US "Big Bang" in Iraq Caused "A Million Little Pieces"

Thanks to TigerHawk, I was alerted to the brilliant analysis of Josh Manchester in TCS, which in short describes how the US invasion of Iraq had what was [perhaps the unintended] consequence of removing a large Sunni firewall, namely Saddam's minoritarian dictatorship, between Iran and the large Shi'ite population in Iraq, the Alawite semi-Shi'ite regime in Syria, and the Hezbollah Shi'ite Ubermilitia in South Lebanon. TigerHawk has an extensive summary of the TCS piece, and I suggest you link to him for a quick hit, but the overall gist of the TCS article is that

the Arabs are placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil. Before the US invasion, Iraq was the geo-strategic pivot of the Middle East. All of the fault lines in the area's politics converge there. The Sunni-Shia split; the Arab-Persian split; the Ba'athist-Wahhabist split; and the Muslim-Israeli split: each of these ran through Iraq via its ethnic and religious makeup; its geographic location; and its former interests, alliances, and enemies.

The 'big bang,' as invading Iraq has sometimes been called, was meant to reorder the nature of politics in the region. This has been accomplished in a fundamental way. The idea of dividing an enemy force into its constituent parts and then dealing with it piecemeal is at least as old as Caesar's actions in Gaul. It applies no less to US strategy in the Middle East. Every faction there has been made to reconsider its relationship with every other. Rather than there being a monolithic clash of civilizations, thus far the US is dealing with the area in pieces -- in whatever way it sees fit to do so -- whether making it tacitly clear to Syria that what happened in Iraq could more easily happen to it, or threatening Iran on behalf of the region and world, or seeking cooperation with the Saudis in hunting down al Qaeda.

Far from being a bit of belated triumphalism about the invasion, all of this has immediate and direct consequences. While the success of Iraq's democracy hangs in the balance from an operational perspective, the strategic advantages created by the invasion of Iraq are working very favorably for the US in the current Israeli-Lebanon crisis in very tangible ways.

Okay, I have a quibble that Iraq is the faultline of the Muslim-Israeli split, although the Israelis feared Iraq more than Iran to the extent that they used Michael Ledeen to instigate Iran Contra to sluice weapons and ammo to aid the Iranian war effort back in the days of Ronald Reagan. But Manchester did steal my other lines which I employed while giving my dog-and-pony Middle East act at Amoco Corporation before the Board of Directors and various divisions of that corporation when they were deciding on entry-strategies for Saudi Arabia and Israel [Yes, Israel!]. Indeed, Manchester omitted the Turkish component of the Iraqi Bermuda Triangle of conflicts, since the Turkomans and Kurds also comprised some of the fault-line participants, as did the Turks and their Azeri cousins in Tabriz. But I digress. The punchline of the TCS op-ed is straightforward:

Were Saddam still in power, the Arab world would not feel nearly as threatened by Hezbollah, the Frankenstein's monster of Iran's creation. Instead, they would have sided with the Syrian foreign minister's strong support for Hezbollah. Saddam himself might even have offered cash rewards to anyone attempting martyrdom against the Jews.

Instead, they came to no consensus. The leading Arab League states, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt, call Hezbollah's actions "inappropriate and irresponsible." This lessens the urgency of calls from the international community, whether the G8, UN, or EU, for a ceasefire. That lessened urgency creates something very precious indeed: a moment in time and space wherein Israel has the most fleeting of opportunities for decisive action against Hezbollah, an avowed foe, a terrorist organization, and a constant threat to the security of its populace.

Manchester goes on to encourage Israel to finish off Hezbollah with the cheering section of Arab leadership egging it on.

Of course, this would be wonderful if accomplished, but in the Middle East, no good deed goes unpunished. I personally wonder whether the Sunni Arabs in the Peninsula and Egypt/Jordan are ready to face underground opposition from the Al Qaeda-sympathizing Sunnis who hate the West, Israel, and Shi'ites only third in that order. Or perhaps fourth, behind Christians inserted on its hate sheet.

More interesting would be the consequences if the 65% Sunni majority in Syria replaces the 15% Alawite minoritarian dictatorship---perhaps that is the goal of the Sunni Peninsulars and their allies, and remember the secular Ba'athists in Syria are sworn enemies of Wahhabis.

Remark on the fact that Bush and Rice spent much of today talking to the visiting Saudis and loading them with $6 billion in armament sales, including Blackhawk choppers and other lethal delivery systems at the most advanced end of US tech. And guess who will be assisting the Saudis in assimilating these armaments and even guiding their delivery to northward destinations both east and west---and I don't mean toward Iraq.

My hunch as a former Political/Military Officer in Jidda that these sales are an incentive to finally get the lowdown on the Al-Khobar killing of 19 US military, whose Hezbollah terrorists the Saudis have heretofore protected due to fear of Iranian reprisals.

Remember, the U.S. lost 241 Marines from Hezbollah in Beirut in the 1980s and 19 more in Khobar. We should help the Israelis pay them back 10-fold for the insult. And even the French lost 75 the same day as the Marines were hit. The French Foreign Legion can actually fight hard and hopefully they will be part of the UN force in South Lebanon Kofi should be working on as I write these words. What else did Condi spend 2 days in NYC talking to Kofi and the UN Middle East team about, if it were not about a UNIFIL successor with teeth?

Anyway, Fuad Ajami would agree with much if not all of the above.