Humanities desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23[edit]

How well is Qatar preparing for invasion?[edit]

Today's list of demands in the 2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis is truly remarkable - things like allowing the Saudi Arabian bloc to censor all the country's media, control its foreign policy, and demand open-ended reparations. These seem like demands far outsized for any blockade, however serious, and more like a call for unconditional surrender.[1][2] Understandably enough the Qataris don't seem interested.[3]

So the question is, how does a country in this day and age prepare for an imminent invasion, when it has some hope for support from external powers? I mean, the obvious thing is to mobilize the army; I found one item about them abruptly pulling out 450 peacekeepers, presumably to have them ready elsewhere.[4] But the Saudi Arabian hegemons seem primarily known for systematically starving the Houthis, so is the Qatar government effectively stockpiling for a siege, caching large amounts of food as well as weapons and explosives in distributed locations? Are they arraying people with cameras on the border to establish the facts when an incident is claimed, recruiting or even drafting soldiers? Are there reviews of everything a modern regime would do to prepare? Is Qatar following it? Wnt (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing that Qatar will be doing is trying to make sure that its opponents do not discover what it is doing or planning to do - so any answer to this would be guesswork. Wymspen (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessarily true. Qatar could also want to publicly suggest that their enemies threatened actions will be fruitless / ineffective. For example, Qatar is proudly announcing new imports of food from both Iran and Turkey to replace food shipments loss from Saudi Arabia, et al. Dragons flight (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What they are announcing may not necessarily be true either! If they did have a serious food crisis, they would not want to reveal that. Wymspen (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting aspect is that the entire military power that Qatar can summon is probably less than what the US has in their own country: the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US air base outside of the USA. This base is used by 11,000 US troops and flights leave or land every every 10 minutes [5], so, military activity around it (it's on the path from Saudi Arabia to Doha) that was not supported by the US would seems unlikely. Basically either the US support Qatar and the Saudi will not dare to invade, just continue the blockade, or the US joins on the side of the Saudis, in which case Qatar does not stand a chance. But the US won't just let fighting happen around the base. IF the Qatari think they are in danger they could demand that the base be abandoned (major drawback for the US as it is heavily used for bombing ISIS), and then the US would have to breach Qatari sovereignty to keep the base. But that would become nasty, there is also Qatari military personnel inside the base [6], and they might fight to defend their country's sovereignty. --Lgriot (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With Trump there are no guarantees of anything, but traditionally, the U.S. hasn't wanted to abuse its military bases that way. For example, the Bay of Pigs invasion happened without support from Guantanamo Bay (although apparently they weren't above giving the impression it could be otherwise, according to something in the article). The reason seems obvious: the U.S. doesn't want to lose all the other military bases by spooking every other country that has one. I would expect the U.S. to keep that base totally neutral, or perhaps evacuate it, since they don't ever seem to dare annoying the Saud regime and wouldn't attack Qatar either. Wnt (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bet is that Trump evacuates Al Udeid citing the current conflict as a security issue. That provides plausible cover for him to stay "neutral" even though his administration is likely more concerned by satisfying Saudi interests than Qatari. If the US leaves, a Saudi-led invasion could likely conquer Qatar in a matter of days and install a Saudi-friendly puppet government. Not long after, the US could reoccupy Al Udeid with Saudi support. Dragons flight (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having read this, and thought about it, it seems that indeed US evacuation is the most likely scenario if some violent escalation happens. It would make the ISIS campaign temporarily more difficult though. --Lgriot (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

