Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Behi
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Heartland strategy in Iraq Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 16:27 |
'Heartland' strategy in Iraq: Right idea, if done the right way
By William Hamilton
Some critics like to say American foreign
policy is discernible only in retrospect. Even so, such opinion could
be taken as a left-handed compliment for a nation that has done rather
well in defending itself and its allies in the previous century, and
now, at the beginning of the 21st century.
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
|
|
Behi
Sultan
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 16:35 |
The heart land is a little bigger than Achaemenid empire:US in the Achieveing of heart of heart land, had Iraq & Afghanistan only Iran remainedsome other parts has been achieved by NATO
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 16:41 |
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.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:42 |
McKinder... sure. Modern Middle East strategic thought is no doubt a derivation, specially as it includes Central Asia.
Nevertheless the Heartland theory has proven itself a failure in comparison with Mahan's naval geostrategy, applied by Britain and USA successively.
In fact our recent history has been largely a fight between those two opposing geostrategic theories: a land based one, followed by Russian and German headquarters specially, and a navally based one, followed by the Anglosaxon "insular" powers. The second strategy seems to have worked better and my guess is that it's caused by the fact that naval powers tend to supress or absorb other naval powers keeping only one in play, while continental powers are much less likely to do the same. So when continental powers such as the USSR are in condition of launching an attack via the heartland the naval powers are also able to counter-attack in any point of the World Island, at least if it is a coastal one. So the central power(s) is always bound to have dificulty at the coasts.
In this sense, the Middle East seems a fussion of both concepts: traditional small Middle East (SW Asia + Egypt) is bot a crossroads for land and naval strategies, joining Europe to South Asia, the McKinder Heartland to Africa, the Mediterranean to the Indic Ocean, etc. A naval power must control it due to the straits involved (specially the Suez Canal+Red Sea+Bar-el-Mandeb waterway, but also the Bosphorus and the Persian Gulf), but if it does, then it gets the following advantage of a potential access to the Heartland, which it then becomes not the way out for continental powers but a way into them.
The Heartland includes Central Asia that has therefore been incorporated into the Pentagon's strategic plans. All this has more to do with Afghanistan than with Iraq but they are related.
Iraq has more to do with controlling oil and therefore keeping Japan and EU dependent on the USA. It can only be countered by an active promotion of vegetable fuels and other energetic alternatives in these countries. Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have possibly 50% of oil reserves or at least that's what was considered in the times of the Kuwaiti war. It has also to do with breaking any possibility of Arab national unification and the promotion of Islamic fundamentalism by the Wahsington-Riyad axis. It has more to do after all with what happededn and wasn't finished in the 90s. As Machiavelli said don't leave any enemy alive: if you have offended them be sure that they will take revenge when they can. Saddam had to be supressed after he had been decieved so badly in the 80s-90s. He couldn't be recycled into US ally again.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 17:45 |
Originally posted by Genghis
I do think our presence in Iraq was meant (...) to attract terrorists to attack our soldiers in Iraq as opposed to our civilians in America. |
I thought you were a realpolitikal analyst but you look a little too naive here.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
Zagros
Emperor
Suspended
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:11 |
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. |
There were no radical islmaist lines in iraq, america has helped in a successful implementation thereof post Saddam.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:21 |
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.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:24 |
Agreed that their definitely exists the radical Islamist elements in Iraq today. With the locals and nearby powers grasping for political and territorial control the mess is bigger then anything the current US government could fully understand or appreciate prior to the war. We (US) chose not to understand it because we thought we could just muscle our will onto the people and marginalize the rest of the countries. Mistake. We muscled in at our own risk. And we will eventually leave at our risk. With little to show for it.
I also think that Saddam was the glue that controlled his country by implementing a tight reign. Yet the religious factions of Sunni and Shiite; ethnic factions of Kurd, Turkoman, Arab, and Assyrian plus the political ideologies that neighbors each envisioned had been incubating for eventual release. Well now it is released and as predicted worse than ever. Every Tom, Dick and Harry terror group, every US and allied tools of the commercial trade is trying to dominate and get their piece of the pie.
Edited by Seko
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:27 |
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.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 18:33 |
Let's say the key to Persian Gulf is via Kuwait. Wasn't it good enough to have bases in Qatar and Kuwait instead the quagmire that is Iraq?
