Just so you understand my intent, my wife and I have been discussing why we should / shouldn't allow Iraq to divide itself into three seperate countries. I stumbled upon this little excerpt while reading about Iraqi history.
I think that without an iron fist in place, Iraq will end up in three pieces no matter what the map says. The arbitrary lines established by the British in 1932 mean nothing to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shites in Iraq. The country will be plunged into civil war soon after we leave. Or another dictator will arise. I can't see another outcome.
I'm not trying to re-live 1990 (I spent the first gulf war on a submarine in dry dock in Newport News and have no desire to go back).
I support the Presidents decision to invade Iraq. I think he is pursuing the larger goal of changing the power structure in the Middle East, much like Reagan went into office determined to win the cold war. I hope we have some brilliant political plan to make Iraq a thriving democracy, but I think it is a path fraught with dangers for Iraq.
I hope you see that this is relevent, much like the Shites distrust of us after we called for them to rise up in 1991 and then let them get slaughtered.
...why we should / shouldn't allow Iraq to divide itself into three seperate countries.We should not be part of that process. There are too many variables in the equation.
\ The arbitrary lines established by the British in 1932 mean nothing to the Kurds, Sunni, and Shites in Iraq. The country will be plunged into civil war soon after we leave.
We cannot be the long-term iron fist. If civil war breaks out, we will be caught in the crossfire no matter which side we choose, if any. The British screwed up. The Kurds want their own country and the Turks may not agree. The rest of Iraq may or may not agree.
I support the Presidents decision to invade Iraq.
Liberate Iraq. If civil war breaks out, or a new dictator takes over, we will begin a new cycle again and deal with the new government....as allies or as enemies.