Do you think that it will really do them any good, also will they include Kuwait in on this security zone.
How to properly exit Iraq?
- Thread starter olkiej
- Start date
- Status
FutureTank
Banned Member
Kuwait can probably afford their own.
For Saudis its impossible...look in the news for the Hadj
Very interesting - thank you for the information, and oh just a little tid bit of information for you, I enjoy all of your posts short or the long versions so please if you decide to write a full page for a explanation please do, we Americans are not as idiotic as some folks may think. (This is not directed towards you.)
FutureTank
Banned Member
I didn't imply lack of intelligence by any participant in this forum (so far)if you decide to write a full page for a explanation please do, we Americans are not as idiotic as some folks may think. (This is not directed towards you.)
I think the problem with long posts is that they require more time to respond, and contain too many points and so people just loose interest for lack of time and/or complexity of response required. Its better that a post sticks to a discrete idea...taking many small steps rather then a small number of big steps
When I was in school I had a tendency to provide a solution/answer too quickly, and was often penalised for not showing how I got to the answer (the steps), and it seems that this still happens to me
FutureTank
Banned Member
The fence
defense (note: in England this is spelled defence)
1297, from O.Fr. defens, from L. defensum "thing protected or forbidden," from neut. pp. of defendere "ward off, protect" (see defend). First used 1935 as a euphemism for "national military resources."
fence (n.)
c.1330, shortening of defens (see defense). Spelling alternated between -c- and -s- in M.E. Sense of "enclosure" is first recorded 1512. Fencible (c.1325) means "capable of making a defense." Sense of "dealer in stolen goods" is thieves' slang, first attested c.1700, from notion of such transactions taking place under defense of secrecy.
Saudi Arabians had been fairly prosperious from oil revenues since its discovery in the early 20th century.
One would think that they would use the various means at their disposal to better the lot of so many other Muslims by providing educationa and employment for them in Saudi Arabia. However the demographic speaks quite clearly. The population 27,019,731 includes 5,576,076 non-nationals (July 2005 est.).
However the unofficial figures put the migrant population at some 7 million from countries all around the world, including: Indian: 1.4 million, Bangladeshi: 1 million, Filipino: 950,000, Pakistani: 900,000, and Egyptian: 750,000. Many Arabs from nearby countries are employed in the kingdom. There are around 100,000 Westerners in Saudi Arabia, most of whom live in compounds or gated communities.
All these immigrant workers are employed in highly secterian industries. For example most Filipino workers are in the household employment. Would Saudi Arabians not have been able to employ Muslims instead of non-Muslims in the 2.5 million jobs? The truth is that all immigrant workers, and particularly those from Islamic countries, are strictly screened by SA security, and getting into SA can be as hard as getting out. The 'fences' were built well before the emergence of Israel or Saddam Hussein (Ministry of Interior in 1926), and were based on the same system the British used, one of strict administration of immigration in a region of large numer of nomadic and seasonal worker populations.
The exit and entry visa card requirements ask applicants for their religious affiliation.
Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza who could most use the employment and opportunities of education in the Saudi system are not welcome because of their perceived political allegiances, and particularly since their support for Saddam Hussein. After 1991 almost the entire population of immigrant workers from these areas was forced to leave Saudi Arabia, and the border with Jordan (which has a significant legacy population of 'palestinians' even afte the expulsion of PLO in the 70s) is watched as closely as that with Iraq.
However 287,000 people who claim to be palestinian live in SA and another 1.2 million in other Gulf States. These are not refugees, but immigrant workers who were allowed to re-enter SA after going through the sort of verification of identity suspected Jews were subjected to in Nazi Germany.
