The Indian Ocean

Diplomacy IS the key element in resolving Iraq and it is THE undiscussed issue of this campaign. BTW if I am wrong on this, I would welcome recommendations as to reading.

The Darcy Plan says vague things about Diplomacy and all three surviving candidates have avoided the issue .. giving it lip service at best.

Sadly, the intellectual media .. from the Council on Foreign Relations to Human Events, are also quiet on these issues., Are they afraid to comment during a political season? ...

Why is this issue so little discussed?

Because a diplomatic solution, which MUST occur, is going to require decisions that probably can not be debated in public without the media turning the debate into yet another circus of recriminations.

For whatever it is worth, here is my analysis as an amateur:

MINIMAL DECISIONS

Sadly even the most minimal. most obvious decisions will be controversial. For example, Kurdish policy. We do not have one. Turkey, Russia, Kurdestan, and Iran all do ... they would wipe out the Kurds as an independent people. The situation, moreover, i8s a lot like the situation in Israel ... "morals" are trumped by oil and the control of oil.

The relationship to Israel i9s never discussed by the media but the Kurds are allied with Israel for obvious reasons.

So, if by diplomacy we decide to let .. say .. Turkey have it s way, President Next will take a huge moral blame.

I assume that McCain, Hillary, and Obama all have thought a lot about this simple issue but there is no way they could discuss it without losing votes.

There are many other similar, "minimal decisions." Another example may be the fate of Kuwait. Ironically Sadam's claim to this toy kingdom does have some merit and strategically could make sense if it resulted in a more stable economy for the Iraqi Sunnis. Imagine, however, hullabaloo if any candidate suggested such a "minor thing."

While I am at it, a VERY minor issue, unless you are Jewish, is that US sponsored constitution is expressly antisemitic, disowning Iraqi Jews (who have been there for about 2500 years) of their property.

and these are the MINOR issues!

MAJOR DECISIONS


The most important of these is the recognition that solving bush's mess will have long time consequences that could, if mishandled, lead anywhere including WWIII.

The most obvious issue here is the future of Israel. That is a real issue because our defense of the Jewish state distorts all other security parameters in the area. Natural allies of the US .. Syria, Iran, and Egypt can not be our close allies until that issue is solved.

BUT Israel in not the largest issue.

The key to this is understanding the Indian Ocean. Control of the Indian Ocean is critical to the flow of oil and therefore to the status of ALL the world powers. China has as much of a stake in the Indian Ocean as we do.

Right now the Indian Ocean Ia an American lake. Achieving the kind of support Darcy's plan talks about will require long term commitments to the future of that Lake. As one small example, recently Pakistan has allowed China to establish a naval base on the Indian Ocean! Iran and India are both in the early stages of an arms war to create fleets that could challenge the US there as well.

The reasons for these nationalistic efforts are obvious as is the lack of US policy. To get the help of major players, like China, India or Iran, we will need publicly or quietly to concede some level of control of this critical waterway.

Moreover, control of this lake is not independent of what happens on its borders. Peace in the Indian ocean can be challenged by surrogate wars in Somalia or Sri Lanka. So far those wars have been minor annoyances but what happens if, say, Iran, decides to support the Tamils in Sri Lanka or the Chinese support one or the other side in Somalia?

Most serious of all is the fate of Saudi Arabia. Every economist I have read says that SA will fall in the not far off future. That is fine by me, but what will replace it? An even more strict Wahhabi regime (Taliban), a Chinese friendly corporate regime, or ???? From the POV of China, some sort of corporate state would be easiest to do business with. That might be OK for us too, although there is the little matter of democracy. OTOH, Iran may not want a corporate state because it, Iran, is committed a model of Islamic democracy. Decisions as to control of the Indian Ocean may well determine the future of Saudi Arabia.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some will say that we need a simple policy .. US should act like a minor power and get out of everyone else's affairs. Well, imagine what would happen in Hillary proposed sharing the Indian Ocean with China?