’Heartland’ strategy in Iraq

Though it might be too early to put a name to the Grand Strategy we are employing with regard to Iraq, just "being there" suggests that our strategy aligns quite nicely with the Heartland Theory put forth in 1904 by Sir Halford John Mackinder, one of the great military strategists of the 20th century.

Here's how the Heartland Theory would apply to Iraq: Get a globe and put your finger on Iraq. Notice how your finger is resting right in the middle, the "heartland," of the Middle East, halfway between Egypt and Pakistan.

In 1904, British geographer Mackinder placed his finger on Eastern Europe and declared that to be the "pivot area" or "heartland" of Europe. He declared: "Who commands Eastern Europe commands the heartland; who rules the heartland commands the world island; and who rules the world-island commands the world." (By world-island, he meant the Euro-Asian-African landmass.)

Did anyone buy the Heartland Theory? Yes. Napoleon understood it even before Mackinder was born. That is why he attacked czarist Russia. Moreover, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and three generations of the world's foremost military strategists embraced it as gospel and acted upon it.

Even now, the United States is steering NATO's drive into Mackinder's Heartland with the addition to its ranks of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Just being there is enough

The essential element in the Heartland Theory is simply "being there." Properly applied, being there means Iraqi oil revenue cannot go to al-Qaeda. Being there means the Iraqis can choose whatever government they want, as long as it does not support terrorism. Being there means interdicting the radical Islamists' lines of communication that run across the Middle East from Cairo to Islamabad, Pakistan.

But being there need not include the imposition of a Pax Americana on Iraq's cities. The inevitable collateral damage of urban warfare creates a no-win situation for U.S. troops in a news-media world dominated by the hostile Al-Jazeera TV network and by a Western media that daily prove the dictum: Bad news will travel around the world before good news can tie its shoelaces.

George Friedman, who runs a private intelligence service, suggests that the U.S.-led coalition can still be there while, at the same time, withdrawing its troops from Iraqi cities. By occupying a series of desert outposts, we retain the strategic advantage of being in the heartland of the Middle East. If al-Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgents want to fight our troops, they must expose themselves in the open desert, where their rusting, bomb-laden pickups are no match for our Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles. Our casualties would plummet. Theirs would skyrocket.

Bush administration's opportunity

But even as it becomes increasingly clear that our troops are being withdrawn from Iraq's troubled cities � especially now that governing power has been transferred to the Iraqis � the debate as to the wisdom of being there in the first place rages.

One way for the administration to answer its critics would be to explain the invasion of Iraq and our continued presence there in terms of the Heartland Theory. While that explanation might make a great deal of sense to armchair strategists and war-college graduates, it could be a difficult sell to a pop culture that cast more votes during the latest American Idol season than it cast in the most recent presidential election.

Meanwhile, the inescapable geographic truth is that we are occupying the heartland of the Middle East. If Mackinder's theory is correct, our mere presence there will have a major impact on how we fight, and whether we succeed, in the ongoing war on terrorism. But maintaining public support for our continued presence will require military tactics that reduce our casualties to more acceptable and sustainable levels.

If that can be achieved, the armchair strategists and the soccer moms may create the common ground of broad public support that will be essential to our successful occupation of a strategic base in the region's heartland.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-29-o pcom_x.htm

That is an astute observation, even though I doubt Bush or other people in the white house got the idea to occupy Iraq from Mackinder.  I do think our presence in Iraq was meant to provide us with a huge presence in the middle east from which to dominate other terrorist supporting powers in the region, and to attract terrorists to attack our soldiers in Iraq as opposed to our civilians in America.

Mackinder modified his heartland theory substantially in the 1940s late in his life.

N.J. Spykman in the 1930s and 40s developed geopolitical/strategic theories that complemented Mahan and led to the concept of containment employed against the Soviet state.  It's initial use was as a way to strangle Nazi Germany.

I don't agree that central Asia fits into any US strategic plan.  Tactically, Uzbekistan et. al. were convenient forward deployment areas for Afghanistan, and are convenient places to engage anti-Islamist authorities.  However, those areas are in the Russian sphere and have been since the mid nineteenth century.

As far as the US controlling the sea lanes and in terms of naval power, that has been the main thrust since 1945 and will continue to be so.

Just as a comment, the "key" strategic location in the region is Kuwait.  Why was this artificial entity created?  Because of its geography.

The US navy and amphibious capabilties can control the straits of Hormuz, regardless of what is said in Teheran, but the key to the Gulf is Kuwait.

The Brits knew that; so did Saddam, and so do we.

The answer in my opinion is yes.

I'm glad you can appreciate it Illuminati, but I would expect no less from someone with Patton as their avatar.

Most of those fighting in Iraq against us aren't even apart of Al Qaeda. They swear alligiance to them, but they are far from organized. Al Qaeda doesn't and never has intended to start any large scale conflict inside of the United States. They do intend to make large scale attacks with a hand full of terrorist.

9/11 was planned since the mid 90s, odds are and binLaden has said they have other attacks in the work. We may have slowed them down, but we are facing a smart enemy, they are very flexible as they don't really have anyone or anything to really defend. It's only a matter of time before we see another diaster. I honestly can't see Iraq tricking the terrorist so much that they wouldn't have the resources to make a suicide attack here.

Imperialism on AE! Who has seen such a thing?

This concentrated-forces-get-them-there and not-here line of thought does have some credance. Not of primary design but a secondary gain to diffuse attacks American soil.

Now look at what you guys have done. I'm starting to sound like Genghis and Pikeshot.