The one thing we do still have is the war making ability. It might take a coup to bring it off properly, though. Especially if the Dems win in the fall. If the Repubs win that might itself constitute a de facto coup.

Victory would probably only be possible through massive genocide and the environmental consequences would likely make it pyrrhic--nuclear winter if things went nuclear; world wide plagues if biological; massive genetic damage if chemical. If the US went for control of Iran it is hard seeing Russia and China taking this quietly. Plus we would have to deal with Pakistan and Afganistan. The religious would truly have reason to hope for the rapture.

What would prevent this is simply lack of sufficient military capability. To bring this off it would be necessary to double the size of the ground forces. That would take more than a year. With the Bush administration expiring in seven months about all we could do now is inflict the maximum damage from the air. They might do that, figuring that that would get McCain elected and commit him to finishing what they had started. Stay tuned.

That we are having such a discussion is itself an eloquent explanation of why I refer to us as a nation of dumb fucks. Dumb fucks with a taste for psychopaths.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (none / 0)

I am not predicting that this will happen, but I am worried. I consider it a real possibility. As I have said, these people will not go quietly. I will graciously accept my ARgeezer Crystal Ball of Doom Award.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 12:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (none / 0)

But first fix the color. Some sort of putrid purple would be more appropriate.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 12:06:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (none / 0)

LIke so?

[AR Geezer's Crystal Ball of Doom™ Technology]

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 01:46:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe is not impotent, just risk adverse (none / 0)

C'est bon!

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 10:11:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 2)

attacks on Iran by the U.S. are scheduled for August if the report in the Asia Times is to be believed

According to various worldwide "media outlets" they've been scheduled about 10 times already.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 02:08:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iran (4.00 / 2)

And we here were fretting about an October surprise for the 2006 elections.

This Iran thing is like the paradox of the unexpected hanging.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 02:10:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean (none / 1)

it will happen unexpectedly to anyone? So following that logic, as long as we constantly predict and speculate it to happen at a certain time, it will not occur?

Great! Continue!

by Nomad on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:33:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (4.00 / 3)

Inverse quantum politics - the outcome remains unknown as long as it continues to be observed.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 at 11:06:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (4.00 / 4)

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Quantum Zeno effect

The quantum Zeno effect is a quantum mechanical phenomenon first predicted by soviet physicist Leonid Khalfin in 1958.^[1] Later it was described by George Sudarshan and Baidyanaith Misra of the University of Texas in 1977.^[2] It describes the situation in which an unstable particle, if observed continuously, will never decay. This occurs because every measurement causes the wavefunction to "collapse" to a pure eigenstate of the measurement basis. In the context of this effect, an "observation" can simply be the absorption of a particle, with no observer in any conventional sense.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (none / 1)

The quantum equivalent of "a watched kettle never boils?"

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jun 10th, 2008 at 06:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You mean (none / 0)

Precisely.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 11th, 2008 at 02:18:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 12)

The EU has very little leverage of any sort on the US, Israel or the Middle east
Hence an EU concern for human rights there is largely moot
It is in Israel's interest to keep Iraq weak, divided, and if necessary, at war with itself
Iran becoming more powerful is a bad thing in itself, as far as Israel/US is concerned. The nuclear issue is the pretext - even civilian use of nuclear power increases Iran's prestige in the region - and so must be stopped.
Israel largely runs US foreign policy in the region - to a degree which is truly remarkable and which highlights the flaws in the US political system - as often this is to the detriment of US interests in themselves.
Nobody cares about the Kurds - except the Kurds themselves - and they don't matter - therefore nobody cares
ibid - the Palestinians - who are a non people as far as Zionists are concerned
It's about Oil and power stupid. The Saudis have it - so they can be as repressive as they like.
McCain is not going to win in November if the USA is not at war at that time. Therefore the US will be at war with Iran in November - if only to make Obama look like a naive appeaser without military experience or proper patriotic credentials. The fact that thousands will die to make this happen doesn't even qualify as collateral damage any more - as the damage is to the enemy, the Democrats, and the US underclass who actually end up having to do the fighting..
The EU will not do anything effective when this happens - so everyone will ignore it - except perhaps to plant a few terrorist bombs to get it on side...
I am not a cynic.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 6)

