Wisdom on Iraq

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
And this qualifies as a genius?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you haven't heard but Bush is PRESIDENT.
And perhaps you haven't heard the a PRESDIDENT outranks a VP?
And perhaps you haven't heard that the President gets to call the shots.

Bitch about Bush's decisions on post-war Iraq and I will join you.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Sometime you have to choose among two bad choices....
Going to Iraq was the correct play....Cheney knew that installing a new govt would be tough.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps it may have been the correct play, but I doubt it.

If it were a choice between not going to war, or going to war together with botching it up so badly in the aftermath, the better choice would clearly have been to never go at all.

There is the unspoken assumption that things would be moving to more or less "OK" in Iraq had the aftermath been better handled. That however is mere speculation, for it is also possible that even optimum handling of the post-war reconstruction would neither have resulted in a stable Iraq nor have overcome the great tensions between the various internal factions.

My own guess is that the Middle East is simply not ready for anything like a democratic Republic with strong constitutional protections for civil rights such as are considered the norm in the West. So maybe there was no way the post-war period could have been successful, which would mean that the war itself was a mistake.

Yes, the post war period could have been managed far better and better results could have been obtained, but that doesn't mean results would have been satisfactory or that the terrible strife would have been averted or abated.

The Sunnis and the Shi'ites primarily are not interested in cooperating with each other in order to build the country; they want principally to triumph over the other sect instead, and for things to be good for they themselves. By the way, such attitudes ("us" against "them", whether on small scale or large) are featured especially prominently in the cultural and historical rubrics of the Middle East.

My guess is that the Neo-Con foreplanners of this war presumed that the various Iraqi factions would soon see the wisdom of putting aside differences in order to unite under a more free and liberal, and ostensibly better, future - as would likely Europeans, or Americans. My dear Sirs: you are not dealing with Europeans or Americans in the Middle East. Please make not again the mistake of presuming that they will think or act like Westerners.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And this qualifies as a genius?

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps you haven't heard but Bush is PRESIDENT.
And perhaps you haven't heard the a PRESDIDENT outranks a VP?
And perhaps you haven't heard that the President gets to call the shots.

Bitch about Bush's decisions on post-war Iraq and I will join you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is your claim that Cheney has been in disagreement with the President's actions since the war started?

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
The Sunnis and the Shi'ites primarily are not interested in cooperating with each other in order to build the country;

[/ QUOTE ]
Hence my advocacy of a Kurdish dictatorship over Iraq.
Find a mean bad-ass Kurd to terrorize the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves.

The Turks would be pissed but [censored]-them. They have been taking the USA for granted for too many years. After they denied the 4th ID access through their territory, I wrote them off as allies. We help each other in the cold war but they no longer needs us...and it shows be their actions.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]

Find a mean bad-ass Kurd to terrorize the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

And once again, American idealism and foreign policy at its finest.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
So is your claim that Cheney has been in disagreement with the President's actions since the war started?

[/ QUOTE ]
My claim is we are seeing Bush's policy not Cheney's.
Neither one of us are privy to White House Strategy meetings so how much input Cheney has is unknown to the both of us. However we do know that Bush and Cheney are MUCH-DIFFERENT politically. Cheney is more popular than Bush with the conservative base. Bush is more like the big spending Rockefeller wing of the party. They are two very different people....of course Cheney's views on Iraq will differ. How much? Neither one of us knows...

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Sunnis and the Shi'ites primarily are not interested in cooperating with each other in order to build the country;

[/ QUOTE ]
Hence my advocacy of a Kurdish dictatorship over Iraq.
Find a mean bad-ass Kurd to terrorize the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can imagine several problems with this approach, yet I am curious as to why you would recommend this over simply splitting up the country into three autonomous partitions.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I can imagine several problems with this approach, yet I am curious as to why you would recommend this over simply splitting up the country into three autonomous partitions.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you split into 3 different countries the following will occur:
1. Weak Sunni country (they have no oil) that could be ripe for an Al Qaeda takeover.
2. A Shia govt that could become an unfriendly govt that is dominated by Iran. One 'Iran' is quite enough.
3. A landlocked Kurdistan with oil but surrounded by several unfriendly nations. Who is going to allow them to ship oil through their territory without paying a huge cost?

If we would take out Iran and let the Kurds annex Kurdish territory held by Iran, then I would be OK with this. A friendly Kurdish govt with oil could be an exellent counter balance against Iran.

An Iraq under the Kurds would be less stable since the Kurds are a minority but the middle-east is full of examples where a minorities can rule an entire nation (eg Syria where 10% controls the other 90%). The advantages of Iraq under Kurd rule is that 100% of the oil revenue would NOT finance terrorism where if a Shia state was created then some oil revenue would be financing Shia terrorism in Lebanon..

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
If we would take out Iran and let the Kurds annex Kurdish territory held by Iran, then I would be OK with this. A friendly Kurdish govt with oil could be an exellent counter balance against Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last time the Kurds controlled this "Kurdish territory?" If by territory you mean people of similar ethnicity live there then you are more correct.

A Kurdish state is not an option if the US wants to have anything to do with Turkey ever again. The Turks would absolutely flip if Iraq went three ways.

[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Find a mean bad-ass Kurd to terrorize the Sunni and Shia into behaving themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

And once again, American idealism and foreign policy at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]