Sunday, September 03, 2006

Maybe division is not such a terrible idea

One of the problems we have in the State Department is a clinging to status quo. The notion of Iraq is a mirage. Iraq as all the other states of the region are legacies of an Anglo/French Treaty. We could create two states and have the Jordanians annex the Sunni triangle.

There should have been a Kurdistan ages ago. They have a far greater case for National status then fictitious Palestinias. We should also seek a guaranteed Assyrian autonomous region in the new State. Turkey has not been a relaible ally and tried to shake down the USA for money. We should immediately assist Kurdish guerillas inside Syria. Let Bashar Assad know his role and Hezbollahs role in Iraq will come at a price.

A new Arab Shia State would piss off the Saudis because their Oil is on land that s historically Shia. Let the Saudis know if they do not clean up their act an anexation of territory could be easily arranged. A defanged Saudi Arabia minus the Shia Oil revenue would be toothless.

Maybe its time we started to consider the subnations within nations. Sometimes the status quo is not the best option.

3 comments:

JINGOIST said...

Beaker I gotta disagree with you on this division of Iraq. You're right, Iraq is an artificial state and as such leaves a lot to be desired. The only thing worse than this artificial conglomeration of ethinicities is the real world alternative; DIVISION.

The emotional case for Kurdistan is easy. They have been horribly tormented by their Arab/Turkish/Iranian Muzzie neighbors. No one denies the truth of this.
But what are the real world consequences of a Kurdistan? You get an oil-rich state surrounded by hostiles on ALL sides! Even Israel has the Med to escape into. Talk about a security nightmare. Not only that, but the Kurds have a long love affair with Marxism, far more so than their neighbors. Just some things to think about.
Also the last thing in the world we want to do is encourage Kurdish terrorism in Turkey. You accurately pointed out that Turkey is a duplicitous ally at best, it's the alternative that really sucks in this Muzzie country....

I agree that we should overthrow the troll in Syria. At this point we CAN'T do worse there.

The Jordanians may--or may not--be happy to annex the Sunni triangle in Iraq. I'd be willing to bet that the Baathists of Iraq would throw a raucus fit over the idea and you would get truly endless warfare trying to impose a Hashemite king on THOSE Arabs. The Jordanians couldn't militarily pull it off.

The Shia south would also be a dependant state after division. Even if we kept the Iranian army out, the Iranians would dominate this southern region of Iraq. Talk about a security nightmare.

The present situation is tough, but it has real promise in the long run. As long as we stay the course and flex our muscles a little the Iraqis SHOULD be able to control their country well enough to gain real strength and have their representative republic. They have the makings of a parliament already and they need to stay the course.
Like I said, the alternatives REALLY suck!

Morgan

beakerkin said...

Morgan

I am fairly certain we could keep the Iranians out of a new Arab Shia state. Moreover, Arabs and Persians do not like each other and have centuries of distrust. If anything this new Shia State would be an instsant rival. The Saudis would be a bigger problem as their oil feilds are adjacent. This state and the Kurdish State would have oil revenue.

My reaction to the Turks is that they are no longer reliable allies.
Moreover, their mistreatment of the Kurds in their own country is unacceptable. However, as far as rebels go Syria first. The Syrians mistreat their Kurdish minority
and the US should supply Kurdish rebels and provide air cover.

MissingLink said...

Whatever is there to be done it won't work without a long transitional period of very stern occupation accompanied by very vigorous action to disassemble Islam and its state embedded role.
By simply giving ‘free elections’ we are just asking for another ‘Taliban’ or ‘Allende’ style regimes (Show a carrot , get the mob follow it, disassemble ‘democracy’ after the first real election).
Above all people of the region must be put in a situation where they are kept busy earning their living and not being able to get bogus ‘government’ jobs and/or contracts.
Democracies work ONLY when people see their business as part of their country development. It will never ever work when 99% of the people are either employees with no property and ability to invest in anything or waiting for handouts.
So what is the difference between the ownership of Iraq’s natural resources now and during the days of Sadam?
No difference.
National ownership means the recourses do not belong to anybody. Sell your oil, build a hospital for the people, turn you back on your new project and there are only walls left. The rest …looted – repossessed or unofficially privatised. Of course, more police and security will partially fix the problem, but only partially.
You’d need to start execute enemies of the state on the spot to put some fear into their hearts and respect for the common property. Back to Sadam/Stalin rule.
Oooops.