[Schnittger's Crystal Ball of Doom™ Technology]

I can't say I disagree with you - but you shoud also cross-post this comment in Joerg's diary to see what he has to say.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:11:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 4)

Ah, but you are being cynical. Not any disqualification of what you are writing. I for my money still don't see that the US is going to war with Iran during the remainder of the Bush presidency. They haven't got the necessary preparation, see for instance the failed war Israel waged on Hezbollah and how events have unfolded in Lebanon since.

As for your 1), the point is to acquire leverage. For instance, the EU would have more leverage in the Middle East if the UK were no longer in Iraq, and if it would help out Syria and Jordan with the Iraqi refugees.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 06:15:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

war with Iran (4.00 / 4)

McCain is not going to win in November if the USA is not at war at that time. Therefore the US will be at war with Iran in November - if only to make Obama look like a naive appeaser without military experience or proper patriotic credentials.

War with Iran will not end without full scale conflict, ir oil embargo, $2000 barrel and nuclear strikes. I don't see it happening.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: war with Iran (none / 1)

It doesn't have to be a full scale war - even the appearance of war will do to polarise opinion in the US enough to make Obama unelectable. Remember the shock doctrine - you have to really scare people that something really awful will/could maybe happen - so that they will run to the wise old head with the experience and military credentials.

This has nothing to do with actual military preparedness or any rational analysis of what is to be gained/lost in the longer term. All that matters is what happens in November - after that the EU/UN can take over to clear up the mess. Do you think Bush cares about the long term consequences?

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 04:18:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: war with Iran (4.00 / 5)

I'm not so sure. People in the US really seem to have had enough of the Iraq war, now that it has become personal in the form of body bags and high gas prices.

Patriotism in the US at the moment seems to be deep as a puddle. A bit of flag waving, a bit of posturing, a bit of shouting at liberals and - hey presto - you're a patriot.

When war means real sacrifice and real hardship - which a war with Iran would, in the form of even more body bags and even higher gas prices - the appetite for aggression is going fade quickly.

So it would take at least another 9/11 on US soil to make a difference. And so many people are so cynical about 9/11 already that they're just as likely to blame Bush for not protecting them as they are to vote for a militarist noob.

McCain is already taking a beating as a Bush surrogate, when his campaign has barely started. A few months from now it will be too late to break that association.

Even losing a city wouldn't do it. And I'm not sure that Bush is really all that interested in continuing for another few years after suspending the Constitution for security reasons.

I suppose Cheney might decide to nuke Washington and declare himself emperor in chief once the pesky government has been removed, but I don't think even Cheney is insane enough to do that.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: war with Iran (4.00 / 2)

Americans love endless war and it makes them vote for hard right candidates always and without exception. Don't you know anything?

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 02:13:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: war with Iran (4.00 / 2)

It doesn't have to be a full scale war - even the appearance of war will do to polarise opinion in the US enough to make Obama unelectable.

I give up.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 02:20:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

Israel largely runs US foreign policy in the region - to a degree which is truly remarkable and which highlights the flaws in the US political system - as often this is to the detriment of US interests in themselves.

This is bigoted bullshit, you should be ashamed. The fact that the conspiracy obsessed far right agrees with you, should tell you all you need to know.

The government of Israel is separate from American Jews. Neither of them have any special position in US law or politics that isn't available to any other well organized ethnic or other interest group. They're just very good at what they do. They have great influence, but they've earned it the same way everyone else does.

AIPAC and the Saudi lobby are roughly equal in power, although the basis for that is power is quite different (grass roots in one case, oil power in another case).

Nobody cares about the Kurds - except the Kurds themselves - and they don't matter - therefore nobody cares

Well, some people do care. To me, the protection of the Kurds under the no-fly zones, and their liberation after the invasion, will go down in history. They represent the third Middle Eastern region (other than Turkey and Israel) who have embraced democracy, pluralism, and reasonably secular government. They are corrupt as hell, and they need to resolve their dispute with Turkey, but all that can be worked on.

