« Coalition or Conflict? | Main | Takfir wa Hijra »

05 January 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

searp

Eventually, these attacks will precipitate a non-specific response from the Shia. What we have seen so far is likely to be small beer.

Remind me again why we are there?

Jerome Gaskins

Okay, I may be wrong. But my gut tells me that it is time for the Shi'ites to do some ethnic cleansing of their own. Move the Sunnis out of Iraq. They have dominated Iraq for too long, and the Shi'ites should not stand for any more of it. Let the Saudis deal with them, or the Syrians or Egyptians.

As it is now, this is leading to Iranian intervention, requested by the Iraqis. It is within their rights as a sovereign nation, but the US will do all in our power to keep it from happening, and may incite a full scale war involving quite a few countries in the region.

Can we accept a world in which Iran annexes most of Iraq and cedes Kurdistan to independence? What would be so wrong with this solution, especially if it provides peace and security to Israel?

ali

"Can we accept a world in which Iran annexes most of Iraq and cedes Kurdistan to independence?"

Iraq fragmenting is looking likely. The question isn't will it stick in our gorge but how would the rest of the Sunni Arabs react? If their brethren were being ejected from Iraq by an Iran that could soon menace them I suspect rather badly.

The worst of three dire post invasion scenarios proposed by the CSIS (I think) two years ago was a Sunni V Shi'a war across the entire region. That could be a cataclysm of the same order as WWI.

This is a region of vital economic interest to the entire world and if oil production is threatened we'll all have to go back and secure the wells.

For some of the people who chose this theater of war its always 1938. Some equally foolish people think this is 1972 all over again and a painful extraction is all that has to be endured. Another 1914 must be avoided at all costs.

angela

Wow Jerome!

Didn't we go in claiming to represent a higher civilization that was disgusted by what they did to the Kurds and Shiites?

Now the blowhards increasingly make proposals like this. I read in the comments sections of blogs the needs to kill millions.

This same people defend idiotic propaganda programs that persuade no one, yet blast out comments designed to convince the world that many of us are willing to engage in genocide against Islam.

john

The three state solution that jerome alludes to has appeared in the Arabic press on occasion. They maintain it (eliminating Iraq's potential threat to Israel) was and is the driving force behind the neocons' plans for Iraq since the late 1970s. McDermott's speech in the House on 22 September 2005 cites one example of this line of thought.

Who knows what ran through the minds of the neocons? At any event, civil war will be time consuming and costly for us. Ethnic cleansing is an ugly concept to introduce into the situation. However, all three groups will encourage the others to leave what each considers to be its area (a long-standing tradition in the Middle East). The Ottomans ruled the region relatively successfully through their recognition of the reality of three distinct communities as reflected in the Mosul (Kurds), Baghdad (Sunni), and Basra (Shii) administrative districts. The threat at that time for the Ottomans was Persia. Sound familiar?

Amazing what happens when a tyrant leaves power--Tito for example. Iraq should have been predictable considering our recent Bosnia experience.

Jerome Gaskins

Whoa, Angela, I'm not proposing killing even tens of people. The ethnic cleansing I'm talking about could just as easily be called gentrification, but I wasn't talking about converting slums...

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad