Home
Interview with US political analyst and author Brian Downing
14/03/2012 16:48
ERBIL, March 14 (AKnews) - AKnews spoke exclusively to US political and military analyst Brian M. Downing. He is the author of The Military Revolution and Political Change, as well as The Paths of Glory: Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam.
How do you view the repercussions of the Arab spring, especially the emergence of religious parties, or even the Salafi Islamic movement?
The Arab spring is giving millions of people the opportunity to rid themselves of populist and military dictators who have done little to develop their countries, economically or politically. The new governments face tremendous difficulties - many countries have huge numbers of young people who want opportunity, and many countries don't have the “building blocks” of democracy, such as political parties and interest groups.
The Muslim Brotherhood has, at least in Egypt, become a broad-based political movement and it'll have a large say in the future of their country. Many observers in the US fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will try to impose an Iran-like theocracy but this is unlikely as it would be opposed by the public and the army, too.
The Salafi movement has traditionally looked to moral regeneration rather than political parties to achieve its goal of a new order, but the decline of autocracies is forcing them to get involved in politics. In Egypt, they have done well (about 25 percent of the votes) but they're deeply mistrusted for being heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. It isn’t clear that Saudi Arabia is funding them but many middle-class Egyptians think they are.
The Salafi movement is also engaged in the opposition to Assad in Syria and in the anti-Shia forces in Iraq. I suspect the Saudis support them in both countries as a way to counter Iran.
How do you view the Iranian nuclear issue and the last mutual accusations between Israel and the United States on one hand and Tehran on the other? What are their effects on Iraq and the Middle East?
Iran is probably building nuclear weapons or at least the materials to build one someday. I don't see it as a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else. Iran wants to deter another foreign invasion such as the one they endured in 1980-88, which killed perhaps 800,000 of its people. There is no evidence that Iran is going beyond the enrichment of uranium and is actually building a weapon.
The fear is that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would develop its own bomb - or perhaps purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan. This isn’t necessarily so. Neither South Korea nor Japan developed nuclear weapons after North Korea did.
What will be the size and impact of political change in Syria and the Middle East if President Assad is removed from power?
I don’t think the Assad regime can survive the uprising. The opposition is being armed by the Muslim Brothers, Salafi groups acting for Saudi Arabia, Sunni Iraqis, and probably Turkey. The longer Assad tries to hold onto power, the more likely it is that the country will descend into chaos.
Is the State of Greater Kurdistan on its way to evolution? When could this happen? And who is helping to make it happen?
The Kurdish region of Iraq is already close to being an independent country. If the Sunni-Shia conflict erupts into civil war, the Kurdish region will try to stay aloof and consolidate its differentiation from Iraq.
Syrian Kurds are demanding autonomy from Damascus, and Damascus is trying to kill and otherwise intimidate the Kurdish leaders. If Syria falls into chaos, the Kurds there will likely seek a federation with their kin in Iraq. Aside from the Kurds themselves wanting this, Israel would like to see its powerful neighbors disintegrate into weaker parts.
Turkey and Iran will be wary of an emerging Kurdish state as it would likely want to add areas now in their countries.
How would an independent Kurdistan benefit more from its resources than it would within Iraq?
The Kurdish lands were blessed with resources but not with ports. Kurdistan will have to export its products through neighbors - Turkey, Iraq or Syria. That will require agreements with one or more of those countries but I don’t see those agreements as terribly costly. Kurdistan should not rely on only one export route. That would of course give the country too much influence.
Would a unified Kurdish country with the Iranian, Syrian and Turkish Kurds face any kind of difficulties or problems in the future?
It will be difficult for the Kurdish areas of Iran to break away as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are very powerful and ruthless. Breaking away would require paralysis or collapse of the Iranian state. That could be caused by fiscal collapse brought on by protracted and effective sanctions or by turmoil brought on by reformists fighting the government.
Turkey also is too powerful. Turkey and Iran will try to play upon tribal divisions inside Iraqi Kurdistan and keep the country from becoming too powerful and ambitious.
How can Kurdistan benefit from the internal problems Iraq is currently facing?
Kurdistan doesn't want a strong state in Iraq and would prefer to see the Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs divided against each other, though not necessarily fighting each other. Fighting would bring too much uncertainty and the Kurds might be drawn in. A standoff would enable Kurdistan to go about its separate way.
