The pragmatic Iraq strategy

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Maybe it's time for that to stop being true.

You like regional wars?

[DRoseDARs]

You enjoy putting words into others' mouths?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
You enjoy putting words into others' mouths?

Look at the territory Kurdistan covers and tell me what you think might happen.

[ZEE]

you didnt think it would be an EVEN split did u DinoDoc?

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by aneeshm
You don't have to support either side. Just stay in your secure little bases and provide protection to the puppet government. When everyone is thoroughly sick of the infighting, and when people truly start looking upon the US as a "liberator", clean up the place.

Cynical, but it works.

Just how many decades are you planning for the US troops to stick around? Or should that be centuries?

Sunni & Shiite differences go back a long way, and I don't see them getting sick of fighting each other any time soon.

[Heresson]

My ad hoc strategy for Iraq:

First of all, we should ask ourselves if we want the best for Iraq, the best for the world, the best for the West, the best for America, or the best for Israel.

I believe America has so shattered name already its hope is to back off its direct activity from the conflicts in this region for a couple of years until it all settles down. Its sole presence in the region is right now a problem. It can and should support the progress of peace process and re-establishment of Iraqi state by money, though.
Britain would better leave, as well.

Foreign forces can't leave Iraq, now, though. So it'd be the best if they were international ones. The best from the countries of muslim tradition, yet democratic or mildly autocratic ones. Turkey, unfortunatelly, can not be used, because of its involvement in Kurdish question. I think Indonesians, Malaysians, Kazachs etc would be fine. Though Kazachstan is in russian sphere of influence. Azers could be a very good choice, because
1) they are muslims, mostly shias, so they would be more accepted in southern Iraq
2) despite being shia, Azers aren't showing fundamentalistic tendencies, and have not much reason to love Iran (most of Azerbaycan belongs to Iran)
Bosnians and Albanians would be more than appropriate as well, being both "muslim", yet pro-western and even pro-american nations.
Latinos aren't a bad choice either, there are some old links between Arab world and South America (which helped Moroccan independance, f.e.), Arabs have big diaspora there.
Of course, they should all undergo some short courses of local culture.
Amnesty for everyone who give up their weapons.
Lack of persecution of Al-Ba'ath members, except perhaps for the highest officials - but it's up to Iraqis themselves.

too lazy to write more

[Elok]

My plan for Iraq is to drink until I can feel optimistic about the situation. But I can't afford that much liquor. So instead I figure I'll read Revelation, or the parts of the OT covering the Deportation, see if I can make the current misery in Babylon seem paltry by comparison. It's not much, but it's more realistic than your plans.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Look at the territory Kurdistan covers and tell me what you think might happen.

Only the Iraqi portion of Kurdistan would exists; the other two players wouldn't have to lose territory. Turkey can be bribed, as it always has been, into doing nothing (though, they'd probably up the pressure on their own Kurdish population and visa versa) and Iran can be threatened so long as the US maintains a presence in Turkey or Iraq.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by AAHZ
because... quite simply... bush is an idiot...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


Only the Iraqi portion of Kurdistan would exists; the other two players wouldn't have to lose territory. Turkey can be bribed, as it always has been, into doing nothing (though, they'd probably up the pressure on their own Kurdish population and visa versa).

That's a huge misstatement, followed by a huge understatement. To take them in reverse order: an independent Kurdistan within what is now Northern Iraq would embolden the Kurds in Turkey to greater freedom fighting/terrorism, which in turn would provoke the Turks into the kind of massive retalliation that will have the Kurds wishing that they were Armenian. At that point, the US would have to choose between its new friends the Kurds (the only Iraqis who like us) and its old friends (and NATO allies) the Turks (who have a damned fine military and a border with Iran). No fun for us. And don't count on bribing the Turks; they're venal but proud, and if we couldn't bribe them into joining the Coalition of the Willing, we damned sure won't be able to bribe them into doing nothing about their own violent domestic insurrection.

[DRoseDARs]

Funny how you chide me for saying what I did, then turn around and basically say the same thing regarding the Turks...

Turkey has a vested interest in staying on the United States' good side. While we won't interfere with their internal affairs, we won't take kindly to them invading currently-Iraqi territory either. You're damn right we'll bribe them to stay out unless the Kurds go balls out for a larger Kurdistan from the three countries, forcing our hand into choosing sides.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

What I said was that we might try to bribe them, but it won't work. The ususal Turkish venality goes out the window where the Kurds are concerned.

[Saras]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
This is the same argument as the break up of the Baltic states, Chechnya, or the Kurds.

Sorry, but this is retarded. Chechnya and the Kurds never had viable nation states, while the Baltic states were illegally occupied by USSR in 1939-1940, and our independence was a restoration of justice, not an excercise of self determination. That we did in 1918.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Saras


Sorry, but this is retarded. Chechnya and the Kurds never had viable nation states, while the Baltic states were illegally occupied by USSR in 1939-1940, and our independence was a restoration of justice, not an excercise of self determination. That we did in 1918.

Riiight, Mother Russia has always existed; none of its territory was ever independent of Moscow and the Kurds were always the b*tch of the states of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

Could you be a little more myopic, Saras? Talk about retarded... so you're saying that after the independence of the Baltic states, no other group on the planet has the right (for better or worse) to self-determination? Lame, try again.

[Saras]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Riiight, Mother Russia has always existed; none of its territory was ever independent of Moscow and the Kurds were always the b*tch of the states of Turkey, Iraq and Iran.

Could you be a little more myopic, Saras? Talk about retarded... so you're saying that after the independence of the Baltic states, no other group on the planet has the right (for better or worse) to self-determination? Lame, try again.

My beef is with using Baltics, Kurds and Chechens as examples in the same sentence, when in fact these are very distinct and different cases. Emphasis on our independence was a restoration of justice, not an excercise of self determination.

and you accusing people of putting words in their mouths