![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Maia and were heading someplace and something on the radio was being said about the escalation being planned for Iraq. Which caused Maia to say she'd heard that the estimated cost was understated, because the extra troops weren't the only people who would have to be paid, since they will require more support personell.
Which led me to ponder things about money, which Cicero said was the sinew of war.
The US doesn't have the money it needs to finance the wars it is fighting, which means we are borrowing it. Under the best of circumstances, this is a less than brilliant tactic. Looking back, there is a recent example of how, even with the most friendly of allies it's a course which leaves grave vulnerabilties in the ability to execute operation.
Suez, 1956. Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal.
Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of Her Majesties Gov't saw it as a threat to England's ability to do business, "No arrangements for the future of this great international waterway could be acceptable to Her Majesty’s Government which would leave it in the unfettered control of a single Power which could, as recent events have show, exploit it purely for purposes of national policy."
Quite apart from that, Eden had an antipathy to Egypt's President Nasser, saying, "What’s all this poppycock you’ve sent me? . . . what’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser, or ‘neutralizing’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him removed. . . . And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt," which may have colored his thinking.
Certainly it was part of his arranging with France, and Israel, to attack Egypt, to retake the Canal. Israel was also looking to change the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel's grievances included Egypt's declaration that, "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." Egypt had also signed a treaty which placed Nasser in charge of Syria and Jordan's armies.
So a pre-emptive strike, against the anticipated attack which was coming was, so they thought, in Israel's interest.
So this coalition invaded, and took the Canal.
Which wasn't receieved well, elsewhere in the world.
Egpt was feeling pressured (and abused) by the US, and the British, who were upset by Nasser's growing ties to the USSR. Because of this the promised aid, for building the Aswan Dam, had been rescinded. Nasser expected the tolls on the canal to cover the costs, in about five years, while England was afraid the canal might be closed to petroleum to the West.
So the lot of them decided diplomacy wasn't going to be good enough. Israel attacked, France and England waltzed in and "established a peace."
But England had a problem. The pound was under pressure (from speculation) and the Bank of England was selling off her dollar reserves to keep the pound propped up.
Come December there weren't enough reserves to meet England's various debts, and the US refused (by some gamesmanship of being "unavailable") to make a loan to cover payments, unless the Britain did what the US wanted in the Suez (i.e. actually fulfill the terms of the U.N. resolution, instead of "conforming" which had the British still holding onto the Canal, in fact, though it nominally was once again Egypt's).
How does this apply to the present?
We are spending more than we are taking in. The vast majority of that expense is being spent in Iraq. If the gov't had raised taxes (perhaps only to the levels in place when it came to power) we could be covering the war, as we go. But we didn't, and so we have needed to borrow money to pay the bills.
If England, for example, were who we were paying for our little adventure, we might not have a whole lot of worries, because (at the moment) the British Gov't is supportive of our, general, efforts.
But England isn't picking up our tab, China is, and China isn't likely to be all that happy about us spreading the fight to Iran.
So she might decide to stop buying our debt. That would put a huge crimp in the war. The argument against this is that the secondary effects of such an action are likely to be worldwide.
However, China has a growing need for oil. Right now she is importing a, non-trvial amount, of it from Iran. Prior to the war, China was focusing on getting sanctions on Iraq lifted, in Mar. 2003, that went by the boards. She's also working on developing some oil-fields in Iran, as well as some natural gas.
The effect on the Chinse economy of losing those, might be drastic enough to make it worth her while to accept the problems, which would come of forcing the issue, rather than wait to see what the longer term effects of letting us spread the conflict.
Which would be very embarrassing, as one of the soldier in the Suez said, "We were the laughing stock of the world, thanks to Eden, because that was really the moment at which England stopped being a super-power.
Which led me to ponder things about money, which Cicero said was the sinew of war.
The US doesn't have the money it needs to finance the wars it is fighting, which means we are borrowing it. Under the best of circumstances, this is a less than brilliant tactic. Looking back, there is a recent example of how, even with the most friendly of allies it's a course which leaves grave vulnerabilties in the ability to execute operation.
Suez, 1956. Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal.
Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of Her Majesties Gov't saw it as a threat to England's ability to do business, "No arrangements for the future of this great international waterway could be acceptable to Her Majesty’s Government which would leave it in the unfettered control of a single Power which could, as recent events have show, exploit it purely for purposes of national policy."
Quite apart from that, Eden had an antipathy to Egypt's President Nasser, saying, "What’s all this poppycock you’ve sent me? . . . what’s all this nonsense about isolating Nasser, or ‘neutralizing’ him, as you call it? I want him destroyed, can’t you understand? I want him removed. . . . And I don’t give a damn if there’s anarchy and chaos in Egypt," which may have colored his thinking.
Certainly it was part of his arranging with France, and Israel, to attack Egypt, to retake the Canal. Israel was also looking to change the balance of power in the Middle East. Israel's grievances included Egypt's declaration that, "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of Pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the land of Palestine....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." Egypt had also signed a treaty which placed Nasser in charge of Syria and Jordan's armies.
So a pre-emptive strike, against the anticipated attack which was coming was, so they thought, in Israel's interest.
So this coalition invaded, and took the Canal.
Which wasn't receieved well, elsewhere in the world.
Egpt was feeling pressured (and abused) by the US, and the British, who were upset by Nasser's growing ties to the USSR. Because of this the promised aid, for building the Aswan Dam, had been rescinded. Nasser expected the tolls on the canal to cover the costs, in about five years, while England was afraid the canal might be closed to petroleum to the West.
So the lot of them decided diplomacy wasn't going to be good enough. Israel attacked, France and England waltzed in and "established a peace."
But England had a problem. The pound was under pressure (from speculation) and the Bank of England was selling off her dollar reserves to keep the pound propped up.
Come December there weren't enough reserves to meet England's various debts, and the US refused (by some gamesmanship of being "unavailable") to make a loan to cover payments, unless the Britain did what the US wanted in the Suez (i.e. actually fulfill the terms of the U.N. resolution, instead of "conforming" which had the British still holding onto the Canal, in fact, though it nominally was once again Egypt's).
How does this apply to the present?
We are spending more than we are taking in. The vast majority of that expense is being spent in Iraq. If the gov't had raised taxes (perhaps only to the levels in place when it came to power) we could be covering the war, as we go. But we didn't, and so we have needed to borrow money to pay the bills.
If England, for example, were who we were paying for our little adventure, we might not have a whole lot of worries, because (at the moment) the British Gov't is supportive of our, general, efforts.
But England isn't picking up our tab, China is, and China isn't likely to be all that happy about us spreading the fight to Iran.
So she might decide to stop buying our debt. That would put a huge crimp in the war. The argument against this is that the secondary effects of such an action are likely to be worldwide.
However, China has a growing need for oil. Right now she is importing a, non-trvial amount, of it from Iran. Prior to the war, China was focusing on getting sanctions on Iraq lifted, in Mar. 2003, that went by the boards. She's also working on developing some oil-fields in Iran, as well as some natural gas.
The effect on the Chinse economy of losing those, might be drastic enough to make it worth her while to accept the problems, which would come of forcing the issue, rather than wait to see what the longer term effects of letting us spread the conflict.
Which would be very embarrassing, as one of the soldier in the Suez said, "We were the laughing stock of the world, thanks to Eden, because that was really the moment at which England stopped being a super-power.