As Christopher Hitches has documented, the Kurds are also a fine example of how true, secular socialist ideas can take root in the Muslim world. Can someone please explain to me why Progressives don't embrace the Kurds, or at least, the Kurdish socialists? Are we pretending that Saddam was somehow an authentic socialist?

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 04:40:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 1)

Firstly, he made no mention of Jews. He said Israel, and I have no reason to believe he didn't mean Israel. Secondly, you seem to agree with him, if for "by great influence" you substitute "largely runs": you have a disagreement as to how great the influence is which you can't resolve by assertion. Thirdly, you left "well-funded" out of the requirements for influence in US politics.

There are other analogues to AIPAC, of course: the Cuban exiles running policy on Cuba or the Armenians having a disproportionate influence globally on policy with regard to Turkey. None of these groups have an influence that is obviously of benefit to wider US interests: AIPAC, on behalf of the extreme Israeli nationalists, is just the one with the influence in the most dangerous place on earth and is the one tied up with all sorts of bizarre and scary religious beliefs, prejudices and twisted propaganda from all sides. Nor, of course, does AIPAC speak for American Jews, so I really don't know why you mentioned them.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 05:00:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

Israel qualifies as "reasonably secular?" Alright, compared to most other states in the region it does (and compared to the other major American client state it most certainly does), but isn't that setting the bar rather low?

Further, progressives do care about the Kurds. But progressives are not in power. And those who are in power demonstrably do not care about the Kurds. Unless they can use them as a whip to bully Turkey with (or, as in the case of the no-fly zones, use them as an excuse to weaken an uncooperative former client state's hold on its natural resources).

And, well, I never understood the degree of support the US lavishes upon Israel. I can understand holding your hand under a client state, and I can understand favouring the most dependent client states over the more independent. But considering the number of enemies and other headaches the US gets out of supporting Israel, I have to wonder why they think it's worth the bother.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 07:36:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

John in Michigan USA:

To me, the protection of the Kurds under the no-fly zones, and their liberation after the invasion, will go down in history. They represent the third Middle Eastern region (other than Turkey and Israel) who have embraced democracy, pluralism, and reasonably secular government. They are corrupt as hell, and they need to resolve their dispute with Turkey, but all that can be worked on.

Let's see:

Iraqui Kurds: democracy, pluralism, secular government, corrupt as hell, dispute with Turkey (euphemism for supporting terrorists in Turkey)
Turkey: democracy, pluralism, secular government, to which I would add: the military interferes with politics, they don't recognise ethnic minorities, denies the Armenian genocide, probably corrupt as hell, too
Israel: democracy, pluralism, secular government, to which I add: corrupt as hell, illegally occupies territory since 1967 and violates human rights of its occupied population, has an official religion that even affects nationality laws, constantly at war with its neighbours

However, unlike the US the EU cannot but engage Israel and Turkey because the Mediterranean basin must be an area of peace and security for Europe's own narrow interest.

Anyway, I pointed out in the diary that mediating in the Turkish-Kurdish conflict is an important task that the EU must attempt. I just don't think it's all that easy.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 07:50:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 3)

Now crossposted at Atlantic Review by nanne.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 05:20:33 PM EST

LOL (4.00 / 5)

"French" is still an insult, apparently.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

And there is no peak oil.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 01:11:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (4.00 / 3)

Not only that, but doubting ever so slightly that "Iraq is an independent country since 2004" or merely noting that "Iraq is in a civil war" seems to be grounds for being called a "douchebag" and being accused of "neo-colonialist, patriarchial and aggresively phallagocentric (sic) disdain for the sovereigny of 3rd world countries".

Welcome to the French club, Mig.

