Rather than foul up someone elses thread, I'll post my thoughts here and invite civil discussion:
Current US Iraq policy is a failure for the following reasons:
*the overall cost in lives (10s of 1000s of innocent civilians, ~3000 US and growing)
*the squandering of billions and billions of $$
*the fact that Saddam was not in any way a realistic threat
*the fact there's no guarantee that what Iraq turns out to be will be any better
*the negative impact on energy prices
*the use of the Iraq mess as a recruitment tool by terrorists
*the fact that the operations in Afghanistan have been set back so far as to be almost regressing therefore letting the real terrorists, ie BIN LADEN, continue to be outside of justice.
But, the US and a handful of others (Don't forget Poland!) are there. You can't just up and leave. The US has dug a hole and needs to get out while not leaving a larger hole behind.
The current models won't work because they ignore realities: Iraq is a constructed state. It is leftover from British/French regional colonialism.
The best answer if you want immediate peace and longterm safety is to split it among the 3 primary factions (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd).
Benefits:
*Improved stability
*Better likelihood w/ 3 states that extremist Islam does not continue to take root.
*US would have an immediate and staunch ally in the Kurds.
*US would likely have a reasonable ally in one of the Muslim factions
*Recognizes long-standing cultural and historical differences while allowing the 2 minority groups what they most want: self-rule.
*The UN would be a 1000 times more likely to get behind this than the current situation and thus UN peacekeepers could be used to oversee the transition in conjunction w/ a much smaller US/British force.
*US resources freed up to pursue the real terrorists.
Why it won't happen:
*Would be a form of an admission of defeat for the Administration.
*Turkey would not allow it.
So, whether we "stay the course" or do a planned withdrawal over, say, the next 2 years, Iraq is going to be a complete FUBAR for years to come.
Iraq is a reasonable comparison to Yugoslavia.
*Both held together by dictators who coerced or punished dissadent minorites
*Both countries are artificial constructs forced by Western powers
*Both have religious and ethnic rivalries going back centuries
*These groups, if left alone, in the short term, will not get along
Look at the Yugo example and see how that being split into several countries has worked out reasonably well. The biggest problem against it was the Serbs counter-productive attempt to force the old Republic to hold. But, now we have several stable and credible countries. Yes, its a bit messed up in parts, but the overall violence has dropped dramatically.
The 3-state solution is the best, IMHO, but it will never happen.
Current US Iraq policy is a failure for the following reasons:
*the overall cost in lives (10s of 1000s of innocent civilians, ~3000 US and growing)
*the squandering of billions and billions of $$
*the fact that Saddam was not in any way a realistic threat
*the fact there's no guarantee that what Iraq turns out to be will be any better
*the negative impact on energy prices
*the use of the Iraq mess as a recruitment tool by terrorists
*the fact that the operations in Afghanistan have been set back so far as to be almost regressing therefore letting the real terrorists, ie BIN LADEN, continue to be outside of justice.
But, the US and a handful of others (Don't forget Poland!) are there. You can't just up and leave. The US has dug a hole and needs to get out while not leaving a larger hole behind.
The current models won't work because they ignore realities: Iraq is a constructed state. It is leftover from British/French regional colonialism.
The best answer if you want immediate peace and longterm safety is to split it among the 3 primary factions (Shia, Sunni, and Kurd).
Benefits:
*Improved stability
*Better likelihood w/ 3 states that extremist Islam does not continue to take root.
*US would have an immediate and staunch ally in the Kurds.
*US would likely have a reasonable ally in one of the Muslim factions
*Recognizes long-standing cultural and historical differences while allowing the 2 minority groups what they most want: self-rule.
*The UN would be a 1000 times more likely to get behind this than the current situation and thus UN peacekeepers could be used to oversee the transition in conjunction w/ a much smaller US/British force.
*US resources freed up to pursue the real terrorists.
Why it won't happen:
*Would be a form of an admission of defeat for the Administration.
*Turkey would not allow it.
So, whether we "stay the course" or do a planned withdrawal over, say, the next 2 years, Iraq is going to be a complete FUBAR for years to come.
Iraq is a reasonable comparison to Yugoslavia.
*Both held together by dictators who coerced or punished dissadent minorites
*Both countries are artificial constructs forced by Western powers
*Both have religious and ethnic rivalries going back centuries
*These groups, if left alone, in the short term, will not get along
Look at the Yugo example and see how that being split into several countries has worked out reasonably well. The biggest problem against it was the Serbs counter-productive attempt to force the old Republic to hold. But, now we have several stable and credible countries. Yes, its a bit messed up in parts, but the overall violence has dropped dramatically.
The 3-state solution is the best, IMHO, but it will never happen.