However Saudi Arabia does not grant naturalisation to these workers or children born to them in Saudi Arabia. These numbers are kept striclty controlled (unlike that of Filipino workers). Many of the thousands of Pakistanis are employed in the SA defence and security sectors, including internal security of the kingdom in the same function as FBI and KGB (more in the likeness of the later).
defense (note: in England this is spelled defence)
1297, from O.Fr. defens, from L. defensum "thing protected or forbidden," from neut. pp. of defendere "ward off, protect" (see defend). First used 1935 as a euphemism for "national military resources."
fence (n.)
c.1330, shortening of defens (see defense). Spelling alternated between -c- and -s- in M.E. Sense of "enclosure" is first recorded 1512. Fencible (c.1325) means "capable of making a defense." Sense of "dealer in stolen goods" is thieves' slang, first attested c.1700, from notion of such transactions taking place under defense of secrecy.
Saudi Arabians had been fairly prosperious from oil revenues since its discovery in the early 20th century.
One would think that they would use the various means at their disposal to better the lot of so many other Muslims by providing educationa and employment for them in Saudi Arabia. However the demographic speaks quite clearly. The population 27,019,731 includes 5,576,076 non-nationals (July 2005 est.).
However the unofficial figures put the migrant population at some 7 million from countries all around the world, including: Indian: 1.4 million, Bangladeshi: 1 million, Filipino: 950,000, Pakistani: 900,000, and Egyptian: 750,000. Many Arabs from nearby countries are employed in the kingdom. There are around 100,000 Westerners in Saudi Arabia, most of whom live in compounds or gated communities.
All these immigrant workers are employed in highly secterian industries. For example most Filipino workers are in the household employment. Would Saudi Arabians not have been able to employ Muslims instead of non-Muslims in the 2.5 million jobs? The truth is that all immigrant workers, and particularly those from Islamic countries, are strictly screened by SA security, and getting into SA can be as hard as getting out. The 'fences' were built well before the emergence of Israel or Saddam Hussein (Ministry of Interior in 1926), and were based on the same system the British used, one of strict administration of immigration in a region of large numer of nomadic and seasonal worker populations.
The exit and entry visa card requirements ask applicants for their religious affiliation.
Arabs from the West Bank and Gaza who could most use the employment and opportunities of education in the Saudi system are not welcome because of their perceived political allegiances, and particularly since their support for Saddam Hussein. After 1991 almost the entire population of immigrant workers from these areas was forced to leave Saudi Arabia, and the border with Jordan (which has a significant legacy population of 'palestinians' even afte the expulsion of PLO in the 70s) is watched as closely as that with Iraq.
However 287,000 people who claim to be palestinian live in SA and another 1.2 million in other Gulf States. These are not refugees, but immigrant workers who were allowed to re-enter SA after going through the sort of verification of identity suspected Jews were subjected to in Nazi Germany.
However Saudi Arabia does not grant naturalisation to these workers or children born to them in Saudi Arabia. These numbers are kept striclty controlled (unlike that of Filipino workers). Many of the thousands of Pakistanis are employed in the SA defence and security sectors, including internal security of the kingdom in the same function as FBI and KGB (more in the likeness of the later).
I did not realize that they had so many migrant workers, could it be that the king and his tribe are a little paranoid, but you have to admit it has assisted in their survival, but groups with in the country on occasion do get out of line. What are the requirements to get out of Saudi Arabia, (exit visa) are western workers also required to name their affiliated religon.
FutureTank
Banned Member
There are several issues here.
Al-Qaeda protested presence of Western troops in Saudi Arabia, but not foreign workers.
The paranoia of the royal families (in all Gulf oil kingdoms) is based on the inequality of distribution of wealth perceived in the Islamic world. This should not be mistaken for socialist belief, but was expressed to me in theorlogical terms. The reason oil is located so close to Mecca, is because it is intended to benefit all followers of Muhammed. Oil is seen as a common resource (blessing!) and not property of kingdoms created largely by departing European empires.
The requirements of leaving SA are quite numerous I believe though I don't have first knowledge of these. What I have been told is that there has to be proof that one does not owe anyone money, is not in pocession of SA secrets, and no other crimes have been committed under the Sharia.
Here is an exit strategy for you- Kurdistan.
Why dont we support a greater Kurdistan, like the one that almost happened 25 years ago?
Iran might loose a big chunk of territory, and they can be counted on to react in a way that shows thier true colors, as was the case in 1979-80. I doubt they would have much energy left to cause trouble in Iraq.
