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.
Break IRAN up. The oil lands abut Iraq and Kuwait, and are occupied largely by Arabs. They need independence.
Personally, I'd just nuke the whole region flat-n-glassy.
Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc.
Give the sunni area to Syria, then wipe greater Syria out.
Nah, the U.S. wants to keep the military there for a long time. Syria next....
patience grasshoppa. patience.
Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to know what he is talking about.
The Sunnis would fight for decades against the Shia and Kurds for oil in Southern and Nortern Iraq if the country was broken up. The entire Middle of Iraq would be an endless war zone.
TURKEY will not tolerate a Kurdistan!
For decades, Turkey has fought a violent and protracted revolt against Kurdish rebels on its own soil.
So it absolutely will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state on its western border. And it has repeatedly vowed to use force - including a massive invasion into northern Iraq - to prevent one from forming.
In response, the Kurdish militia, probably the best-equipped and best-trained non-Coalition force in Iraq, will strike back.
The Turkish army, in turn, will do everything in its power to undermine the Kurds, providing arms and support to the Kurds' local enemies -Turkmen (ethnic Turks living in Iraq), Iraqi Christians, and Iraqi Sunnis, all of which fear eviction under a Kurdish regime.
Tell the country, dude, 2000 dead with no end in sight.
All Dubya says is more sacrifice required.
The American people have a finite capacity for casualties without end. A democracy cannot fight foreign wars without the support of the citizens.
As of now, victory is undefined.
All we get from the generals and politicals is pablum.
How many American soldiers will die before it's enough.
>The entire Middle of Iraq would be an endless war zone.
What is it now?
Breaking Up Iraq Is Hard To Do.
An endless police-action zone?
And I also a remember a nursery rhyme about a large egg....
All the King's horses,
And all the King's men...
Could not put Mesopatamia together, again.
Dude, how many died on D-Day?
Dude, why are we still in Germany?
Dude, why are we still in Japan?
Dude, how many died on 9/11?
This idea is a recipe for an endless oil war in Iraq, the Sunnis will never allow themselves to be totally economically wiped out by the Kurds and Shia making their own states.
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.
It wasn't the idea of the US to break up Yugoslavia. Blame it on the Germans. They started the mess. I was sitting in the Chancery office listening to a flack asssuring us that the problem there could be handled by a borders patrol.
Does he really want another Psaletine?
I think we should break up the US too. Red states vs. blue states.
Nice talking points. Slick, glib but not really relevant to today's situation.
Based on your logic, at what amount of dead will we have won? 5000, 10000 what.
So silly.
Cindy is that you?
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.