Kissinger says Iraq not winnable

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
Beating down seems to settle things more then political solutions. But even if it doesn't...well things aren't settled now, are they? Are you proposing more of the status quo? If so, make a clear argument for it. Here are the costs...here are the benefits. THat kind of argument.

If "beating down" settled anything, there would be no such thing as Shia muslims. After all, the descendents of Mohammed got a beating down by the followers of the successors of Mohammed.

As for beating down, the point is that the Shia sunni split goes beyond Iraq, which is why Ramo mentions regional war.

[TCO]

I'm waiting for the what we should do, what the costs and benefits are. I think force settles things more then little bull**** peices of paper does. Look at the peace agreement with North and South VN. The North violated it and went right in a year after they had settled things. Force settled things.

Oh wait. I get it. You want us to come up with a fig leaf that sounds like a federal system, so that we can get out and THEN let the Shia put the Sunnis down. Gotcha. I'll be quiet and let you carry on with the charade.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
b. Why should we exert ourselves (or to what extent should we) for the Sunnis?

You should exert yourselves to the extent of preventing genocide or ethnic cleansing against any of Iraq's ethnic or religious groups.

So far you've managed to make most Iraqis' lives worse. If you're going to salvage anything here it's going to be that you didn't allow a holocaust to happen as a direct result of an ill-considered decision to change the status quo.

[Ramo]

I'm waiting for the what we should do, what the costs and benefits are. I think force settles things more then little bull**** peices of paper does. Look at the peace agreement with North and South VN. The North violated it and went right in a year after they had settled things. Force settled things.

Oh wait. I get it. You want us to come up with a fig leaf that sounds like a federal system, so that we can get out and THEN let the Shia put the Sunnis down. Gotcha. I'll be quiet and let you carry on with the charade.

I guess I'd like to see some sort of enforcement of peace in Iraq by the regional actors. The closest analogy I can think of would be the role of Syria in Lebanon after the Taif Agreement. The general idea is that none of the states in the region really want civil war in Iraq, so they'd have an incentive in stopping it. This is not by any means a good solution (and there is no good solution), but it seems like a better idea than a partition and the inevitable orgy of violence that would follow it.

I also think that fig leaf federalism would be a far better scenario than partition. Since you're not totally throwing away hope... I'm not settled on any particular solution, but partition is damn near the worst idea I've heard.

[TCO]

I don't know. At some point, people have to take responsability for themselves. We went in looking for Saddam and the WMD. Got Saddam (need to hang him). And the WMD are gone. I'm not wishing genocide on anyone, but am also not convinced that we have to be the policeman of the factions. What's the endstate?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Ramo


I guess I'd like to see some sort of enforcement of peace in Iraq by the regional actors. The closest analogy I can think of would be the role of Syria in Lebanon after the Taif Agreement. The general idea is that none of the states in the region really want civil war in Iraq, so they'd have an incentive in stopping it. This is not by any means a good solution (and there is no good solution), but it seems like a better idea than a partition and the inevitable orgy of violence that would follow it.

I also think that fig leaf federalism would be a far better scenario than partition. Since you're not totally throwing away hope...

1. What specifically do you mean? More detail.

2. Understood. We set this paper thing up like we did with VN and then let people blow it off, like we let the NVA do with the SV. I got that already. Carry on. (Sorry for being so dense, I didn't realize that you were being sneaky.)

[GePap]

Originally posted by TCO
I don't know. At some point, people have to take responsability for themselves. We went in looking for Saddam and the WMD. Got Saddam (need to hang him). And the WMD are gone. I'm not wishing genocide on anyone, but am also not convinced that we have to be the policeman of the factions. What's the endstate?

Who is "we"?

The Bush administration went in to make Iraq into a pro-US democratic regime. The Saddam and WMD stuff was simply to get people like you to support them.

[TCO]

We is the US military and foreign policy. (And the Brits to an extent.) We are the people with the power and with the ability to make choices (none that desirable). We need to decide which ones to make.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TCO
I don't know. At some point, people have to take responsability for themselves. We went in looking for Saddam and the WMD. Got Saddam (need to hang him). And the WMD are gone. I'm not wishing genocide on anyone, but am also not convinced that we have to be the policeman of the factions. What's the endstate?