There will be regional help for the standoff in Iraq. Iran supports the Shia, while Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni.
Do you think that dividing Iraq into regions would result in fighting on the grounds of wealth and politics?
The fighting is going on already. We see the Sunni insurgents bombing Shia targets every week. They kill dozens of people every week. Sunni autonomy or independence offers a greater chance for peaceful co-existence. The Sunni region has the least wealth but of course the Sunnis have been accustomed to taking a good deal of the wealth of the country since the days of the Hashemites, maybe even the Ottomans. There are some promising oil fields in Al Anbar but they're far away from producing oil yet.
The writer, author and historian William F. Engdahl says the ultimate goal of the US is to take the resources of Africa and the Middle East under military control to block economic growth in China and Russia, thus taking control of the whole of Eurasia. He believes the uprising in the Middle East and North Africa is a plan first announced by George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in 2003 called “The Greater Middle East Project”. What do you think about this?
That’s far too conspiratorial to me. The US has no chance of controlling Eurasia or Africa and no one can think it ever could. If the US wanted to block Chinese growth it could simply stop using China to manufacture everything from Levis to iPhones.
There is of course a competition for many commodities, especially oil and rare earths. That competition will be an important part of world history for the next several decades.
No one planned the Middle Eastern uprisings. They were a product of tiresome dictatorships and a large number of young people who wanted a future.
Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, said the purpose of removing Gaddafi's Libya from power was to try to set off China's oil investments in the East and Africa. Does that support the idea that the Arab spring was planned previously by America? To what extent is that true?
Libyan oil resources were already being exploited by western companies under Gaddafi. BP had a large stake. So it’s difficult to see much gain to western oil companies from the revolution. I see the outside support for the Libyan rebels as based on humanitarian grounds. If Gaddafi hadn’t used his air force on the demonstrators and not publicly threatened to slaughter them, he might be in power today. Note that Assad is careful not to do either of those things.
You said that representative democracy in Iraq is tentative and imperfect. Do you hold that view because Iraq is a tribal ethnic country with different religions and nationalities?
That’s an important part of it. But also Iraq did not have political parties or interest groups - the building blocks of democracy. There were some political parties, but they were set up in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
You said that Iran's influence is substantial but not dominant. After all, Iraq has granted oil licenses and defense contracts to US companies and this could not have sat well in Tehran. What are the effects of that on Iraq?
Iraq is in position to play Iran and the US off against one another. Hopefully Iraq can thereby stay out of any conflict between those two countries. It can also ask for aid from both countries, as Yugoslavia and India did during the Cold War.
Do you think Iraq will keep being a “fractious country”?
Yes, I do. The sectarian tensions flared after the US ousted the Sunni Arabs from power. Now the Saudi-Iranian conflict is keeping the tensions strong. Autonomy or independence would help but probably only after many years.
Do you think there will be another big world war, its trigger being the Iranian nuclear program?
I don’t think a war between the US and Iran is likely. Polling data in the US show little support for war. The same is true in Israel. If there were one, however, I don’t think it would spread outside the Gulf.
Following the First Gulf War in 1991, as you mentioned, the US, Britain and France enforced a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Why Kurdistan meanwhile helped Saddam Hussein to suppress an intifada (uprising) in the southern parts of Iraq, What do you think about this?
I believe there was a no-fly zone over the south. Saddam suppressed the Shias without using aircraft, only helicopters and ground troops. The Kurds had armed militias to counter Saddam ground forces. The Shia didn't, and they were crushed.
You think a war on Iraq was a bad idea. Why you think that?
I thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a bad idea at the time and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. It killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans. It didn't help US national security at all. It did help Iranian security though. The US did in a few days what Iran couldn’t do in 8 years - destroy the Iraqi army.
But here we are in 2012 and however foolish the invasion was, Iraq now has an opportunity to develop in a better direction than under Saddam. That's not a justification - it is simply a recognition that good things can come from bad things, and vice versa.
Is there a water war on the horizon, especially in the Middle East region?
I can’t speak very intelligently on the water issue in the entire Middle East, but I do know that water is one of the chief reasons Israel wants to hold on to the West Bank. Take a look at the aquifers in the region.
