Replies

One thing I've questioned all along is the obession with keeping Iraq's borders intact. The Kurds basically have earned their own independent state in the north. In fact, with minimal U.S. supervison, they could hold elections tomorrow.

The Shiites in the south of the country, while not pro-U.S., could move into a transitional type state simply by separating them from Iran with some device such ass an international (screw the UN, make it British or coalition occupation) occupation zone around the coastal area of Basra. The zone would be mainly to control trade. Want a crappy Islamic state? Fine, as long as it doesn't harbor terrorists or anti-western Madrassas, the zone remains open and trade and your lifeline will flow. Screw with us and the spigot closes.

The central so-called Sunni Triangle remains the biggest question mark and source of unrest. Two options remain insofar as I can see:

Sandwiched between two hostile Shiite and Kurdish states, it can be marginalized and possibly eventually tamed.
The Michael Savage approach-- cordon it off and turn it into a giant box of kitty litter.

My opinion on this is somewhere between

1} either to intimidate nationhood with out no reason (kind of help us out or you are out)
2) Iran intimidation and provocation from with in. Democracy in Iraq spells doom for most of dictatorship in Middle East
3) Greed and egotism on part of person who may never become a president or elected governor in Free Iraq
4) He is foolish thinking that for what we sacrifice we will allow some other maniac to attack their neighbors.

Too simplistic. A Kurdish state would cause Turkey to invade -- they've got a huge chunk of Kurd territory in the east of their country that would want Anschluss. Ditto for Iran (it's got a small part). The Shias, Sunnis, Kurds aren't the only groups -- what about the Christian Arabs like Tariq Aziz? They're a few million. Also you've got Assyrians who want part of southern Kurd territory. And, you've got Persians in the east of the country.