Posted on 10/27/2005 1:06:59 PM PDT by swarthyguy
The problem is, of course, oil. Kurdistan has oil, Shia Iraq has oil, Sunni Iraq does not not. By which moral compulsion, however, can Sunni Iraq demand a share of the oil if the others dont want Sunnis to be part of the country? Which in any case was made into a "country" by the British after WWI: 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire that nothing to do with each other were combined by the British to ensure access to oil. The British kept the minority Sunnis on as overlords, just as the Turks had done. Their ascendancy has come from imperial dispensations, not from any natural process such as numbers.
We have repeatedly suggested: the US should indeed break up Iraq. US had no hesitation to break up Yugoslavia into the original six states and let each become its own country. Yugoslavia, too, was a post WW1 creation. US/NATO/EU did this because they figured six countries would be more stable than one - there are also sorts of quite ignoble other reasons, but lets stick to the point here.
So how come six Balkans states are acceptable but 3 Iraq states are not? How come the US found it acceptable to see India breakup into India and Pakistan, and then Pakistan breakup into Pakistan and Bangladesh, and would like nothing better than an independent Kashmir, which would mean breaking up India and Pakistan still further, and would result, inevitably, in the final breakup of Pakistan itself. And how come the breakup of the Soviet Union is welcomed, and the drive to break up Russia has only just begun?
After breaking Iraq up - let us say, rather, accepting the inevitable, the US should: strongly protect the Sunni state and support it to grow strong; maintain close relations with the Kurd State, acting as its protector against Turkey, and maintain principled relations with the Shia state, not seeking to sway it one way or the other, but helping it to stay independent of Iran.
Okay, so your editor hears the litanies of "we can't do this because". Right. Turkey will go berserk, Saudi will go berserk, Iran will go berserk with joy, etc etc. All valid points.
But consider this: the success of a world empire lies not in imposing what Washington wants. It lies, rather, in Washington working with the various subordinate states to achieve a balance where both sides are happy.
If Washington does this, the American world empire will last, metaphorically, for a 1000 years. If, however, it persists on incorrect calculations of its interests - which it is doing by forcing Iraq into staying a unitary state and other follies we don't think Washington will fall into, then between 2030-2050, America can fuggedabhatit.
them too, but eventually both of those countries would be bitten by the dog they fed if you know what I mean.
In the end, down the road, the Iranians and Syrians would emerge as the stronger powers.
constitution = Constitution
Sir can you offer to me the ending date to the campaign that began with operation desert shield? Saddam shot at our boys(and girls) in the air for the better part of a decade.
Scott michael Speicher is STILL missing in action, and even 1441 ( unanimous vote at the UN) SHOWS you that Saddam had NEVER complied with terms of SURRENDER. Saddam was a SELF stated ENEMY of the USA and he himself even said the war never ended.
You make a KEY mistake here. You conveniently delete the Afghanistan operation that is ongoing today. THAT sir, was about 9 11. Iraq is about ending the conflict with Saddam and his actions, TERRORISM and the ongoing support that Saddam's regime provided.
Make no mistake sir, Iraq is PART of the overall war on terrorism but it is not a direct response to 9 11. Further 9 11 is FAR from the ONLY terrorism...jeeez get a clue eh??
Saddam played a game that lasted over 12 years, his time ran out. You seem to selectively FORGET what happened there from August 1990 ON! You seem to dismiss the actions by our military begining January 17th 1991. You seem to want to FORGET that Saddam had not complied with the agreement known as 687....and had you EVER READ IT you would SEE that the THREAT of external TERRORISM and HOSTAGE taking was mentioned within it WAAAAY back in 1991.
Maybe ytou should do what barbera boxer didn't do...read the congressional use of force VOTE. Take a GOOD look and there you will find that MANY reasons are mentioned. The attack us first argument has been handily defeated with TRUTH found in history.
>>Is this solution, with its attendant and inevitable warring, more or less likely than democracy to result in countries that will support terror organizations
The problem with bringing democracy is that the majority of the people would vote for a theocracy - Southern Iraq, or even Algeria in 1992.
Our best bet is not to put democracy as a holygrail, but support for secularists, who are the minority.
Let them have their tribal cultures, because a foreign imposed regime will never have legitimacy in the eyes of the people.
What's our priority? Stopping terror or imposing democracy. I say the former, because I don't believe the latter leads necessarily to the cessation of the former, especially if democracy is looked upon as a foreign imposition.