Europeans think a hundred miles is a long way. Americans think a hundred years is a long time.

by Bernard on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 01:18:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (4.00 / 3)

Avec plaisir.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (4.00 / 6)

Migeru,

I apologize on behalf of my American compatriots for their rude response to your thoughtful piece. Joerg's blog has been hijacked by the worst kind of extremists who respond to any criticism of the US with hate. I have pretty much stopped commenting there after they kept calling Barack Obama a "communist Muslim".

Thankfully, they represent only a fringe group: the Bushist dead-enders.

Dialog International

by DowneastDem (david.vickrey (at) post.harvard.edu) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

Who are the American counterparts of European Atlanticists? Those commenters at Atlantic Review have nothing but contempt for Europe.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

Well, you can find some at Steve Clemon's blog, The Washington Note (www.thewashingtonnote.com).

Dialog International

by DowneastDem (david.vickrey (at) post.harvard.edu) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 05:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

I'm shocked, he actually engages with the Iranians!

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 05:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

Mig, now you know why we call them Yahoos. Smearing with shit is what the Yahoos do. But we didn't invent it. Swift described it well 18th century England. However, Americans may claim place of pride in the number and vociferousness of our Yahoos.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 01:47:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (4.00 / 3)

Swift was actually Dean of Christ Church Caτhedral in Dublin which gave him ample opportunity to observe Yahoos in action. Come to think of it, the Christ Church restoration fund should tap Yahoo for come contributions in the light of them ripping off the name...

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 01:59:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

Come to think of it, the Christ Church restoration fund should tap Yahoo for come contributions in the light of them ripping off the name.

Sounds like a plan. Some of the corporate officers might be willing to donate. It would be nifty to obtain an official grant of right to use, but does Christ Church have any claim on Swift's literary legacy? Might not really matter. I once suggested to the principal of a local elementary school in L.A. that was located about a mile from JBL headquarters that he ask Sid Harmon to donate a system. His wife, Jane Harmon, is a US Congresswoman. JBL came through. Not only donated the materials but performed the installation. If you are local, suggest it to someone involved with fund raising for the restoration. Can't hurt.

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 02:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

Silly me - its St. Patrick's Cathedral - a few hundred yards down the road that Swift was Dean of. He is also associated with St. Patrick's Hospital.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 1)

EURIKA!

I FOUND IT, FRANK.

What the church could provide in return for substantial donations is a blessing of the Yahoos, an exorcism of the Microsoft demons and a Te Deum. They certainly should be willing to perform the blessing.

I couldn't tell from their web sites if they are Catholic or Anglican. I would have thought Swift to have been Anglican, given the era and the domination of Ireland by England. The only hint was that the Holy See would not let good Catholics enter as late as the 1970s. This shouldn't matter, as the liturgies are very similar. Do you know what happened with St. Patrick's and Christ Church after Irish independence?

If sanity be culturally normative, then by the norms of this culture I claim insanity.

by ARGeezer (argeezer a in a circle yahoo dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 05:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dean Swift (none / 1)

They are both still in active use as Church of Ireland (= Anglican) Cathedrals a few hundred yards apart close to the current and historic centre of Dublin. The first public performance of Handel's Messiah was in a hall close by in 1742. Both are very beautiful buildings.

"It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 06:15:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL (none / 0)

This from the guy who cites documented racists favorably, makes lame excuses about vetting, but won't give anyone he disagrees with the same benefit of the doubt or the opportunity to clarify. Mostly, what we get from David is instant condemnation and politically correct hypocrisy. I've tried reaching out to him, but he persists in his knee-jerk assumptions. His attitude is a positive barrier to international dialog.

__
I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.

by John in Michigan USA on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 at 04:53:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 5)

I know I've posted this quote before, but now, five years on, it is still stunningly prescient of my country's current predicament in Iraq.

Thinking About Iraq (II) - New York Times

Let's start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it will say one of two things.
It could say, ''Congratulations! You've just won the Arab Germany -- a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very soon.''
Or the envelope could say, ''You've just won the Arab Yugoslavia -- an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new Saddam.''
In the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he is. In the second scenario, Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems. And we will know which we've won only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this question, because they don't know either.