Yes, I know Turkey also has a Kurdish problem, and so what? What have they done for us lately?
That leaves Syria and Saudi Arabia as the remaining exporters of terroists in Iraq. Syria will not say "Boo" without a Big Brother to back it up. As for Saudi; all we have to do is pretend we might be serious about alternate fuels, and they will clamp down on the extreemists faster then a Pit-Bull chomping down on a Poodle's throat.
As fantastic as it seems, I prefer a pro-active policy to letting the forces of darkness and ignorance win again.
Why dont we support a greater Kurdistan, like the one that almost happened 25 years ago?
Iran might loose a big chunk of territory, and they can be counted on to react in a way that shows thier true colors, as was the case in 1979-80. I doubt they would have much energy left to cause trouble in Iraq.
Yes, I know Turkey also has a Kurdish problem, and so what? What have they done for us lately?
That leaves Syria and Saudi Arabia as the remaining exporters of terroists in Iraq. Syria will not say "Boo" without a Big Brother to back it up. As for Saudi; all we have to do is pretend we might be serious about alternate fuels, and they will clamp down on the extreemists faster then a Pit-Bull chomping down on a Poodle's throat.
As fantastic as it seems, I prefer a pro-active policy to letting the forces of darkness and ignorance win again.
Perhaps for the same reason why it didn't happen 25 years ago or in 1920 - other nation's interests have priority. Which is better? Create a new state, landlocked and which is dependent upon the goodwill of its neighbours for trade and piss off those neighbours in the process or to try and fix what is already there?
Don't you believe it. Iran is a hell of a lot stronger now, than it was in 1979 or at the end of the Iran-Iraq war. We also have the prospect of them going nuclear within the next five years. Hardly a good time to be annoying them, don't you think?
Mmm, why is always "lately"?
If the rest of the world used that sort of logic and applied it to Washington, the US would be the deep pooh, very quickly. Afterall, its Washington's "lately" which has put us into this lurch, now hasn't it? Perhaps we should just leave it to Washington, as its it's mess, now isn't it?
Turkey has, lately, refrained from invading Kurdish northern Iraq. It has supported the no-fly zones over Kurdish northern Iraq. It has supported the US invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war there. Is that all to be forgotten about?
I'm sure the Israelis will be reassured by that comment. Syria will not allow any of its territory to be forfeited for a new Kurdistan and it will resist its establishment, for its own reasons.
I doubt it. The Wahabbis are why the Saud are in control in Saudi Arabia. If they clamp down on them, then their own position will become even more precarious.
So why are you batting so heavily for them?
FutureTank
Banned Member
Have you asked opinion of any Kurds before posting?
There are Kurds spread throught he region from Syria to Iran, and of course Iraq and Turkey.
Not that I would not support their claim for independence, but NONE of the other states will surrender an inch of their territory for formation of such a state.
Dismemberment of Iraq will only create another enemy for the Kurds in addition to existing enemies.
Then there is the very distinct possibility of enforced resettlement of Turkish Kurds into the proposed independent Kurdistan. Do you think Kurds coudl cope with that?
Finally, what happens when oil in Northern Iraq runs out?
More "only other" places: Spain, Sicily & Southern Italy, Greece, Portugal, Armenia, former Yugoslavia.
Any explanation that includes your "territory that was once Muslim should always be Muslim" argument needs to also take into account why the jihadists aren't sceaming about getting Spain or Greece back.
THank you, Rickshaw, for the North Korean point of view on the matter.
Of course it would be absurd to try to create a Kurdish super-state. So? What is there in that region that is NOT absurd? Crazy Bull S**t seems to work better than common sense.
And your suggestion that we not do anything that might upset Iran now that they are working on thier own Nukes, well, Neville Chamberlane would have said the same thing.
Pinky- The Islamo-Fascists are in all of those places, and they are already getting them back.
Western Europe is under siege, vast numbers of immigrants are not learning the language of thier host nation or adapting to the culture in any way. What they are is a Fifth Column of amazing proportions, and they are getting larger. Belgium and Holland have already closed thier door to further muslim immigration.
