Sunday, July 23, 2006

Iraq as a Country is no Longer Viable

Iraq's Pinocio regime, you remember Pinocio who wanted his strings removed, anyway it is still publicly committed to Bushco's force–fed constitution. But that is only publicly. One top government official told Reuters things are quite different behind the scenes and Iraq may become essentially, if not in fact, 3 separate countries.

What a spectacular failure for the neocons this would be. That it would come to this isn't surprising at all. It's essentially what the Kurds have wanted for years. It may also be the only way the warring factions have to peacefully coexist.
On the eve of a high-profile meeting intended to demonstrate reconciliation among sectarian and ethnic factions ahead of a White House visit by the prime minister, senior leaders admitted to despair about the chances of averting all-out civil war.

"Iraq as a political project is finished," a top government official told Reuters -- anonymously because the coalition of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to a U.S.-sponsored constitution preserving Iraq's unity.

"The parties have moved to Plan B," the official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi'ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad's mixed population of seven million.

"There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west," said the official, who has long been a proponent of the present government's objectives. "We are extremely worried."

I would hate to see Baghdad divided. That hardly worked out for Berlin, but its their country and their city and their call.

(read more)
Webding3.jpg

1 Comments:

Blogger Marshall Darts said...

Let Iraq Have Its Civil War

It's become evident within the last year that Iraqis are now more interested in killing each other than in killing American troops. This was bound to happen since religious differences always result in the bloodiest consequences. Yes, Americans have a different religion, but the Shia-Sunni sectarian warfare is about religious schism, inherently much more volatile and fanatic.

Do we just cut and run then, leaving Iraq for the benefit of some other country due to our effort? No. Let's consolidate the few gains we've made and hunker down to see how the Shia-Sunni civil war plays out.

Move our troops and our Iraqi Green Zone government into friendly Kurdish territory. We can move back in if Iran or anyone else tries to intervene. Keep the Syrian border sealed. Reinforce the British troops in Basra so that the oil fields and the Gulf are protected.

The Sunnis, though a minority, will get plenty of help from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan. Iran will supply the Shiites. Our troops and puppet government will be out of harm's way.

Our troops will no longer have responsibility to control a territorial area too big for the force we have there. Yet we will still have a deterrent capability in the area.

No matter when we leave, a sectarian civil war will occur at some point. Why lose anymore American soldiers in trying to put off the inevitable?

This conflict looks less like Vietnam and more like the British Mandate in Palestine everyday. What did the British do? They left.

7/24/2006 04:06:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home