By Majda Muhsen
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
14/03/2012 16:48
ERBIL, March 14 (AKnews) - AKnews spoke exclusively to US political and military analyst Brian M. Downing. He is the author of The Military Revolution and Political Change, as well as The Paths of Glory: Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam.
How do you view the repercussions of the Arab spring, especially the emergence of religious parties, or even the Salafi Islamic movement?
The Arab spring is giving millions of people the opportunity to rid themselves of populist and military dictators who have done little to develop their countries, economically or politically. The new governments face tremendous difficulties - many countries have huge numbers of young people who want opportunity, and many countries don't have the “building blocks” of democracy, such as political parties and interest groups.
The Muslim Brotherhood has, at least in Egypt, become a broad-based political movement and it'll have a large say in the future of their country. Many observers in the US fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will try to impose an Iran-like theocracy but this is unlikely as it would be opposed by the public and the army, too.
The Salafi movement has traditionally looked to moral regeneration rather than political parties to achieve its goal of a new order, but the decline of autocracies is forcing them to get involved in politics. In Egypt, they have done well (about 25 percent of the votes) but they're deeply mistrusted for being heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. It isn’t clear that Saudi Arabia is funding them but many middle-class Egyptians think they are.
The Salafi movement is also engaged in the opposition to Assad in Syria and in the anti-Shia forces in Iraq. I suspect the Saudis support them in both countries as a way to counter Iran.
How do you view the Iranian nuclear issue and the last mutual accusations between Israel and the United States on one hand and Tehran on the other? What are their effects on Iraq and the Middle East?
Iran is probably building nuclear weapons or at least the materials to build one someday. I don't see it as a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, or anyone else. Iran wants to deter another foreign invasion such as the one they endured in 1980-88, which killed perhaps 800,000 of its people. There is no evidence that Iran is going beyond the enrichment of uranium and is actually building a weapon.
The fear is that if Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia would develop its own bomb - or perhaps purchase nuclear weapons from Pakistan. This isn’t necessarily so. Neither South Korea nor Japan developed nuclear weapons after North Korea did.
What will be the size and impact of political change in Syria and the Middle East if President Assad is removed from power?
I don’t think the Assad regime can survive the uprising. The opposition is being armed by the Muslim Brothers, Salafi groups acting for Saudi Arabia, Sunni Iraqis, and probably Turkey. The longer Assad tries to hold onto power, the more likely it is that the country will descend into chaos.
Is the State of Greater Kurdistan on its way to evolution? When could this happen? And who is helping to make it happen?
The Kurdish region of Iraq is already close to being an independent country. If the Sunni-Shia conflict erupts into civil war, the Kurdish region will try to stay aloof and consolidate its differentiation from Iraq.
Syrian Kurds are demanding autonomy from Damascus, and Damascus is trying to kill and otherwise intimidate the Kurdish leaders. If Syria falls into chaos, the Kurds there will likely seek a federation with their kin in Iraq. Aside from the Kurds themselves wanting this, Israel would like to see its powerful neighbors disintegrate into weaker parts.
Turkey and Iran will be wary of an emerging Kurdish state as it would likely want to add areas now in their countries.
How would an independent Kurdistan benefit more from its resources than it would within Iraq?
The Kurdish lands were blessed with resources but not with ports. Kurdistan will have to export its products through neighbors - Turkey, Iraq or Syria. That will require agreements with one or more of those countries but I don’t see those agreements as terribly costly. Kurdistan should not rely on only one export route. That would of course give the country too much influence.
Would a unified Kurdish country with the Iranian, Syrian and Turkish Kurds face any kind of difficulties or problems in the future?
It will be difficult for the Kurdish areas of Iran to break away as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are very powerful and ruthless. Breaking away would require paralysis or collapse of the Iranian state. That could be caused by fiscal collapse brought on by protracted and effective sanctions or by turmoil brought on by reformists fighting the government.
Turkey also is too powerful. Turkey and Iran will try to play upon tribal divisions inside Iraqi Kurdistan and keep the country from becoming too powerful and ambitious.
How can Kurdistan benefit from the internal problems Iraq is currently facing?
Kurdistan doesn't want a strong state in Iraq and would prefer to see the Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs divided against each other, though not necessarily fighting each other. Fighting would bring too much uncertainty and the Kurds might be drawn in. A standoff would enable Kurdistan to go about its separate way.
There will be regional help for the standoff in Iraq. Iran supports the Shia, while Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni.
