Future ANGLICO Royalty?

Apparently, after much detrimental publicity, Prince Harry is now a battlefield air controller in Afghanistan.

JTAC next for the Sandhurst grad?

In the true spirit of joint coalition operations, we would love to see HRH with our 0861s (fire support men).

Thoughts on Iraq

Had an interesting conversation at the gym yesterday evening when I was asked "What's your opinion of Iraq?"

This is particularly timely for several reasons. First, I'm a Marine officer, so I do not really have the ability to "speak out" for/against particular administration policies. Second, broad sweeping questions, like the one presented, tend to encourage a particular answer. (My inquisitor is more liberal in mindset). Third, with the presidential election pending, the United States future in Iraq is up for discussion. Here are some thoughts as to why the United States should remain for the long haul in Iraq.

1) Before the House of Saud conquered the land now known as Saudi Arabia, they were challenged for the leadership by the Shammar tribe.

• The Saudis won the dispute and installed the Wahhabist form of Islam as the law of the land. The Shammar tribe left the region, migrated north, and now occupies a large amount of territory in western Iraq from Baghdad to Jordan. The Shammar tribe comprises approximately two million people and are much less radical than the Wahhabists.
• Oil is the reason the United States is in so tight with the Saudis. Most Americans are aware the Saudis have only recently began clamping down on the terrorist cells. Also, most know the 9/11 hijackers were mainly Saudi nationals. The Saudis have also been exporting Wahhabism throughout the world. Should oil go away, what relations will the United States and the Saudis have?
• In contrast, Shammar represents the opportunities for future relationships beyond oil. Iraq is a market ripe for expansion. Where does the United States have better chance of building commercial relationships -- a secular Iraq or a Wahhabist Saudi Arabia?

2) Moving forward in Iraq prevents Iran from increasing its hegemonic designs on the region.

• In part, Iran is progressing with its nuclear weapon program (despite the National Intelligence Estimate statements to the contrary), because the United States is camped out in Iraq. Some might argue this gives strength to the leave Iraq position; however, just because the U.S. might leave Iraq, does not mean Iran will abandon its quest for nuclear weapons.
• Iran is the real issue with which Americans are having trouble. Currently, America occupies land on two sides of Iran, and water on a third. Should a military action against Iran be required, America is already in position to act. America would not have to seek permission from Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan, or any other country in close proximity. Hopefully, the military option becomes less and less likely.
• Additionally, Iran is as interested in Iraq as we are. Iranian military and intelligence units have been operating there for several years. Frankly, had Iran wanted more confrontation between the Iraqi groups it supports and coalition forces, it would have done so. However, now that the Iraqi Shi'i population is represented in the government, Iran has some designs on exporting the revolution to Iraq. A pan-Islamic Republic, of Iraq-Iran, would be extremely detrimental to the future of region.

The future of the United States is intertwined with the future of Iraq. Although many Americans would blanch at the possibility of the second President Bush entering the annals of history as a hero, his legacy will only be realized at some point in the distant future. Depending on how the situation plays out, Bush will either become a hero (for helping to establish a democratic, Arab state) or a true goat (for many popular reasons). But for now, the way forward is remaining in Iraq, rebuilding institutions, turning the Awakening into a Wide-Awake, and pressing ahead with economic growth.

Arms Race - Mideast

Israel successfully tested a long-range nuclear capable missile on January 17, 2008. This test occurred concurrently with Russian naval exercises and the Russians own missile test. Debka further reports the Russian are in the process of establishing permanent naval bases in Tartous and Latakia, both in Syria. These actions, which also include Russia's third shipment of nuclear material to Iran, constitute an arms race occurring in the Middle East, the likes of which have not been seen since the Cold War.

The contrast to the 1980s is the location of all of these armaments are well within range of established military bases. Israel has already proven it can hit targets in Syria with conventional airpower. The success of the Israeli strike has caused the Russians to put their best salesmanship hat on to impress the Syrians that the NEXT air defense system will be the one to prevent future attacks. Simultaneously, the Iranians are not sitting on their haunches and are providing equipment, technology, and training to the Syrian, Hezbollah, AQ-I, Taliban, Hamas, et al. Also, Iran already has the capability to strike Israel with missiles, now they are working on increasing the lethality of their delivery systems.

Additionally, President Bush notified Congress of his intent to transfer 900 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) to Saudi Arabia. Of course, pro-Israeli members of Congress have asked for assurances that the Saudis will not use these weapons to attack Israel, or the United States. Generally, Debka states the Persian Gulf states are looking to diversify their weapons sources beyond American suppliers. Already, the amount of military equipment currently located in the Gulf Region is only slightly less than the number of raindrops during a Florida thunderstorm.

The danger in this arms race, besides the technology itself, is the proximity in which the weapons, bases, and personnel are located. In contrast to the somewhat dispersed American and Russian forces of the Cold War, the Mediterranean andGulf States have all of their military forces in theater. Most are already at medium levels of mobilization to counter real and perceived threats to their sovereignty and security. Unlike the 1980s, the current situation is more akin to the pre-World War I arms race and buildup in Europe.

Historians refer to the Balkans during that time as "The Powderkeg". One century later, we are watching the keg again filling. Will we also witness its lighting?