Quadrophenia
I have seen more talk lately entertaining the idea of a tripartite state for Iraq. Though I have consistently advocated the balkanization of the country, I no longer think three sections is the solution. There needs to be four.
I believe Sunni and Kurds constitute two distinct divisons. But the Shiites should get two distinct shares of the country. One would be for the Iranian-backed and funded Shiites, while the other would be for the Shiites who affiliate with the United States (of course, this group will only need a small plot of land.)
It's absurd that the U.S. has been supporting Iranian, not Iraqi, foreign policy through our actions. By establishing two Shiite entities, the U.S. could foster the quaint concept that U.S. foreign policy should benefit the American taxpayer, and not Iran or Saudi Arabia. Rather than America, it is these two countries which have reaped the main benefit from the military elimination of Saddam's Iraq; but in the long-run, Iran is the primary beneficiary.
This Iranian hegemony is financed by U.S. military deaths and financial outlay. When will the American taxpayer tire of this travesty?
The best withdrawal strategy would be to make the U.S. exit contingent upon Iranian cessation of nuclear weapons reasearch. Regardless of what the U.S. administration does in Iraq, the winner in the region will be Iran.
I believe Sunni and Kurds constitute two distinct divisons. But the Shiites should get two distinct shares of the country. One would be for the Iranian-backed and funded Shiites, while the other would be for the Shiites who affiliate with the United States (of course, this group will only need a small plot of land.)
It's absurd that the U.S. has been supporting Iranian, not Iraqi, foreign policy through our actions. By establishing two Shiite entities, the U.S. could foster the quaint concept that U.S. foreign policy should benefit the American taxpayer, and not Iran or Saudi Arabia. Rather than America, it is these two countries which have reaped the main benefit from the military elimination of Saddam's Iraq; but in the long-run, Iran is the primary beneficiary.
This Iranian hegemony is financed by U.S. military deaths and financial outlay. When will the American taxpayer tire of this travesty?
The best withdrawal strategy would be to make the U.S. exit contingent upon Iranian cessation of nuclear weapons reasearch. Regardless of what the U.S. administration does in Iraq, the winner in the region will be Iran.
posted by rangeragainstwar at 1:18 PM
2 Comments:
I hear you on the 'balkanization' strategy...Iraq is a deadly cage match right now and although balkanization isn't perfect, it may be the only hope of gaining any level of control.
How many times have we heard (usually from those who know nothing about military history, of course) that this 'war on terror' is a struggle like WW2? Yet I don't remember anyone back then speculating openly about troop levels or strategies, which is all the media and the politicians seem to do. Back then, the generals kept quiet about what they were going to do, but were ok with discussing operations once they had begun. Today, they talk openly about what they're going to do but demand total secrecy regarding what they're currently doing. Warped. It's no way to fight a 'war'.
Stormcrow,
This is a very interesting twist that you have presented, and it appears to be historically valid. You'll notice in my readings that I cannot agree that this is a war. It'd be more appropriate to call it a goat-screw.
Thanks for reading, and commenting,
Jim
Post a Comment
<< Home