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 19:28 |
Originally posted by Seko
Let's say the key to Persian Gulf is via Kuwait. Wasn't it good enough to have bases in Qatar and Kuwait instead the quagmire that is Iraq? |
The answer in my opinion is yes.
|
|
Illuminati
General
Joined: 08-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 949
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 19:50 |
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Genghis
I do think our presence in Iraq was meant (...) to attract terrorists to attack our soldiers in Iraq as opposed to our civilians in America. |
I thought you were a realpolitikal analyst but you look a little too naive here.
|
Ghengis's opinion IS a real politik analyst. The best defense is a good offense, thats been proven time and time again. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be in Iraq trying to kill American soldiers. It may be true that the Iraq war has caused more terrorists, but they are very pre-occupied in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the long run, it may work, and it may not, but as of now, it is working.
Edited by Illuminati
|
|
Genghis
Caliph
Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2656
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 20:02 |
Originally posted by Illuminati
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Genghis
I do think our presence in Iraq was meant (...) to attract terrorists to attack our soldiers in Iraq as opposed to our civilians in America.
|
I thought you were a realpolitikal analyst but you look a little too naive here.
|
Ghengis's opinion IS a real politik analyst. The best defense is a good offense, thats been proven time and time again. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be in Iraq trying to kill American soldiers. It may be true that the Iraq war has caused more terrorists, but they are very pre-occupied in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the long run, it may work, and it may not, but as of now, it is working.
|
I'm glad you can appreciate it Illuminati, but I would expect no less from someone with Patton as their avatar.
|
Member of IAEA
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 20:08 |
Originally posted by Illuminati
Originally posted by Maju
Originally posted by Genghis
I do think our presence in Iraq was meant (...) to attract terrorists to attack our soldiers in Iraq as opposed to our civilians in America.
|
I thought you were a realpolitikal analyst but you look a little too naive here.
|
Ghengis's opinion IS a real politik analyst. You're being naive. The best defense is a good offense, thats been proven time and time again. If I were a terrorist, I'd want to be in Iraq trying to kill American soldiers. It may be true that the Iraq war has caused more terrorists, but they are very pre-occupied in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
|
Illuminati's view has merit. The concentration of Islamist terrorists in one or two locations helps in preventing the proliferation of this activity elsewhere. The diminishment of their moral authority due to the destruction of innocent life and of holy places degrades their legitimacy, and expends their energies to little benefit.
What are their ultimate weapons? Suicide and civil conflict. Hmmmm....assymetrical self destruction. I doubt that it was a strategy, but as it seems to have evolved in such a direction, and since the Iranian mullahs are major instigators, it could also be turned against the Iranian regime. They are not immune from such discord. Insurgent and criminal elements tend to become indistinguishable over time since theft, ransom and extortion are the main revenue streams of insurgencies.
As half of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and probably members of the regime, are involved in narcotics trafficking, since it is the most profitable enterprise in Iran other than oil which is more tightly controlled, the coopting of narco-criminal organizations in Iran seems a legitimate strategy. People are so susceptible to money, and bribes are the ultimate diplomatic instrument.
|
|
SearchAndDestroy
Caliph
Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 21:01 |
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.
|
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 09:23 |
S&D:
Of course you are correct another disaster could occur. As I said, suicide is their ultimate weapon.
However, the more activity that is concentrated elsewhere, the less there is likely to be in the West. You fight an enemy in his territory rather than your own, and that does not change whether the enemy is conventional or assymetrical.
If the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and security services are heavily engaged inside Iraq, as seems certain, take it accross that border in the most sensitive areas that damage their interests, and put it inside their house. Those people might need to take a break from their activities in Iraq, wasting treasure on Hezbollah and Hamas, and actually have to expend some energy and resources at home. I wonder what the flag of Khuzistan (or Arabistan) would look like.
Oh, I know, "imperialism; western bad guys!" Too bad. Just imagine, imperialism on the All Empires site.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 09:33 |
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.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 09:44 |
Originally posted by Seko
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.
|
Strategic necessity makes you a hard, steely-eyed, realist. Congratulations.
Yeah, I guess we are the bully when it is necessary, but if you spit on the bully at recess you are liable to get punched in the mouth. Better not to do it. Iran's leaders talk like they are invulnerable. They are not, and it should be well demonstrated to them.
|
|
Seko
Emperor
Spammer
Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 09:55 |
I never did think I that I faded from cold and hard realism. I happen to temper it with benevolence and patience.
|
|
pikeshot1600
Tsar
Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 10:12 |
Originally posted by Seko
I never did think I that I faded from cold and hard realism. I happen to temper it with benevolence and patience. |
Those are admirable tools in international politics also when they are useful, but not when adversaries are actively harming your interests.
"With malice toward none; with charity for all" works in many cases if someone does not want to kill you. You must attend to your own vital interests, and not depend on someone else to do it (like the UN). Patience with that institution wears more and more thin.
Edited by pikeshot1600
|
|