The neocons gambled on the first scenario and found themselves utterly unprepared to deal with the second. And nothing has changed very much since the statue came down. Only all the numbers have gotten bigger.

I confess I am at a loss. I do not know what anyone can do about Iraq now to salvage the situation. I do not see any good outcomes given the current situation. All I see is a nexus.

European Tribune - Dune

a nexus, a meeting place of countless delicate decisions, beyond which the path was hidden from the prescient eye

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 08:45:29 PM EST

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 3)

[Moustache of Understanding Alert]

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 03:01:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 3)

"I do not know what anyone can do about Iraq now to salvage the situation. I do not see any good outcomes given the current situation."

How about this: The U.S. pulls out completely and allows whatever is going to happen to happen. A new strong man (or woman, or organization) will eventually get control, and there will be a new version of Saddam Hussein or Benazir Bhutto or the Saudi family to run things. What exactly is the problem?

by asdf on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 07:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 5)

You mean other than the million or so Iraqis who will die in the crossfire? Probably seems like a pretty big problem to them. And even that might be counted a good outcome, in the bizarro world the neocons have made, if it could be contained in Iraq. It can't. It won't.

Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, will be drawn in. Now we can probably count the casualties in the millions. Syria and Jordan are already under strain with the refugees just from our little prelude. Wait til they become logistical side issues of a regional war. Not likely that Israel can or will remain uninvolved.

With half the world's oil supply put at risk it doesn't stop there. China, Russia, the US, Europe. All of them have vested interests in what happens next and all of them have nukes. I don't even want to go there.

Yes, we need to get American troops out of Iraq. For any number of reasons. But we cannot just turn our backs and pretend we don't see the bloodbath that follows. Katrina is about five miles offshore. The levees aren't gonna hold. Saying just leave is not a plan.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 07:25:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not so sure (none / 1)

See how Basra became more peaceful as the Brits left the city.

This is taken as a certainty, but I don't see why if you take away the biggest irritant, things would necessarily get worse. In any case, we won't avoid it, and the longer we wait, the more hate and hopelessness has been created - and the more people get killed by the thousands.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not so sure (4.00 / 2)

The departure of the British left Basra under control of the Sadrist militia, which was then driven out by the Iraqi army with British and American backup about 3 months later. So it's hard to tell to what extent the removal of the British made Basra more peaceful. Maybe it's just that as fight turned to being among Iraqi factions rather than involve Westerners we stopped hearing about it.

Wikipedia: Battle of Basra (2008)

The Battle of Basra began on March 25, 2008, when the Iraqi Army launched an operation (code-named Saulat al-Fursan, meaning Operation Charge of the Knights in Arabic) to drive the Mahdi Army militia out of the southern Iraqi city of Basra. The operation was the first major operation to be planned and carried out by the Iraqi Army since the invasion of 2003.
Iraqi forces faced heavier than anticipated resistance from Mahdi Army militia inside the city and the offensive stalled, requiring American and British air and artillery support, eventually resulting in a stand-off.
Following a ceasefire negotiated in Iran on March 31, Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew his fighters from the streets, but had gained a major political victory. However, the Iraqi Army, reinforced with brigades from other parts of Iraq, including the Iraqi 1st Division from al-Anbar, continued to carry out slower, more deliberate clearing operations in militia strongholds. The Hillah Special Weapons and Tactics Unit, as well as Iraqi Special Operations Forces (ISOF), carried out a number of targeted raids on militia leaders. By April 20, the Iraqi army had taken control of the last major district controlled by the Mahdi Army and by April 24, Iraqi forces claimed to be in full control of the city centre.^[17]^[18]

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:20:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm not so sure (4.00 / 2)

This is taken as a certainty, but I don't see why if you take away the biggest irritant, things would necessarily get worse.