While we impose democracy on Iraq, a Pakistani dictator wins 90% of the votes in the last election; we support the most reactionary monarchy around, the Saudis.
If we were honest, we'd have started with the Saudis. Get our friends to change and we'd have some credibility.
Actually, prior to the war I had suggested the same thing myself, that Iraq should be three countries.
Sometimes I still think so.
But you have put your finger on the problem; the Sunni center has no oil. So although they hate a constitution that forces them to coexist, outnumbered, in a democratic state with non-sunnis and non-arabs, I suspect that that is preferable to being cut off from the primary source of wealth and employment in the whole region.
They are just going to have to get used to being polite to their neighbors.
The last thing we want is another West Bank in the middle of Iraq, and cut off from any meaningful economy, that is what we will have. Inevitably, the Kurds and Shias would have to cross the border and deal with them by force. So I've come to the conclusion that the best of all worlds is three autonomous states with a single citizenship, and a single currency. Since the sunni arabs will have to fend for themselves in any event, best they do so from within a federated Iraq. They aren't powerless, in any event; they will learn to do what minorities always do, which is play kingmaker with one of the other two parties in the country.
As for us, as you point out, in a three-state-solution, we would still have to remain behind, to protect the Kurds against the Turks, the Shias against Iran, and the sunnis against their fellow Iraqis. So nothing, in that sense, would change. And whether united or divided, we dare not leave if leaving clears the way for the head-choppers to shoot their way back into power. So we've got some work ahead of us.
"What's happening in Aruba lately?"
Yet another among the least of my concerns. I'm not sure exactly where Aruba is, but I don't think it's in Texas. If I learn that it is being moved here I'll check into it.
CAPS make your post impressive. I'm IMPRESSED.
I thought the cobbling together of these three groups into a single polity was for the purpose of allowing the interests of any two of them to blunt the undesirable aspirations of the third. Imagine the Shiites becoming an Iranian satelite. Imagine the Sunni becoming an outright terror state. And the Kurds are screwed again, sandwiched between four enemies.
This does NOT promote our interest in developing friendly democracies. It creates two unpredictable new entities.
As an illinois resident I understand the notion that rural areas want to exit the control of population centers.
I will offer to you that the real reason the vote appears so much different there surrounds the very differing culture. Places here are diverse wheras there, tribes live in a form of apartied. If people here lived in groupings as they do there I would offer that our vote would look more similar to theirs.
Example: take the west coast and the midwest population centers and have them vote in one group, then take Rural cali and rural midwest and have them vote in one group. I would offer you see much the same results as we see in Iraq.
The constitution they voted on provided for a minority of three provinces to oust it. Sunni's failed among their own electorate. I think this is most telling thing about the election and I think it shows the world that ALL the sunni's are not on the same page, even if most of them are.
Of course the Iranian's would take over Southern Iraq and the Syrian's would take over the West and the Middle of the country would be a war zone.
Of course today we have an endless number of arm chair generals with their brilliant ideas demanding more troops or less troops, a timetable or no timetable, and on and on and on.
>?Imagine the Shiites becoming an Iranian satelite
They are.
>Imagine the Sunni becoming an outright terror state
It is.
>the Kurds are screwed again
Only if we allow it. We shouldn't. No need to.
>our interest in developing friendly democracies
We should want friendly states, not democracies necessarily.
Democracies aren't always friendly, look at Europe.
I'm not a touchy, feely type.
I call a spade a spade.
I am an in your face conservative.
I am not a republican.
Caps are how employ emphesis.
I see you have lost ability to attack content so you move to form, next I suppose it will be spelling......
Not surprising really.
and to break up the country and blah blah blah...
if they want a Genocide, then follow this plan.
If they want a continuing problem, follow this plan.
If they want millions upon millions more lives lost, then follow the plan to break up Iraq.
If you want to do it RIGHT, stay the course, finish the job.
I am, first Cindy, now Kerry, you forgot your namesake.
Easy solution=ethnic cleansing
Move the Kurds in Turkey to Kurdistan and the Turkhmens in Kurdistan to Turkey. Otherwise, there will be continuing slaughters on both sides of the border.
NAAAAAH Teddy Kennedy, the drunkeness would explain the lunacy posed here.
That's not many deaths in a 2-year war in which we have calmed 14 of 17 provinces and held two democratic elections.
Our military should be receiving high praise but our media is an enemy of the people and distorted the true picture of what is happening with our allies in Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.