• With friends like these

The (Weekend) Australian has a very strange editorial Stakes Rising in the Middle East (p18, March 10-11, 2007).

Probably written by their international "expert" Greg Sheridan.

Starts with an appeal to everyone who thought it a terrible shame that the US cut and ran from Vietnam to likewise oppose cutting and running from Iraq!

With such a great start it then manages to outdo itself by announcing that "in the Middle East everything is anchored in the seventh-century split between Shia and Sunni Muslims over who should succeed the Prophet Mohammed".

So the new strategic direction is to "work with Sunni nations to counteract Shia ascendance in the region".

This is part of an ideological struggle following from the ideological struggle against communism.

Granted that Sheriden is not very bright and also granted that this level of incoherent gibberish was quite useful in paralysing right-wing opposition when Sheridan was claiming the war was about Sadaam's WMDs and likewise a continuation of the great ideological battle against communism.

But even Sheridan isn't that stupid and its difficult to see what The Australian hopes to achieve by pushing this kind of gibberish, which presumably reflects the sort of briefings being received.

A possible clue as to why this stuff is being pushed:

The policy shift has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a new strategic embrace, united by the perceived threat posed by Iran. The Saudis have become more involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations because they believe that greater stability in Israel and Palestine will give Iran less leverage in the region. It reflects a series of informal understandings developed between the Saudis, Israel and the Bush administration over the past year. Israel has been assured that its security is paramount and that Washington, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states share their concern.

The recent shift in emphasis by the Israeli foreign minister in stressing Israeli rejectionism over the right of return rather than over the 1967 borders is another straw in the wind.

Looks like we are getting closer to acceptance of the obvious path towards peace. This will need to be sold as a blow against Iran. Formation of a national unity government to be eventually led by Marwan Barghouti looks increasingly imminent

Likewise the Sunni autocracies neighbouring Iraq are stuck with having to support reconciliation of the Iraqi Sunni insurgency with the Iraqi government and that also needs to be presented as a blow against Iran rather than an admission that they are doomed.

Meanwhile pressure for the Iraqi government to be more accommodating towards the Sunni Arab minority is more than adequately provided by the threat of Congress and/or the next US President withdrawing support if they don't.

Also looks like a settlement is close in Lebanon, based on approving the Hariri Tribunal (with modifications) and giving Hezbollah the increased representation it is entitled to. That can also be presented as a blow against Iran (by focussing on Syria rather than Hezbollah).

So grim as things look, I think even the more insanely stupid bloviating is an indication that we are moving towards significant positive developments.

But it really is irritating to see the good old policies of supporting autocratic tyranny that the US followed for decades leading up to 9/11 touted as a brilliant new strategic innovation and knowing that there just isn't any way to seriously discuss policy in this atmosphere of blithering.

Arthur, Could it be that the US has decided to abandon the "democratic" program and revert to its bad old ways? Yes it certainly could. I agree that the Australian editorial was insane gibberish, most likely penned by the doyen of insane gibberish, Sheridan (except the insane gibberish that he wrote that supported the LS position of course).

If the situation is to be retrieved, there is only one course open (it may be too late). The one thing that will stop the insurgency in Iraq in its tracks is full employment. Young men with a proper job that earns real money are not going to be very interested in some sectarian feud that goes back thousands of years.

That this very obvious fact has escaped those at LS and their neocon mates astounds me.

I drew the conclusion years ago that the neocon program for the introduction of democracy into Iraq was utter bullshit unless it incorporated a program that created employment and grass roots institutions. I have raised this question with you guys many times and have recieved no response.

The experiment in Iraq is failing, are you able to learn lessons or will you continue to blame others for what used to be common wisdom among the bourgeois democracies. Jobs = stability. Check out any of the leaders of the "free world" in the Post WW2 era. Keynes basically saved their arse.

Dalek

Certainly there is massive pressure for the US to abandon the program of democratic revolution and return to the old policy of "stability". Along with the large majority of the foreign policy establishment and opionion leaders, the Democratic majority in Congress and the anti-war movement including the pseudo-left are part of that pressure.

A lot of what's going on now is tactical maneuvering to appear responsive to that pressure while deflecting it.

However there is a new reality in Iraq, an elected government which the "realists" cannot wish away, and all the proposals for involving the neigbours in "stabilizing" things, which previously involved sending troops to restore the old order (without Sadaam) now turn out to be proposals for the neighbours to cooperate with the Iraqi government in demobilizing the Sunni insurgency.

The US doesn't have the option of reverting to its old policies. They simply won't work any more. Syria cannot be invited back to police Lebanon, Israel cannot continue endless "negotiations" about the West Bank, Egypt cannot remain an autocracy and so on.

Although I'm not as impressed with the wonder working magic of Keynesianism as dalek, I certainly agree that economic development and jobs are critically important. There are some indications that not enough has been done about that but I don't claim detailed knowledge of what has to be done.

Simply throwing money at it has only stimulated corruption.

The insurgency is not driven by unemployment but by a real struggle for power. Regions such as Kurdistan where there is no significant insurgency are developing rapidly with employment and grass roots institutions. Regions like Anbar where the insurgency is strong are declining rapidly (they used to live off surplus from the rest of Iraq and that was their "grass roots institutions".

To a large extent the insurgency has already been stopped in its tracks because it has become clear to most of the insurgents that they can never regain power. Their only hope lies in provoking Shia sectarian attacks to drive the Sunni population out of Iraq and intervention by Sunni neighbours to restore "stability".

There needs to be a break between the Sunni population and the insurgency before there can be much economic development in those areas. That is the focus of the current maneuverings, which include holding out offers of economic development with national reconciliation and involving the neighbours in encouraging the reconcilable insurgents to give it up.

While the Sunni minority are still tolerating jihadis and baathists trying to murder the rest of the population and destroy any projects there isn't much that can be done for the economic development in Sunni regions.

The enemy is well aware of the importance of economic development. Hence the attacks on oil pipelines and other infrastructure as well as civilians in Iraq and the hysterical opposition from the anti-war movement to development of Iraq's oil resources.

Arthur, The oil industrry is not a big Job creator, it is one of the most highly automated and sophisticated industries in the world.

Unless the surplus value from the oil industry is invested in job creating industries (manufacturing etc) it is of no value in job creation. The problem with the agreement that is maybe about to be voted on is that it seems to make no recognition of this neccessity, it returns most of the surplus value to the foreign "partners" with no requirements for investment in productive industries, in fact the taxation regime (holiday) would work against this.

One further point, I think the implicit threat from the "realists" is that if Maliki does not measure up he will be replaced by a "strongman" in a coup. There must be dozens of Saddams waiting in the wings. 

Believe it or not but I think this would be a disaster for the Iraqi's. I keep coming back to this but a really serious job creation program would ensure the survival of present elected government. At the moment the Iraqi people, could hardly be expected to see any difference between this corrupt sham of a government and the Militias, Insurgents, Jihadis and Gi's.  They are all trying to steal from them and kill them.

BTW, you say "Although I'm not as impressed with the wonder working magic of Keynesianism as dalek" If I am wrong can you point to a single country with <10% unemployment that has an insurgency, or Jihadist problem? I spent some time in Indonesia, (big "Islamofascist" contingent there) and can tell you that it is the belief in the ruling circles there that it their deliberate policy of make work that keeps the country controllable. Part of this "make work" is to station uniformed guards (mostly unarmed) at every concievable point. 

Dalek