This Story is Archived
Administration May Abandon Plan to Unify Iraq - AOL News »
Posted by: PaganGodess 1 year, 9 months agoWASHINGTON (Dec. 2) - The Bush administration is re-evaluating its efforts to unite Iraq's fractious sectarian and political factions in an attempt to preserve U.S. options in Iraq no matter what happens, officials familiar with an internal administration review of Iraq policy said Friday.
Read Full Story at articles.news.aol.com »
This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed
Comments: 14
-
stephen-johnson
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:42 p.m.A divided Iraq poses problems. The Shia in the south could fall into orbit with Iran, while the Kurds in the north could follow their dreams of creating a Kurdistan - not something that Turkey and Iran, with Kurdish minorites of their own would like.
Saddam was a bad actor, but he was able to keep the country together, much like Tito in Yugoslavia. When Tito died, so did Yugoslavia. Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo rose from Yugoslavia's ashes
-
jordan11
Dec. 3, 2006, 1:33 p.m.A divided Iraq poses problems. The Shia in the south could fall into orbit with Iran, while the Kurds in the north could follow their dreams of creating a Kurdistan - not something that Turkey and Iran, with Kurdish minorites of their own would like.>>>>>
And with Iran's feelings about the Kurds, what would happen to them should the Shiites take full control of Iraq, with Iran's help? IMO, we have a larger responsibility to the Kurds, who have helped us in both this 'war' and the gulf war. Many thought (including myself) that Iraq should be three separate states. The three factions have too much bad blood between them to ever 'make up,' and with Sadaam gone, there's nothing to stop them from all out war between themselves. We could at least be a presence in Kurd territory, to help them achieve autonomy.
-
-
PaganGodess
Dec. 2, 2006, 1:55 p.m.This makes me as nervous as Bush's Columbia deal! It's like he's on his own personal suicide mission and he's taking the country with him!
-
-
Donnaich
Dec. 2, 2006, 7:55 p.m.The only way Saddam kept that country together was by force. But at least, in their eyes, he was Arab. We undid that. Its the Powell Doctrine, "If break it, you have to fix it." I understand that's why we didn't go in the first time. But we ignored it this time...
And we broke it good...
It sounds like the Kurds are pretty much ignoring the government already, flying their own flags, etc. And it sounds like only a matter of time before the rest fractures. The British bolluxed the situation up by combining it in the first place. Maybe the only way it will get resolved is for it to break up.
I'm sure a lot of their neighbors are going to appreciate what we've done for/to them...
-
oldracerguy
Dec. 2, 2006, 9:05 p.m.No matter what happens Dubya will not be able to hold Iraq together. The country is destined to fall to civil war as each side contends for either control or autonmy. That Syria or Iran will stand on the side lines is an uninformed position. Why should we stay? Ultimately it is their responsibility to rule their country, not ours, as they see fit. This war will just deplete our resources best put to use in more american ways here at home. I do not think Dubya gets it though. He reminds me of the boy who stayed on the deck of the burning ship. He wants to stay there until he gets out of the white House so when ****** hits the fan he can lay it on the Democrats. But will America buy it?
I for one do not think we are that stupid.
-
ETproductions
Dec. 3, 2006, 12:15 p.m.If you look up the definition of "civil war" in the dictionary, it's very clear that what's happening in Iraq is a civil war. Some say that it has overtones of sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, insurgency and terrorist-driven violence; and so it's not REALLY a civil war. While all those influences are there, I fail to understand how throwing them into the mix makes the situation any BETTER than a civil war. Perhaps we need a new, more accurate term of uncivil war.
It's not just a matter of quibbling over semantics. The military strategy to apply when intervening in someone else's civil war is very different from that needed to defeat terrorism or put down an insurgency. Also, in the last 100 years, civil wars have averaged 10 years, so the label has implications for our losses in lives and trillions of dollars if we do stubbornly stay the (unclear or completely absent) course Bush has set.
-
-
fourtytwo
Dec. 3, 2006, 12:22 p.m.It was obvious in 2003 that Iraq was in danger of falling apart. This was guaranteed by invading with insufficient force. Splitting up of Iraq may well have been the goal.
Who benefits?
War related industry profits. Israel divides and conquers its neighbors. Global empire builders establish a permanent presence in a resource rich part of the globe. The super-rich grasp more power while the people are distracted by invented enemies. 9-11 was made to start all this.
-
Virginia
Dec. 3, 2006, 12:49 p.m.No doubt leaders use their means to drive up ethnic conflict. You are right that most of what has happened in Iraq was evident to most anyone with even a smidgen of an understanding of human nature and history. So, are we feigning our suprise as to what has transpired in Iraq? Or was it our plan from day one to allow a Suni vs. Shiia war to start up in the Middle East? They are a lot less dangerous to us fighting each other over there.
Remember the line from the end of the movie "Enemy of the State", "Get in there...." If we can rouse up these religious long standing feelings, al Queda will shrink into the background and even our own invasion will pale in importance. Let's face it this is not something we can say as a country up front.
Anyone have something to say on this 'preposterous' theory?
-
-
Virginia
Dec. 3, 2006, 12:31 p.m.First, I am for a free independent Kurdistan if at all possible. Why should we care how Iran views it or even Turkey? Turkey did not let us have access to their land to go into Iraq and does not really like the idea that we are and have protected the Kurds in the past. Plus, Turkey wants to get into the EU and will not risk a war at this time to keep us from helping the Kurds form a free Kurdistan in northern Iraq. Iraq and other areas were stuck together by the Brits into countries that they set up to suit themselves at the time. They denied the Kurds a country but split their historic area into at least four countries. If we allowed a free Kurdistan to form, we would have a friend in the Middle East.
-
JenMurdock
Dec. 3, 2006, 3:24 p.m.Bush is a failure at everything he's tried to do. Watch Farenheit 9/11 if you really want to see how hypocritical these politicians really are. I thought it was funny how only 1 member of congress had a child that enlisted in the service to fight after 9/11. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
Thank God Michael Moore tells the truth.
All 14 comments are shown.
Submitted By:
PaganGodess
Cats, art, ephemera, all things Victorian, tarot, the paranormal, out-of-body experiences, Paganism, are a few of my favorite things. Let us also not forget that ...