Do you think that dividing Iraq into regions would result in fighting on the grounds of wealth and politics?
The fighting is going on already. We see the Sunni insurgents bombing Shia targets every week. They kill dozens of people every week. Sunni autonomy or independence offers a greater chance for peaceful co-existence. The Sunni region has the least wealth but of course the Sunnis have been accustomed to taking a good deal of the wealth of the country since the days of the Hashemites, maybe even the Ottomans. There are some promising oil fields in Al Anbar but they're far away from producing oil yet.
The writer, author and historian William F. Engdahl says the ultimate goal of the US is to take the resources of Africa and the Middle East under military control to block economic growth in China and Russia, thus taking control of the whole of Eurasia. He believes the uprising in the Middle East and North Africa is a plan first announced by George W. Bush at a G8 meeting in 2003 called “The Greater Middle East Project”. What do you think about this?
That’s far too conspiratorial to me. The US has no chance of controlling Eurasia or Africa and no one can think it ever could. If the US wanted to block Chinese growth it could simply stop using China to manufacture everything from Levis to iPhones.
There is of course a competition for many commodities, especially oil and rare earths. That competition will be an important part of world history for the next several decades.
No one planned the Middle Eastern uprisings. They were a product of tiresome dictatorships and a large number of young people who wanted a future.
Paul Craig Roberts, former US Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, said the purpose of removing Gaddafi's Libya from power was to try to set off China's oil investments in the East and Africa. Does that support the idea that the Arab spring was planned previously by America? To what extent is that true?
Libyan oil resources were already being exploited by western companies under Gaddafi. BP had a large stake. So it’s difficult to see much gain to western oil companies from the revolution. I see the outside support for the Libyan rebels as based on humanitarian grounds. If Gaddafi hadn’t used his air force on the demonstrators and not publicly threatened to slaughter them, he might be in power today. Note that Assad is careful not to do either of those things.
You said that representative democracy in Iraq is tentative and imperfect. Do you hold that view because Iraq is a tribal ethnic country with different religions and nationalities?
That’s an important part of it. But also Iraq did not have political parties or interest groups - the building blocks of democracy. There were some political parties, but they were set up in Iran during the Iran-Iraq war.
You said that Iran's influence is substantial but not dominant. After all, Iraq has granted oil licenses and defense contracts to US companies and this could not have sat well in Tehran. What are the effects of that on Iraq?
Iraq is in position to play Iran and the US off against one another. Hopefully Iraq can thereby stay out of any conflict between those two countries. It can also ask for aid from both countries, as Yugoslavia and India did during the Cold War.
Do you think Iraq will keep being a “fractious country”?
Yes, I do. The sectarian tensions flared after the US ousted the Sunni Arabs from power. Now the Saudi-Iranian conflict is keeping the tensions strong. Autonomy or independence would help but probably only after many years.
Do you think there will be another big world war, its trigger being the Iranian nuclear program?
I don’t think a war between the US and Iran is likely. Polling data in the US show little support for war. The same is true in Israel. If there were one, however, I don’t think it would spread outside the Gulf.
Following the First Gulf War in 1991, as you mentioned, the US, Britain and France enforced a no-fly zone over northern Iraq. Why Kurdistan meanwhile helped Saddam Hussein to suppress an intifada (uprising) in the southern parts of Iraq, What do you think about this?
I believe there was a no-fly zone over the south. Saddam suppressed the Shias without using aircraft, only helicopters and ground troops. The Kurds had armed militias to counter Saddam ground forces. The Shia didn't, and they were crushed.
You think a war on Iraq was a bad idea. Why you think that?
I thought the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a bad idea at the time and nothing has happened since then to change my mind. It killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and several thousand Americans. It didn't help US national security at all. It did help Iranian security though. The US did in a few days what Iran couldn’t do in 8 years - destroy the Iraqi army.
But here we are in 2012 and however foolish the invasion was, Iraq now has an opportunity to develop in a better direction than under Saddam. That's not a justification - it is simply a recognition that good things can come from bad things, and vice versa.
Is there a water war on the horizon, especially in the Middle East region?
I can’t speak very intelligently on the water issue in the entire Middle East, but I do know that water is one of the chief reasons Israel wants to hold on to the West Bank. Take a look at the aquifers in the region.
By Majda Muhsen
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
