Read up on Arab Armies and their internal culture first. An internal culture which is partly (if not completely) caused by the ex-army situation of local society.
From
www.strategypage.com:
August 21, 2002; Fort Riley, Kansas, home to two heavy mechanized brigades, has repainted all of its equipment in desert tan, although the troops remain in European woodland (green). Several National Guard units coming to Riley for training all showed up in desert cammo. The New Hampshire National Guard was just issued new trucks in desert colors with orders not to repaint them.--Stephen V Cole
If this is true, and it seems it is, then the attack will go ahead at some point.
This is a series of posts from the Europa Universalis Board.
Originally by Crazy_Ivan80
P.S. the West may be dependent on oil, it is not dependen on Middel Eastern oil. In case of a prolongued oil-war the ME would only be hurting itself financially, economically, etc...
In case of such a conlict the west would end up on top because:
1. the west has all the hardware, that includes the long range delivery systems fo when things go pearshaped. In such a case we can make things go mushroom shaped (as a last result), the ME can't (in comparison).
2. when cut of from ME oil the west can go lok for alternative sources, which are almost all in the hands of western aligned countries, or countries which are becoming western. This would mean short term pain for the west, but long term pain for the ME as their entire economies are built on oil.
3. The west also has the luxury of being able to go search for alternative powersources, especially so since much of the tech is already there.
Originally by Keynes
Bingo. Among the problems of the scenario, it misunsderstands the contemporary economics of oil. In the early 70s, the ME oil countries were still relatively poor and had just secured full control over their oil supplies. So a boycott was a realistic strategy. Now these states have built vast bureaucracies, welfare states and patronage networks all funded solely from the flow of oil dollars. If they cut of spigot off, the system collapses. Thats why with regard to eg Iraq - its not Iraq that threatens to cut off oil supplies unless the West agrees to leave it alone, but the *West* that refuses to *buy* the oil unless the Iraqis do as they are told.
Originally by Kronn
Bingo. The ME oil nations are just as much dependent on oil sales as their customer's economies are dependent on it. We rarely see OPEC or probably more accurately, the Saudis, wanting to raise oil prices too much as to cause a recession or downturn in their customer's economies, since that means a reduction in oil sales.
Conclusion: Oil is a weapon the West can use to far greater effect than the Arab nation could because we can easily secure other supplies, or use our own. The Arab economies depend solely on oil.
However, the thread should the US attack Iraq without the proper alliance building and/or legal trappings then the Middle East will blow up in its face. In all our faces. Maybe not militarily (since they can't fight and win against the US) but in other, more underhand ways (OBL multiplied). That is a very real threat.
Several things to take into account:
1- Israel, as western ally (don't be fooled by criticism from Europe or others. The majority knows full well that Isreal is the good guy there), is extremely vulnerable to a massive arab attack, or massive arab terror attack. Lets not forget that several arab nations have missiles and that Iraq in particular still has SCUDS (or would't have to much trouble getting some). Those Missiles can be equipped with NBC weapons (though Saddam probably only has chemo and maybe bio weapons). Israel on the other hand has nukes and has, rightly so, said it will retaliate in force when attacked by NBC weapons (or if the nation is threatened by emminent demise)
2- Currently, due to Bin Laden, Islamitic fanticism (the real Islamo-Fascists) and stupid remaks by Bush and Co (Like Axis of Terror), the Islamic world (From Marocco to Indonesia) is convinced that the War on Terror is indeed a War against Islam. We all know they are wrong, but the people there don't know (and the governments there aren't going to tell them either... US hate is way to useful for that). So the past year has indeed succeeded in united the muslim world by using the oldest trick in the book: (percieved) mutual enemy: in this case the U.S (and close second: Europe). This could easily translate into action in the case of a US attack on Iraq.
---> currently both Sunni and Shi'a branches are united in their hatred for the US.
3- Also, several key allies in the region are dubious regimes at best, beyond contempt at worst. Those regimes aren't really stable due to their own stupidity and could be toppled, or change sides when threatened with demise, in case of a US attack. That would bring regimes into place that are even more anti US/West, and those regimes would not be unwilling to commit to attacking the US/Isreal either (which puts us back at 1). In case Pakistan: they have nukes and the missiles to deliver them anywhere in the region be that India or Israel (and they'd probably launch at both!). So it is vital that the US continues its policy of
Divide et Impera Divide and Conquer/Rule. Only by keeping the Arab nations divided the US can win a conflict in Iraq easily, and that means Coalition Building.
---> following from 2 and 3: an attack could possible unite arch-enemies Iraq and Iran against the US. To prevent this a Pro-Iran policy might be usefull.
4- In case events go wrong: have people thought about that 5th column most Western nations could potentially have? Europe especially. We have large muslim communities in Europe, of which a sufficiently large number are fanatic and hostile towards us to pose a threat. How bad the problem really is would only be known when it happens, but in case of war I beleive surveillance of the muslim communities will increase, just like it did during the GIA (Algerian fanatics) period or when 11/09/01 (dd/mm/yy!!!!) happened. in any case: it ties down resources.
