Posted on 08/31/2014 2:32:34 PM PDT by blam
Michael B Kelley
August 31, 2014
Ali Khedery, the longest continuously serving American official in Iraq (2003-09), recently sat down with Reza Akhlaghi of the Foreign Policy Association to discuss American policy in the Middle East.
The candid discussion highlights several mistakes the U.S. made in the 21st century and lays out some troubling potential scenarios for the future if circumstances continue to worsen.
"As the Middle East unravels, the U.S. and its allies will be the real losers because we won’t be able to contain these cancers of sectarian war and transnational jihad," Khedery, who is now chairman and chief executive of the Dubai-based Dragoman Partners, told Akhlaghi. "Radicals will grow in strength on both sides, namely the Salafist ISIS and the Shia militias, eventually driving the entire region towards destabilization, inevitably threatening global energy supplies and the global economy."
Iraq accounts for 61% of expected growth in output capacity of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) by 2018. And while most reserves are in Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shia south, an Iraq that's on fire is not good for supply lines.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
How about making Syria a glass parking lot ..?????
Ebola Enterprises touring north Africa, the mideast and pawkeeschtan.
I think that would slow down and thin much of the muslim aggression.
I think you’ve got something there!
And yet, Bush didn't bother to ask for one dime of reimbursement for our actions on its behalf.
Yes but we need a war to distract, to enable continued levels of defense spending, and to export Miley Cyrus to the entire planet. /s
Let’s just get all our troops out of the cesspool.
Worst case scenario?
Uh... how about starting a thermonuclear World War III...
> Iraq accounts for 61% of expected growth in output capacity of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) by 2018. And while most reserves are in Iraqi Kurdistan and the Shia south, an Iraq that’s on fire is not good for supply lines.
Heh, gosh, it’s almost as if the Iranians and Russians are the main beneficiaries of the destruction of the US-backed gov’t of Iraq.
Neither did the elder Bush ask anything from the Kuwaitis for saving their miserable asses and their independence from Iraq.
It’s always the infidels stepping into the breach for protecting murderous muzzies.
And look...all it took was beheading one reported and a couple of hundred Christians for the call to go forth to waste our blood over there again.
Feeling manipulated yet?
The real manipulation is by our government for allowing the muzzies to come into our society for the ‘privilege’ of buying their oil. Who in hell invites people in who tell you in advance that they will kill you for being an infidel?
We shall now have to spend our blood right here at home fighting them for our survival.
All this would have been unnecessary if we had never let them in.
This could prove to be as destructive to this country as LBJ's Great Society bs.
I haven’t seen any proof that they are here.
I think all of the “noise” coming out of Syria is being used to mask what is going on in Ukraine.
It makes no sense at all for ISIS to attack us here. Their leaders want to survive and expand the caliphate. It is the Saudis who are pushing the buttons here.
You want to know why Obama looks like he’s seen a ghost is because he’s been ordered to something he doesn’t want to do.
not just syria. the entire mound of muslim kitty litter needs to be turned to glass.
That's right, his boss, Valerie Jarrett was born in Iran and they're Shia...the ISIS are Sunni.
The good news is over the next 5 yrs the “best customer” of mideast oil becomes China.
You know, those folks with mafia business practices and 1.5 billion expendable people.
That said and to state the obvious, since the overthrow of Saddam, who was very anti shia and especially anti Iranian regime, the ongoing sectarian war in Iraq has been essentially between Saudi Arabia and Iran, by proxy.
Enter Islamic State (IS) which follows a strict Salafi doctrine but still is sunni, and especially hates anything shia or related. Equally, worldwide 85% of muslim population is sunni, with the rest, 15%, shia. Even in neighboring countries, the majority are sunni, although those who sit in oil rich areas are mostly shia. Ultimately, if the sectarian war spread, I'd imagine the sunnis would win hands down.
Question are: should ISIS manage to takeover the oilfields in southern parts of Iraq, would it accommodate the West and USA in particular by ensuring uninterrupted supply lines and reasonable crude prices?
Perhaps if the Saudis and a few Gulf States reined in IS, IS would? Or perhaps some could recognize IS as a nation-state and develop an economic relationship with it? After all, currently IS has its own Minister of Finance and rules over approx. 8 million people in Syria and Iraq combined.
An alternative maybe that the U.S. and its allies such as Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the West get rid of both IS and the Shi'ites. That maybe the perfect world....
Yes, he gave that a pass too. Not very smart.
Makes you wonder what he was thinking there.
In the case of Hussein, he actually wanted to pull an ISIS maneuver starting with Kuwait. It’s best he was stopped then.
Arguably, Kuwait was once part of Iraq.
The sheikh of Kuwait is related to the House of Saud.
Fair enough. You could probably go back and claim many places over there first belonged to someone else.
Twenty, thirty, or more years later, is it something that has pretty much been settled. I guess you could argue each way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.