The US's new path for Iraq war...

[Qdrop]

What say you?

[sam i am]

Splitting it into separate factions is a non-starter.

The Shiites and Sunnis HATE each other and none of the three factions wants to give up the potential oil wealth.

Like it or lump it, they're stuck with each other.

Unless, of course, the US decides to allow the Shiites to wipe out the Sunnis, which would be just desserts for all the years of crap they put up with under Saddam's "benevolent dictatorship."

[Echewta]

Put in an overwhelming number of troops to squash everyone. Start again.

[Qdrop]

Put in an overwhelming number of troops to squash everyone. Start again.

do you want to go over there?
i don't.

where will these new troops come from?

who are we "squashing"?

[Echewta]

The rift raft. Hangers on. Trouble makers.

Yea, see thats the tough part, we don't have enough troops to do what needed to be done.

*shrug*

[Ali]

Bring back Saddam!

[sam i am]

Bring back Saddam!

Too late...he'll be hanged before you know it:p :cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Iraqization! You know like Vietnamization where they tried to train the Vietnamese troops to take over control of the country?

Well, it didn't work in Vietnam and it won't work now, either. But handing over control to the Iraqis seems to be the ONLY way to go - we can't keep our guys there to police forever; that's ridiculous. We'll slowly hand over power, and there will be a huge power vacuum and they'll collapse but at least it'll be out of our hands by then.

[Schmeltz]

Unless, of course, the US decides to allow the Shiites to wipe out the Sunnis, which would be just desserts


Uh... no, genocide is never "just desserts." I hope you were being macabre when you wrote that.

Option #1 is too drastic: the Iraqi government and security forces aren't ready to assume control of the entire administrative or military framework, and I suspect the Pentagon has plans in place to maintain troop levels for a fairly extensive period of time (hence the construction of permanent bases in the country), which would be troublesome, wasteful, and shortsighted to abandon. Even if Iraq looks a lot like Vietnam, there's nothing to be gained from an immediate withdrawal.

Option #3, as sam said, is also unworthy of consideration - Balkanizing the country will produce mass migrations across the new borders, with consequent violent clashes between ethnic and religious groups that will blossom into full-fledged war in short order. Think India/Pakistan, or the divisions of Korea and Vietnam - disasters that took hundreds of thousands of lives and destabilized the regions for decades. Not a good idea.

Option #4 sounds good, but only so far as the presence of American troops is actually conducive to the construction of a stable and democratic Iraq. Survey after survey seems to show that most Iraqis deeply resent the presence of foreign troops in their country (and given the behaviour of some American soldiers it's easy to understand why) and I've read numerous stories detailing the belief, apparently widespread especially among young Iraqis, that security would actually be improved if the Americans were all withdrawn. I would vote for #4 if the American forces were able to reverse this trend and convince the Iraqi citizenry that their presence actually does more good than harm, but that's a monumental challenge and may be unworkable.

Nuking a Muslim country would produce a genuine clash of civilizations so destructive that it would take human society generations to recover.

And option #6 is impossible to pursue: the Bush administration went into Iraq ostensibly to spread democracy, not merely to shuffle dictators, and America would suffer an enormous loss of face, especially in the Middle East, that would haunt its international affairs for decades. And anyway, who would make an acceptable dictator? A Shiite? A Sunni? A Ba'athist? A theocrat? Civil war and the oppression needed to quell it would break out instantly.

Option #2 seems the only realistic one of the bunch. A gradual drawdown, commencing as soon as possible, would ease the tension between Iraqis and American troops, lower the likelihood of future American casualties, and increase the pressure on the Iraqi government to develop and enhance its own security resources. The difficulty lies in avoiding a withdrawal that looks like a retreat and leaves unprepared government forces to fend for themselves, and performing it in conjunction with phases of improvement within the Iraqi security structure. A province-by-province strategy, which has kind of been pursued already, might be one way to go about this. A genuine commitment to the reconstruction of Iraq's infrastructure, instead of the current system of corruption, embezzlement, and kickbacks to corporations deeply involved with American government officials, is also a necessary step in the success of this program.

The world can't afford a collapse in Iraq - not on top of the planet's second-largest petroleum reserves, and not in a region already seething with popular discontent and religious fanaticism. Iraq won't be "out of your hands" until it has been firmly transformed into a stable and productive society. If it collapses into utter ruin, the problem will weigh more heavily on American shoulders than ever.

[sam i am]

Uh... no, genocide is never "just desserts." I hope you were being macabre when you wrote that.

Just a little;)

Realistically, however, the Shiites would be among the few who would be justified in wiping out (or driving out) the Sunnis in Iraq. They have 60% of the population, but have been severly repressed by their Sunni "brethren" for the past milennia plus.

Send the Sunnis to Syria and make Iraq an Iranian "substate." Let the Kurds have a completely independent country and the Turks could force their Kurds into the new state.

Done deal.

[Schmeltz]

I really hope none of those proposals are meant to be serious because they border on the lunatic. How you can possibly assert that one ethno-religious bloc could possibly be "justified" in ethnically cleansing an entire nation, creating an enormous refugee crisis and completely destabilizing an enormous and economically crucial area of the globe is beyond me.

[Drederick Tatum]

bring back the Ottoman empire!

[Ali]

Just a little;)

Realistically, however, the Shiites would be among the few who would be justified in wiping out (or driving out) the Sunnis in Iraq. They have 60% of the population, but have been severly repressed by their Sunni "brethren" for the past milennia plus.

Send the Sunnis to Syria and make Iraq an Iranian "substate." Let the Kurds have a completely independent country and the Turks could force their Kurds into the new state.

Done deal.What do you think of this suggestion to involve Iran and Syria in stabilising Iraq? Considering that Iran is Shia-governed and Syria Sunni and that Iran and Syria are allies (against Israel, at any rate), it might mean that each side gets some representation. Too bad for the Kurds, though (as usual), maybe they should be sent to live in Israel.

[sam i am]

bring back the Ottoman empire!

LMAO!

Perfect!

[sam i am]

What do you think of this suggestion to involve Iran and Syria in stabilising Iraq? Considering that Iran is Shia-governed and Syria Sunni and that Iran and Syria are allies (against Israel, at any rate), it might mean that each side gets some representation. Too bad for the Kurds, though (as usual), maybe they should be sent to live in Israel.

OK.

Time for a serious response.

Iran and Syria are involved no matter what. Especially with the Iranians on the verge of having a nuke, the US would be best off not further provoking them.

That being said, my only objection to Syrian involvement is that they have steadfastly refused to work with the US/UN on making Lebanon work. Why should we all trust them on Iraq?

The bottom line is that a Federalized system, with a weak central government that is basically in charge of the borders and oil, is about the best we can hope for at this time.