Getting Saddam is not worth creating a situation in which a million people die.

Getting the WMD was a joke and anybody with a brain and the balls to use it knows that.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Getting Saddam is not worth creating a situation in which a million people die.

Getting the WMD was a joke and anybody with a brain and the balls to use it knows that.

a. That's a different issue.

b. No, they didn't. Hence all the guys who had to lug chemical weapons gear. But...see a.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I heard resently on NPR that Turkey which was originaly so strongly oposed to an independent Kurdistan has had a very pragmatic change of heart now that its become a defacto reality. Turkey now wants Kurdistan as a satilite buffer state and will likly try to keep it as stable, strong and subordinate. Their are several good reasons for this.

- Turkey is Kurdistans largest trade partner and Turkish buisnesses are expanding into Kurdistan which is undergoing an economic boom, this is great for Turkey and will continute to do so as long as its peacefull.

- Kurdistan acts as a buffer preventing the mess in the rest of Iraq from touching Turkeys borders.

- The feared independence movment amoung Turkish Kurds hasn't materialized but destabilization in Kurdistan might cause it. The Kurdish goverment seems to be smart enough to stay on Turkeys good side as well

- Kurdish Oil will flow through and to Turkey bringing rolalties and reliable energy to Turkey.


Thus I think were going to see a Turkish dominated North, an Iranian dominated South and the Middle will go through a decade of ethnic clensing and become a pathetic independent state no one will even wants as a satilite.

[Dinner]

The Iraqi Kurds do hate Turks never doubt that. They also really do dream of a united Kurdish state making up the eastern third to half of Turkey, eastern Syria, Northern Iraq, western/northwestern Iran, and parts of the former soviet cacuses. These guys have truly big dreams of a greater Kurdistan just as the Germans in the 1930's dreamed of greater Germany or Serbs dreamed of a greater Serbia in the early 1990's. The Kurds don't have the power to make it real but they really do want it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
I heard resently on NPR that Turkey which was originaly so strongly oposed to an independent Kurdistan has had a very pragmatic change of heart now that its become a defacto reality. Turkey now wants Kurdistan as a satilite buffer state and will likly try to keep it as stable, strong and subordinate. Their are several good reasons for this.

- Turkey is Kurdistans largest trade partner and Turkish buisnesses are expanding into Kurdistan which is undergoing an economic boom, this is great for Turkey and will continute to do so as long as its peacefull.

- Kurdistan acts as a buffer preventing the mess in the rest of Iraq from touching Turkeys borders.

- The feared independence movment amoung Turkish Kurds hasn't materialized but destabilization in Kurdistan might cause it. The Kurdish goverment seems to be smart enough to stay on Turkeys good side as well

- Kurdish Oil will flow through and to Turkey bringing rolalties and reliable energy to Turkey.


Thus I think were going to see a Turkish dominated North, an Iranian dominated South and the Middle will go through a decade of ethnic clensing and become a pathetic independent state no one will even wants as a satilite.

If an independent Kurdish state became a de facto Turkish client that made no claims to any greater territory then the Turks would not mind it, since it is territorial loss that the Turks fear.

[Impaler[WrG]]

Then it all comes down to Kurdish pragmatism vs Kurdish Nationalism + Anti-Turkism. They already have defacto indipendence the next logical step is to become a recognized independent state without provoking Turkey to crush such a state. If being Turkeys client is what it takes to do it then thats the best possible outcome Kurds could resonably expect. It comes down to trading away dreams that will never happen for the best real word deal you can get. Nations that follow pragmatism such as the Navajo (consistently used pragmatic negotiations to enlarge of their Reservation and are the only tribe which secured its ancestral homeland) consistently end up better off then thouse that dont *COUGH* Palistinians *COUGH*

[malsa]

Victims of the US / GB war on Iraq

Pictures of Destruction and Civilian Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression in Iraq (March / April 2003)

Please note that some of these pictures are not suitable for small children and those who have weak hearts.

http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_page1.htm

Depleted Uranium-Related Birth Defects in Iraq

http://aeronautics.ru/archive/du-watch/iraq_images/