Skip to main content

View Diary: Bush in deal with Iraqi insurgents, a major policy shift? (37 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Stability of three parts. (none)
    Should Iraq be 3 countries, either officially or de facto?  Yeah, that's what will happen, and is the most likely stable political solution.  The Kurds are already effectively thus (and have been since '92), though it's dangerous to give them full official autonomy because of Turkey's repression of the kurds on their side of the border.

    Thanks to Bush's blundering, Iran is now the big dog in the neighborhood, and going more theocratic.  They'll take the Shi'a in Iraq under their wing, resulting in that part of Iraq being anything but a modern secular democracy.  

    And the Sunnis will fight for as much as they can grab from the other two.  They'll have their own rump Baathist republic, again more religious than Iraq was before.

    Once we leave (because we are the glue holding them together - through a combination of force, bribes, and mutual hatred for us), things will devolve into the stability of three parts.  It may not become a full conventional civil war, but there will be plenty of ongoing violence between the Shi'a and the Sunnis at the very least.

    "Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering." - R. Buckminster Fuller -5.88/-5.23

    by Shadan7 on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:21:43 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If that's inevitable, wouldn't we be better off (none)
      encouraging three stable nations rather than one headed for civil war?

      Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
      You can kill one, but another is born.
      The words are written down, the deed, the date.

      Czeslaw Milosz

      by Chris Kulczycki on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 05:27:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think it will be more then just onging violence (4.00)
      The Sunnis won't just settle for the section of Iraq that they'll wound up with. It has very little oil and will leave them the poorest of the three, very poor in fact. Most of their major cities are in disarray or have been shattered by US bombardments. With no money coming if from oil to rebuild their infrastructure, they'll be destitute. That's why I think the Sunni will go after the Shi'a dominated south in an all out civil war if given a chance.

      Their biggest obstacle will be Iran backing the Shi'a.

      And that's why I think what we could be seeing here is a crude alliance being formed between Sunni and the US in an effort to combat the growing influence of Iran and the Shi'a theocrats in the south. This could prove to be the real war for Iraq.

      Bush & Co. could be planning, in an effort to prevent an embarrassing take over of the Iraqi oil fields by Shi'a under the influence of Iran, and to combat the ever-growing al Qaeda presence throughout the country, a US-Sunni alliance in hopes the Sunni will dominate Iraq once again.

      From the start, I've always felt the only faction that the likes of the Neo-Con would be able to side with were the Sunni/Baathists. Birds of a feather and all that.

      And let us not forget that there has always been speculation that part of the reason for this war was the threat by Sadam to sell Iraqi oil by Euro instead of US Dollar. The Iranians are trying to do the same thing. What will the Shi'a do with all that oil?

      "We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation." - George W. Bush, July 2, 2003

      by Pescadero Bill on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 07:09:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site