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.
The SWIMMER has arrived!!!
If your posts are any indication of your methods in dealing with Iraqis.......
>>>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.
I think that point actually supports my argument. Places in this country are diverse and yet given the opportunity would like to split. What does that mean for an area where the they live in a form of apartheid?
Nope.
I never expected to have to explain things to the Iraqis. They knew what was going on when I had to deal with them (which was limited but it still happened. They were mainly concerned with selling their stuff to the Americans or just making some money).
Dealing with ARM CHAIR GENERALS is much more fun.
"I am an in your face conservative.
I am not a republican."
Whoa! I love that answer. I think we are going to have to make that distinction from here on out. Didn't used to have to do that here.
You know what smarthy and others do not understand is that noone supports WAR. Many, however, support fighting Back!
If you TRULY oppose this war then by all means take that opposition to those that wage it in aggression. THE TERRORISTS.
Simply stated, if there was no terrorism, there could be no war on terrorism. If you seek an end to this war then OPPOSE the TERRORISTS that bring this war.
Ignoring the attacks, as Clinton did in the 90's, PROVED to be a Failed strategy. Unless you provide an alternative action to war that has not been tried already then you offer nothing but opposition without solution that relies on ideology rather than reality based facts.
This war can be over today, if the terrorists Stand Down and end it. There is no option left but to fight until that days comes.
I don't think I will call me swarthy one...
more like smarmy :)
It means that no matter how much a small group wants to do that, it is not in the best interest of the country as a whole which leads to being not in their best interests in the long run or the big picture.
Like we do, they have to suck it up and go vote to bring the changes they seek.
Funny then how cooperative the Shia are being with us isn't it? Just like the pro-democracy, friendly Iranians? That is frankly stupid.
The Sunni are largely a bunch of disgruntled whack-jobs, but most of them aren't terrorists. They even sent toughs to protect the polls from the Jihadist foreigners during the vote. There is a split developing there, and whatever pessimistic view you want to take about the outcome, they are not "now" a state, and cannot organize large-scale mischief on an international stage the way Iran or N. Korea can. Again, that is stupid.
All joking aside, I often wonder how much pain the Western World and the United States will have to endure before what has to be done will be done.
We know the loss of a couple of sky scrapers and 3000 dead in one day are not enough. 100,000 dead in a day? A million?
There is some breaking point, undertermined at this time, at which all the heads of the hydra will be decapitated simultaneously and they'll never be allowed to grow back.
I do think your idea of supporting the secularists is a sound one, at least in terms of a secular influence in government (pure secularism hasn't been very impressive in the U.S. either - that is, after all, what the ACLU appears to be after). So one is left to ask which method better supports those secularists and provides the best guarantee of our own security - three countries or one? My guess is still that one will be better.
There aren't, of course, any guarantees that the whole thing won't end up in a theocracy as bad as Saddam's police state. There aren't any guarantees of anything. We have to play the odds, and I still suggest that the odds are best with one country instead of three.
This is what I've been saying all along. Break it into the 3 pieces. Set these 3 peoples free. Forget what Turkey wants. They worked us over when they refused to let us use their bases. We still can deploy troops in base camps out in the desert away from the cities of these areas. We need to move away from the IED's. Also, while we're putting in wishlists, a port would be nice.
OK, everything is stupid except our policy in Iraq.
Pure genius.
First, the Kurds are Sunnis as well. You are referring to the Sunni Arabs who make up 20% of the total population. They used to run the show in Iraq by oppressing the majority of the people, i.e., the other 80%.
It is not a matter of whether the "Sunnis will never allow themselves to be totally economically wiped out by the Kurds and Shia." In terms of the power equation, the Sunnis are at the bottom. If the Kurds and Shia were so inclined, they could crush the Sunni Arabs. That said, there is little likelihood at this point that Iraq will split up into three countries.
Al-Qaeda would have a long term base in Anbar to plan the next 911 and Iraq would be a country in endless war an turmoil a hundred times worse then it is today.
If the Shia and Kurds wanted to be as ruthless and cruel as Saddam, AQ and its Sunni Arab sympathizers would be wiped off the face of Iraq.
>>>It means that no matter how much a small group wants to do that, it is not in the best interest of the country as a whole which leads to being not in their best interests in the long run or the big picture. Like we do, they have to suck it up and go vote to bring the changes they seek.
I hope that you are right and they choose that path. I'm just not very confident that they will choose the ballot box over the gun to get their point across. After all, it took a civil war in this country to determine the interests of the country outweighed those of the states. And many are still not thrilled with that outcome.
>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.
Divide and Rule Realpolitik is what the author advocates.
Spilling blood is not a sign of victory. In fact, getting what you want with minimum spillage is far preferable.
And considering alternatives is prudent. This is one.
"That's why we destroyed a secular regime."
Turkey has its own Kurdish terrorist problem and won't tolerate a Kurdistan on its border. Turkey will protect its national interests. And Turkey will be on the border a long, long time. The best thing the Iraqi Kurds can do for their own survival is to remain part of Iraq.
Its not that easy, the Sunnis are far better fighters then the Shia militas, as we saw today when insurgents killed over a dozen members of the Madhi Army without suffering one death.
If a civil war broke out, the Shia and Kurds wouldn't just roll over them. It would be a extremely bloody back and forth that would last for years.
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.