HomeWritersLiterary AgentsEditorsPublishersResourcesDiscussion
Forum Login | Join the discussion
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Beyond Iraq

  1. #1

    Beyond Iraq

    I'm trying to project for a story set 10 years in the future about political trends.

    Let's assume that there will be some kind of armed conflict in Iraq before this is through (for good or ill - probably ill in my view)

    Let's assume that this won't win us any friends in the Arab world, nor shut down the supply of U.S. enemies.

    Now for my question: what would be a reasonable choice for the next U.S. theater against Islamic fundamentalists? Indonesia? Syria? Yemen? Iraq again? Pakistan? I'm sort of a political lightweight and need some focus for research on likely trouble spots in the near future.


  2. #2

    Re: Beyond Iraq


    Global Exchange has lots of info on their site and tons on links. The Iraq situation is at : http://www.globalexchange.org/campai...ackground.html The links are at: http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/iraq/links.html I notice a whole bunch of links for the Middle East in particular.

    From there you should be able to browse around and get some ideas.

    I would be very surprised if we went into Pakistan because we already know they have nukes and still haven't gone in. So my guess would be our next target may be another Middle Eastern country to "stabilize" the region.

    Good luck, It sounds very interesting.


  3. #3

    One more link

    This article suggests Iran may be next. (This article is from International A.N.S.W.E.R., obviously anti-war in perspective)


    Scroll down to "But there was no evidence..." That's where I found the statement.


  4. #4
    Glen T. Brock

    Re: One more link


    Be careful where you tread. Every futurist who ever tried to speculate on the future of middle east politics has been wrong.

    Remember Spengler's DECLINE OF THE WEST where he speculated the lifespan of most dominate nation-states is usually less than 300 years? I don't think that will work anymore for the same reason it hasn't worked the way it should so far.

    The problem is in frontiers. As long as there is a frontier mentality the eventual decline and decay of a society can be curtailed. What has happended in the last 100 years is the geographical frontier has been replaced with a technological one. The greatest time of concern will be in the event technology is stalled, either by religious extremists or political opportunists. As the rate of change has accellerated over the years there won't be as much lag time in the collapse of civilisation.

    I hate sounding so philosophical about all this, but there are no clear shot bullseyes in the political arena. We are witnessing a collision of cultures. Our political systems are not being challenged. Our entire way of doing things is being challenged, rightly or wrongly, by cultures unsympathetic to our causes. Whether the political system of the Republic is replaced by Theocracy has yet to be detirmined. If it follows the sea change of other political systems the transistion will be bloody.

    Glen T. Brock

  5. #5

    Re: One more link

    dare I suggest Israel..... as long as it is only fiction. We are tiny here but we carry a hell of a lot of clout. As I dust off my gas mask....

  6. #6

    Re: One more link

    Thanks for the ideas!

  7. #7
    Pamela Taylor

    Re: One more link

    I think Saudi Arabia is more likely than Iran. The Saudis are being only partially cooperative with the war on terrorism and Iraq and there has been significant distancing from them by the US in the months since 9/11. Also, Wahabi-ism and Salfi-ism-- the worst of the extremist Islmaic thelogies are heavily promoted by the Saudis while Iran is moving towards a more libreal interpration (at least currently). Also, since much of this seems to be about oil, it would make more sense for the US to want to control Saudi than someplace like Pakistan. The other alternative is perhaps Tajikistan which is pivotal to Central Asian oil.

    Isreal? Well there's a thought, but I really can't see the US invading Israel.


  8. #8
    Bob Kellogg

    New targets

    Jeff, there's a very short list of targets. Oil-producing nations. That's what this is about. Forget North Korea, for example. That leaves Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, and the former Soviet republics on the Caspian Sea.

    Of course, Iran is in the way of any pipeline from the Caspian Sea, unless it goes through Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hmmm. Big mountains in the way. Hmmm.

    Bob K.

  9. #9
    Gary Kessler

    Next areas of concentration

    The reasonable (as in sensible) choice(s) for the next U.S. theater against Islamic fundamentalists?

    Egypt and/or Turkey. Sensible, because both are seriously threatened internally by Islamic fundamentalism, both are strategically important to U.S./UK interests (and activities) in the region, and both have governments that genuinely (as opposed to Saudi Arabia) want to defuse organized internal Islamic fundamentalist groups.

  10. #10
    Glen T. Brock

    Re: New targets


    King Faisel once said his grandfaters lived in tents as beduoins and his grandchildren would probably do the same, if they didn't manage the assets they had wisely. OPEC has more members than the Arab middleeastern states. I don't see the United States going to war with Mexico or Venezualla. I don't even see a problem with dealing with the Arabs for that matter.

    Its easy to blame all the rumors of war on the United States because of oil. What is happening in the mideast today has little to do with oil. It has to do with geopolitics going back to the fall of the Turkish empire after world war one. It has to do with several of the forbidden totems and unspeakable shibboliths of our society. It has to do with race. The Isralis are hated because they are Europeans as much as they are jews. The Palestenians are the most dispossessed people in history. Every culture has booted them out since Biblical times. They couldn't possibly be incensed because of land. They possess a xenophobic hatred of jews because THEY ARE NOT ARAB.

    The Iranians and the Iraques murdered each other by the millions and nobody said a word against it because the Iranians are Persians, not ARABS.

    The Saudis take oil money and dictate policy because they are only talking to infidels. It is unlikely they will supply anything other than token alliance with the west because we are not ARAB.

    These are harsh words because they are true. The Islamic World began this conflict because of a jehad instigated by a madman. It is a clash of culture. President Bush has correctly identified the problem. International terrorism, and its nation-state sponsers (including Iraq)cannot be allowed to wrek havoc in the name of religion. To avoid the jehad that these madmen hope for, sane people in the middleeast must decide they are members of the human race before they are Arab.

    That goes for the rest of us too. I hate to close on a snide remark but I think it's valid here. It's from THE BEST LITTLE WHOREHOUSE IN TEXAS.

    "I believe the jews and the arabs should conduct their affairs in a Christianlike manner."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts