Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MaggieL
Maybe that whole deal about letting Iraq be three nations makes sense. Excecpt to the Sunnis, of course, who liked the sweet deal they had thugging the Shia out of their oil under Saddam and still hope to get it back somehow. And it would piss off the Turks. Tough.
|
It would not just piss off the Turks. It would piss off Turkey who has threatened to attack if Kurdistan becomes a separate nation. To a lesser extent, it would also piss off the Iranians.
There is merit to a suggestion of three autonomous Iraqi areas united in a common nation. I don't know of previous examples where this had worked successfully. Bottom line is that without a solution, Iraq may otherwise need an even more violent civil war.
Which Iraqis would be militarily opposed? Sunnis. Kurds and Shia have oil rich regions. Sunnis do not. And Turks who would consider themselves oppressed under Kurds.
To know - to even suspect - that three autonomous sections for Iraq would work can only be answered by knowing Iraq at a detailed level well beyond what anyone here could even summarize. We do know that under this current situation, Iraq will only get worse. Too few American troops. Too little Iraqi cooperation. Too much hate of the American occupiers (mislabeled in America as coalition troops). Too many insurgents so easily recruiting because Americans are both occupiers and ineffective.
Bottom line is that the worst possible solution is the one we Americans are currently imposing on the Iraqis. Iraq will only get worse and Americans will only be blamed. American military personal know this. As one American Captain noted quite bluntly: they cannot defeat Americans but Americans cannot win. That is his tactical situation. The strategic result for America is Vietnam or Somolia because our leaders are more concerned about their self serving politics (their legacy) rather than in America. A self serving agenda that would even use torture to solve a war that has no strategic objective and no exit strategy.