Europe may soon face a war that will make what happened in the 20th century seem small and clean. And, given all the hate that Europe has shown us, I hope America will stay out of it this time.
Of course it would be absurd to try to create a Kurdish super-state. So? What is there in that region that is NOT absurd? Crazy Bull S**t seems to work better than common sense.
And your suggestion that we not do anything that might upset Iran now that they are working on thier own Nukes, well, Neville Chamberlane would have said the same thing.
Pinky- The Islamo-Fascists are in all of those places, and they are already getting them back.
Western Europe is under siege, vast numbers of immigrants are not learning the language of thier host nation or adapting to the culture in any way. What they are is a Fifth Column of amazing proportions, and they are getting larger. Belgium and Holland have already closed thier door to further muslim immigration.
Europe may soon face a war that will make what happened in the 20th century seem small and clean. And, given all the hate that Europe has shown us, I hope America will stay out of it this time.
What does that MEAN really? You think the Bush/Cheney approach for the last approx 6 yrs has been a result of a reasoned, in-depth study of the history of the region and "nation-building"/occupying? That they've done this?
REALLY? Do tell.
A serious reading of Liddel Hart's strategy and reflecting upon it would not be something our US policy "deciders" could benefit from? Even the chapter on Guerilla/Insurgency warfare? Liddel Hart's Strategy is devoid of useful advice? Excuse me while I choke down a guffaw or two.
As for Keegan's A History Of Warfare, what parts, specifically do you find to be pointless? The part about war being more/less than a Clauzwitzian concept of sophisticated European states pursuing politics by other means? Or the contrast between Western "hoplite" traditions of warfare seeking decisive battle as opposed to "irreglular" methods of fighting, incidentally responsible for many Arabian military successes in the initial rapid spread of Islam? Please talk about those specific aspects of the book you found to make the entire book pointless to strategists and strategy-making politicians considering the current situation in the Middle East. Unless of course, you want to admit that you haven't read it and therefore can't speak to the issue one way or the other after all.
...which would make it look like replying repeatedly with the single word "pointless" was not an attempt at an intelligent response at all, but just a bit of patronizing? I know I'm new, but still. I was hoping for something resembling DISCUSSION from you.
Blah Blah Blah. "pointless" does not a reasoned... ANYTHING make. The way I've heard it, generals have been increasingly speaking out about how they dissagree with how the war in Iraq is being fought. One of the most obvious issues has been that divisional commanders have come forward saying they DID want more men and that they are needed to get the job done, while the people at the top keep saying they don't want more soldiers. NO ONE in the general media seems to be discussing the fact that the "no higher troop deployment" argument is based on a static army size. Faced with using the soldiers they have, the generals would rather avoid a do-or-die scenario in which they cannot rest/refit troops to keep combat effectivity high while having some reserves on hand in case something else happens. How could an accurate and candid assessment by divisional commanders be POINTLESS? Considering that the top generals seem to be toeing the Bush/Cheney party line? Please.
...thus my designation of a grand strategy for a war on terror as well as a strategy for Iraq.
...which I understand remains unassailable by virtue of its not being posted on these forums.
However not impossible. American generals came into WW2 believing that fighting tanks with tanks was an irrational approach. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. Their mistake was to form no doctrine for what would be done when the enemy chose to oppose his tanks to theirs, despite their view of its being irrational. A study of what had already been done with tanks and what was currently being done would have prompted a rational approach to dealing with the essentially (as they viewed it) "irrational" approach by the enemy of not saving one's tanks for a classic breakthrough.
I was saying that an actual study of historical situations similar to the one the US is currently in would lead to a more rational, effective approach. I certainly would not agree that irrationality trumps rationality. One can certainly predict the other's future actions better than the other. More often than not irrationality equals predictability. (isn't one definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over?)
...the very reason I cited John Keegan's book. A classic "decisive battle" doesn't seem to be in the cards, no matter how badly the neocons or Clauzwitz wish for it.
