Courtesy of Big Dog's Weblog, Originally posted by Big Dog on his weblog.
by Big Dog
Who would have thought it would be a pleasure to actually discuss Iraq again. I had been suffering Iraq fatigue because they discuss it all the time and now that an election is upon us there are millions more trying to jam Iraq all over to show it as a failure. Everyone knows my opinion about that (if you don’t, I think it is going OK but not as good as it could; not as well as the right says and not as badly as the left says) but after a week of Mark Foley and all the sleaze and dirt surrounding his sexcapades, I am glad to get back to Iraq.
There has been a great deal of sectarian violence in that country. People can say that the US caused it but is has existed for a long time. It has gotten worse now that Saddam is not able to quash people from other sects. There are reports from people trying to paint this as worse than it is that they are in a civil war over there. I don’t think they are but I think they are on the verge. Right now they have violence directed at different groups. If they get into a sustained conflict, then they will be in a civil war. People need to understand that a civil war could be the natural progression of things. There was a civil war in this country before we got on track. We will probably never have another civil war but I would not rule out a new revolution especially if our government does not get its act together.
Today there is news of a plan to divide Iraq into three areas. The Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker is going to have recommendations on this after the mid-term elections.
"The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”. Times Online"
This has merit in that the Kurds have an area so all that would have to be done is divide the other two. They basically live apart so it would probably be a matter of dividing land. In that part of the world it could take years for them to agree but in the end it might actually bring more stability to the country. What we need to be weary of though, is dividing the country into three sections that act like independent countries. We have seen this in Korea and Germany. The countries isolate themselves and become separate entities. I think for Iraq to work effectively, they need to have these areas set up like the states within the US. Each would have its own governing body and each would elect a certain number of people to the governing body of the country. This would allow each sect to have representation in Iraq. The problem might be in getting the politicians to get along but I think in time that would work out.
There is no guarantee that the tribes would not invade the area assigned to another. That part of the world is good for invading and taking land. They are particularly good at making deals and then going back on their word. Given that it is not unreasonable to expect them to fight over the agreement of some portion of it that was violated. This could trigger the civil war that has been feared but it is an option that might offer the best hope for a peaceful solution that everyone can agree on. I am anxious to see this presented in its entirety so we can get a better grasp of what is being proposed. I will also be interested in seeing how the Iraqis react to such a plan.
Bosun's Opinion: I have thought long and hard about this concept before the Baker Commission came out within. Unfortunately, Turkey and Iran oppose the Kurds from having their own self rule.
Kurds in Turkey and Iran are at war with the respective governments (or it may be the other way around depending on who is telling the story.)
Judging by news from the region, the Kurds of Northern Iraq have enjoyed a relatively peaceful existence with limited terror activities since the US led invasion of Iraq. It is difficult for subversives to move about undetected in Northern Iraq. Therefore, the Kurds have better control over their region than the rest of Iraq.
I don’t know if a trisection of Iraq is doable or not. Big Dog correctly pointed out risk that each tribe may end up invading the other.
In saying that, I believe the Kurds would behave themselves. The Kurds have to walk a tightrope with Turkey and Iran.
Unfortunately, if the commission does split Iraq, the Kurds will be landlocked, along, with the Sunni Triangle.
The Shia dominated south will control the gulf coast and have control of the shipping port. It appears to me that that the Shia will end up embracing their cousins, the Iranians if they are left to their own design.
United States Democrats
When the Democrats eventually take over our government, I think the first thing that the Dems will do is “cut and run” from the region and abandon Israel.
Cut and Run will leave Iraq to its own devices which will cause the civil war the Dems keep harping about. The Dems suffer from two mental illness disorders “Vietnam-itis” and “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Both mental disorders cause intense paranoia, blame others, and extreme externalization.
The mental disorders ( “Vietnam-itis” and “Bush Derangement Syndrome”) tends to cause the average Democrat to scream like a banchee and loose any sense of morality, common sense, or dignity. If and when the Dems take control of our government, they will be to busy trying to tear down anything that could be conceived as President Bush’s legacy. Washington DC will look like the fall of Baghdad, if and when the Democrats regain control. If there was a bust or statue of President Bush, the Dems would pull it down and it hit it with their sandals and slippers.
So. if the Baker Commission recommendations are enacted during President Bush’s administration, perhaps, just perhaps, there will be a more oganized triangulation of Iraq and the Kurds will be able to pull it off securing the norther oil fields.
Shia in the South
As stated earlier, I have a bad feeling that the Shia in the South will embrace Iran. The Sunnis will pay a very dear price for embracing al-Qaeda and revolution. The Kurds and Shia will not be forgiving.
The even worst thing is that Al-Qaeda will be out looking for another country to tear apart. You see the Arab Street and al-Qaeda understand that was not secular violence, but, al-Qaeda who split Iraq (using Dem talking points and violence.)
Jordan, Egypt, and other moderate neighbors will be put on notice. I suspect that the House of Saud will fall victim of Middle East instability.
President “A-man-named-jihad” of Iran will believe he is the 12th Imam and his perception of the Caliphate will gain traction. I am sure that Europe will become a battle ground for Islamization.
The SNAFU Generation
When all this takes place, the liberals will wonder what the heck has happened. John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Jack Murtha, Teddy Kennedy and all the other donk lefti who helped al-Qaeda develop the confidence that America would loose its will to fight (like America did in Viet Nam, Lebanon, and Somalia) should feel proud of their contributions to the sinking world.
It did not start with Bush
The Middle East instablity is not President Bush’s fault. The conflict started with the rise of radicalized Islam in about 600 AD. The Islamists envisioned an Islamic Caliphate starting in Europe and stretching throughout Africa and west Asia. Spain once fell under radicalized Islam's bloody sword. History has a way of repeating itself. The current situation looks bleak no matter which way the desert sand blows.
Remain ever vigiliant and watchful,