Of course, that's what Al-Qaeda and our fifth-column MSM have been working towards. They've continually whacked on our Iraq effort until now, when they level a well-placed blow to the kidney of the Iraqi people, their religion. Of course, will the Iraqis wisen up to realize their militant brethren to the East were the ones to desecrate their holy temple? Probably not.
...that's what Al-Qaeda and our fifth-column MSM have been working towards.
Please. Did you hear that on Rush? Where do you figure Bush's outright incompetence and mismanagement of the invasion and occupation fits in?
Wait...The rumor of Bush's incompetence is just liberal propaganda right.
If we can get through this crisis without a civil war, I think it'll be a sign that things may actually turn out tolerable in Iraq. However, I also think it will serve as further indication that our role there is shifting to one of distant support, meaning that we would need to start seriously reducing troop levels. Not cut and run, but an act of goodwill towards Iraq, showing them we have no imperialistic aims.
However, that's the optimistic side. The bottom line is this is some scary stuff, because a civil war would rapidly disintegrate into a regional conflagration, with 100,000 unfortunatly unpopular US troops stuck in the middle. We can only hope and pray that this doesn't happen at this point.
seriously reducing troop levels = Republican
cut & run = Democrat
I get it.
Yep, this is huge. The US troops are staying out of it and letting the Iraqi security forces handle things on their own. If Al Qaeda (no, Mr. Ahmadinejad, Israeli agents did not blow up the Golden Dome) is successful in turning this into civil war it will mean that the Sunnis don't trust the predominantly Shiite Iraqi security forces, or that those forces are either unreliable or are themselves guilty of sectarian attacks a la the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Then it will be time to think about giving up on a peaceful and unified Iraq.
What do I mean by that? Simple enough; the Balkanization of Iraq, an artificial nation state created by the Treaty of Versailles as a British mandate, carved out of the Ottoman Empire. There used to be three distinct kingdoms of Basra in the south, Mosul in the north, and Baghdad in the center, but that's going back to about 1,000 AD. Anyway, if they can't all just get along, I say dismantle the whole damn country. Let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, already! Let the Sunnis have their precious Caliphate of Baghdad, and the Shiites can have the south, where the oil and the ports are, hah hah hah. That's what you get for oppressing them, you bloody Saddamites!
Let the Kurds have a Kurdistan, already!
Oh, if only the real world were as easy to manage as a late night risk game - what a paradise we could create.
Not thinking things through is what got us int he situation, now you think we should just turn the game board over and walk away.
So why was it okay to let Yugoslavia break up? Because they killed enough of each other? You'll remember that was another cobbling together of a state from disparate nationalities by the old men at Versailles...the ones with the actual Risk board on their table.
A good blog that has a couple of interesting posts about the potential for civil war in Iraq: arabiandissent.blogspot.com
G Rex, also keep in mind, it was okay for us to go into Bosnia and Kosovo, and to bomb Serbia, even though they "hadn't attacked us." Such is the liberal/ Democrat mindset...okay for me, not for thee!
Jason - I am a Democrat, and I meant no insult to those who believe we should leave now; however, I am not (yet) among them. Check back with me if civil war breaks out.
The difference between Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq is that part of the reason for intervention was genocide. If we had invaded Iraq when Sadaam was gassing the Kurds or murdering the Shiites, then the parallels could be made.
I have actually wondered from the beginning if we shouldn't seriously consider allowing Iraq to dissolve as a unified state (actually created at the Cairo Conference of 1922 by one Winston S. Churchill).
Of course, the problems in doing this would be many and serious; the Shiite region, unchecked, would undoubtedly grow closer to Iran. Turkey and Iraq would worry about the Kurds pushing for a "greater Kurdistan" that would include the Kurdish areas of their states and would thus be hostile to the idea. The Sunni area would be without oil or ports - esentially, without any real income. Without adequate supervision, it would be the perfect situation for a terrorist breeding ground, much as Afghanistan was prior to our invasion. The difference being, of course, is that Iraq is over 1,000 miles closer to Europe and Israel.
Just a correction...Iraq was actually made in 1920.
That being said, Iraq was made the way it was for a reason, as you said Mike. The Kurds have wanted Kurdistan since at least 1920, but they have been blocked by Ottoman interest.
Yeah, the Cairo Conference was actually 1921, and they had drafted ideas previously. Wikipedia has a good article on the period and some of the problems that existed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Bri...Mandate_of_Iraq
As a history teacher, conversations like this are great - Abe Lincoln said "we cannot escape history." Certainly the case here - I'm sure the British then never would have dreamed where they'd be 80 years later as far as Iraq goes.
Happy to oblige, Mike. As far as the parallels with the Balkan War go, The chaos begins in both cases with the removal of a strong leader (Tito dying in 1980, Saddam getting his butt kicked by the coalition) who is seen as the only thing strong enough to keep the state together. Yugoslavia managed to stay together for the next ten years or so, and it is arguable that Milosevic could have kept it intact for another ten if the US hadn't gone in to liberate Kuwait. The theory is that the Slovenes were emboldened by Desert Storm as a sign that the US and Europe were finally willing to stand up to dictators.
If anyone is still reading this thread and is interested in how we got to the Dayton Accords on FKA Yugoslavia, I recommend Richard Holbrooke's book, To End a War. I had a personal interest, since one of the negotiators who were killed when their APC went off a cliff was one of my university professors.
Commenting by HaloScan