I was thinking of both sides of the coin. Do we have any similar historical examples in which the "iron fist" approach was NOT the solution that ended up working? Does the iron fist approach really work? (I hear a hearty "yes" coming from you, so...) Finally, is this a viable option, considering it is America that would be acting on an "iron fist" policy.
It makes me think of an interview with the scientist who was proposing a newer, bigger supercollider be built:
"so does this have some military application, Mr Liederman?"
"Well, no."
"No defense applications for our country whatsoever?"
"No... but it will help make our country more worth defending."
America doesn't want to be "that guy." The results of the recent election clearly show this. While ruling with an iron fist or saying anything up to organ failure isn't torture (therefore, really a re-naming of execution as "torture") might lead to more effective war-fighting in some sense, it isn't what Americans want and gives up the VERY valuable moral high ground. The US needs to be (get back to being) the good guy. Anyone who doesn't keep that in mind will find his party getting voted out of a majority. Making the US worth defending is of primary importance, above defense. There most definitely should be some things that are truly beneath us.
Western bases/troops stationed in Islamic countries. Perpetual western meddling and pressuring in the Middle East including but not limited to toppling established governments and military conquest. The creation of Israel. A total unwavering military and economic support of Israel.
Without the need for oil, the US would not have a great compulsion to place troops in the Middle East or to apply pressure to countries in the region. A general "need" to meddle would be gone. As the Middle East would no longer be of such vital strategic importance, any compulsion to aid Israel would be greatly reduced. The US could then play with a stronger hand or choose not to play at all.
Money going to terrorists would markedly decrease. So far Al Queda has been flush with cash. Think about where that cash has ultimately been coming from.
Unfortunately I need to remind you that I explained that I have also read on general strategy and in general am better informed/read than the average layman, so the assumption that my understanding of strategy is based exculsively on WW2 history is misguided, especially considering that the only 2 books I cited in my post were not about WW2.
It would certainly also depend on WHAT books on WW2 I had read. The 2nd to last book I have read recently (The most recent one being John Julius Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium) was Manstien's Lost Victories. I highly recommend it. His thoughts on Strategy, Grand Strategy, as well as how the top levels of the military interact with the political leadership ring true to this day and could be used to understand the effectiveness (or lack therof) of the neocon's approach to the war on terror and in Iraq.
This comes a lot closer to what I was hoping for. Some conjecture on what could/would happen. It sounds like you agree with me to the extent that a western-style standing army on the field would be defeated. It seems to me that even combinations of allied countries in the region could be beaten (their western-style standing armies, that is) each in turn with an "internal lines" strategy. So I'm interested in a little more detail with what you envision. Millions of men crossing national boundaries dispersed over the entire frontier? How will they be supplied with ammunition and food? How will they be effectively controlled? How will they prevent becomnig a starving mob that could be rounded up by more rapidly moving, organized, concentrated forces?
You're coming around to my views now. Eliminate oil dependence to achieve feedom of action. Mind you, my question was what if Iran attacked the US, but it behooves the US to be as unaffected as possible by the economic consequences of a war with any oil-producing country. Surely it would be bad to be militarily attacked by Iran AND suffer the consequent economic problems?
I'd be interested to get a good picture from you of that historical continuity and the strategical implications that follow from it.
The "strategy" that HAS been followed by the US seems to almost defy explanation. If you take Bush's stated aims for granted, it's a case of ineptitude and choosing the wrong basic goals. If only Iraq were a stable, prosperous democracy. "If only" unfortunately does not constitute a strategy. Surely they cannot be THAT stupid? So one attempts to reverse-engineer the strategy by looking at what has been done. Clearly one needs to seal up the borders to prevent arms and insurgents from entering the country, yet this was never done. The only explanation that makes sense to me is, they simply wanted to open up a new "theatre of war" (like the British fighting the Nazis in other theaters when they couldn't confront them on the continent) that would compel the enemy to oppose our military forces with forces of their own, with a consequent drain in men and resources... an attempt to draw the enemy into a sort of reverse-asymetric warfare. However I don't think Americans would approve making someone's country a battlefield just so you can open up another field of war.
- Status