True but you can do more than just annouce something. For example, you can invite the world media to see things that you are doing. Of course it depends on how extreme a conspiracy you think there is. It's unlikely the world media is going to inspect every single plane even less so every single box. So you could sent empty planes or planes with empty boxes. Likewise and especially since Qatar despite the problems is far from North Korea (or even Saudi Arabia), while you may be able to lie about how much food reserves you have, it's difficult to hide it if you actually start to run out of food and it starts to affect people. Even despite the poor way they treat their migrant workers, it difficult to imagine they could start to to completely starve them and no one will notice let alone their citizens or expats. For military buildups, you can likewise invite observations etc. As cases like Comical Ali or even Donald Trump have shown, it's hard to hide forever that what you're saying is utter nonsense. Heck even for some of North Korea's more extreme claims (like when they were saying they successfully launched a satellite before they had). Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that mobilizing military forces is often seen as a preparation for an attack, so can itself cause an invasion. StuRat (talk) 00:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the Dutch says, the soup is not eaten as hot as it is served: according to Western mainstream media, there is no danger of war against Qatar, but a symbolic agit-prop quarrel for getting Qatar to present its excuses for not condemning Iran. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As far as US military intervention, the US has it's hands full now in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, etc., and has no need to get involved in yet another war. StuRat (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting rumor is that Turkey mobilized army forces to lend Qatar hand, so the defensive power of Qatar may receive a force multiplier.. אילן שמעוני (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With demands like that I would certainly go on a war footing. Do the Saudi Arabians really want to try conquering a city of a foreign country? Syria and Iraq have had enough trouble trying to win back their own cities, and there's lots of people trained in such type fighting around. It seems to me the Qataris bend over backwards to be friendly with everyone but I don't think that means they will embrace invaders with open arms! Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Saudis have 40 active duty military personnel for every 1 in the Qatari military. Like Kuwait during the first Gulf War, I suspect a Saudi-led coalition could overrun Qatar in a matter of days, unless perhaps if a larger foreign power intervenes on Qatar's behalf (Iran, Turkey, or the US, seem the most plausible options). Pacifying the country would be a different issue than occupying it, but perhaps the Saudis believe it is possible to replace the Emir and his government with one more favorable to Saudi Arabia but also acceptable to the Qatari public. The House of Thani, the ruling family, numbers in the thousands. It wouldn't be hard to imagine there are members of the ruling family that might be more preferable to the Saudis rather than the current Emir. For example, the current Emir's uncle is a political exile living in France, who was accused in 2011 of plotting a coup against the then current ruler. At the time the plotters apparently had some support within the public and the Qatari military, and the uncle's views align more closely to the Saudis. If the Saudis invade perhaps they will try to install him or someone like him as the leader of a new hardline government, and then mostly withdraw. Dragons flight (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But keep in mind that the Saudis are currently fighting a war in Yemen, and also need to defend against potential incursions from ISIL, al Qaeda, etc. So, not the best time to pick fights with other states. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is an interesting example though. If Iran does effectively engage in large scale direct engagements against Saudi Arabia in Qatar, will this be enough to push the US off the fence and into directly supporting Saudia Arabia militarily? I suspect traditionally most commentators would say no but I'm not so sure if they'd be so certain now. And in particular whether the Saudis will think so. Nil Einne (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The country's small (160 x 90 km at its widest) and mostly flat (according to our article) with no permanent rivers or lakes, which would make it just about the most indefensible place imaginable. I'd venture to guess that if Saudi Arabia really wanted to invade, it wouldn't take more than a few days at most to overrun the entire place. A tank could drive the length of the whole country in a couple of hours, for Pete's sake. So I figure the Qatari contingency plan in the event of an invasion is how to get out of there as quickly as possible and live in luxurious exile. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think enough land mines could make just about anyplace hard to invade. And the exile contingency plan seems to have a key flaw - the Saudi Arabians accuse top Qataris of facilitating "terrorism", and presumably can arrange to have various compliant countries like the U.S. round them up and confiscate their assets. And some of those assets, such as oil fields, can't be taken with them anyway. Mostly though, I'm thinking there are recent precedents in Iraq and Yemen for the idea that a few fighters really can just hold out for a long time. Wnt (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of charges and assets ... the Devil is currently learning how to ice skate! The very first criminal charges of the 2008 financial crisis to be levied against a bank have just been filed [7] ... and they were filed against Barclay's for making a deal with Qatar's sovereign wealth fund to avoid having to file for a taxpayer bailout which sounds like the kind of thing prosecutors would charge a banker with, if they ever charged a banker. Now how this affects Qatar's sovereign wealth - for example, if the transaction was illegal, do they still get repaid? - I have no idea at all. But the timing seems kind of suspicious for a miracle... Wnt (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regional banks[edit]

Many banks in the US are not nation-wide, and on their application forms there's a "only for residents of X, Y, and Z state" restriction. What happens when someone signs up to one of these regional banks and later move to a different state? Do these banks just immediately close your account and mail you check? Or do they give you like 90 days or something in order for your to move your money out first? Or do they let you keep your account (due to a grandfather clause or something similar)? Scala Cats (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banks having branches in more than one state (much less nationally) wasn't all that common in the U.S. before the 1980s, and there was no federal law allowing interstate banking before 1994, so nationwide banks are fairly recent. I would find it surprising if banks are often aggressive in closing out accounts because of an address change; that certainly wasn't the traditional practice for savings accounts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]