I wish I could believe that. I'm sorry, but I don't. American troops are not the biggest irritant, just to most obvious at this moment.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:40:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I hear you, and I don't know (4.00 / 3)

It's just that at this point, there's no way Iraq regains any kind of sovereignty without going through that phase of clarification. The alternative is many years of US occupation, slowly draining both countries.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (jeromeguillet@yahoo.fr) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hear you, and I don't know (4.00 / 2)

My case, which is more or less of an extension of Powell's Pottery Barn Principle, has been pretty thoroughly debunked by a blogger called Hurria over at BooTrib. I don't know Hurria at all, have no idea what his or her agenda might be, but whoever it is pretty clearly knows a lot more about the situation in Iraq than I do. And Hurria says the very best thing the US could do is get out, and the sooner the better.

Booman Tribune ~ Will the Slaughter Get Worse if the U.S. Leaves Iraq? A Common-Sense Analysis

Certainly, Iraq would not suddenly turn into Shangri-la, or become the Switzerland of the Middle East as soon as the Americans left. It IS possible that the violence and killing not directly attributable to U.S. actions might increase somewhat in the beginning, but it is extremely unlikely that it could increase enough to exceed or even replace the violence and death caused by the "coalition" forces and the resistance. The capacity simply is not there, nor very likely is the will. In addition, the primary stimulus for much if not most of the violence would have been removed.
There is simply no chance of any improvement as long as the U.S. is in Iraq. On the contrary, as the past four plus years have shown clearly, as long as the U.S. is there the violence will continue to escalate and broaden, and the overall situation will continue to deteriorate.
Iraqis have been living together without serious conflict for millennia. Sunnis and Shi`as have lived together in Iraq for about 1500 years with no history of serious sectarian civil conflict. Iraqis are the only ones who have the history, the ability, and the will to repair their society and their country.
The United States must give Iraq a chance. It must get out now, and get out completely, and leave Iraq for Iraqis.

So. I retreat to my earlier position which was I don't have a clue.

Somewhere in cyberspace, the ghost of de Chardin is smiling.

by budr on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 at 01:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (4.00 / 2)

Problem is that staying means that the US needs to continue indulging in the divide and conquer tactics that play sides off against each other, which isn't helpful.

Neither staying or leaving is a good option.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What can be expected of Europe in Iraq? (none / 0)

While at the same time accusing Iran of playing the various Shia factions against each other.

NYT: Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says (April 12, 2008)

From Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been turning up the volume on Iran. Administration officials said that Iranian support for Shiite militias became increasingly evident late last month during the indecisive Iraqi operation to wrest control of Basra from Shiite militias, in addition to the rocket attacks on the Green Zone.
Administration officials have long accused Iran of supporting Shiite militias in attacks on American forces in Iraq. The difference now is that administration officials are trying to convince the Iraqi government that Iran may not be the ally it thought, and is behind attacks against Iraqi government forces. That is a harder sell, given that Iran has supported Iraq's government.
Mr. Bush this week accused Iran of arming, financing and training what he called "illegal militant groups." He said that Iran had a choice, and hinted that the United States would try to sow distrust between the governments of Iran and Iraq, if Iran did not stop backing the attacks.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jun 9th, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Isolationism and Blame (4.00 / 2)

It seems that European (Union) involvement in sorting out Bush's Iraqi misadventure has become a hot topic again...

To my ears, this echoes the isolationist argument in the U.S. for staying out of 1st World War.

It is true that Iraq is everyone's problem even if the blame for the current mess can be pinned almost exclusively on the US.

Without Blair's Britain, I doubt Bush would have went it alone. Blair gave Bush legitimacy in the U.S. If Blair had stood up to the Americans and said the evidence is cooked, then the outcome may have been different. I think Britain shares the blame.

by Magnifico on Sat Jun 7th, 2008 at 11:41:48 PM EST

Re: Isolationism and Blame (4.00 / 2)

And, to be honest, I don't see why the US had to get involved in WWI at all.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jun 8th, 2008 at 02:56:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Isolationism and Blame (4.00 / 3)

The US had a plausible casus belli in ships that were being sank by German submarines. The US involvement in WWI was a largely good thing as it helped end the war. The aftermath was rather less good, not joining the League of Nations and fueling the system of reparations rather than using its lending clout to end it.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com)