Posted on 10/08/2006 9:51:04 AM PDT by US Navy guy
AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Yep. And that's why the US hasn't given the Kurds full autonomy. I suppose if US-Turkey relations deteriorate enough we might...
Imagine all the Dims (MSM) jumping on Bush for "betraying" our NATO ally Turkey.
Just more speculation from the Times about what the President and Congress 'may' do.
Tripe.
I blame the State Department for not using this idea.
I agree, great idea. But then I also support breaking this country up into two.
Really? I put the blame squarely at the feet of the Commander-in-Chief. That is where the buck stops, after all.
"Imagine all the Dims (MSM) jumping on Bush for "betraying" our NATO ally Turkey."
Turkeys been our ally for a long time, why should be betray them.
Well, yes, President Bush must share some of the blame. But I think the idea originated in the State Department.
A solution looking for a problem. Kill all the terrs then everything else can work out diplomatically. The majority of the violence stems from Al Qaeda, Syria, and Iran. Contrary to popular belief, the problem is not sectarian or ethnic. Iraq is being invaded.
"A bad peace is even worse than war."
-- Tacitus
Iraq needs a Muslim king friendly to the West. If it doesn't happen we will see a secular or religious dictator rise up as soon as we leave. Different cultures require different forms of government. The Middle East has always respected strong leaders. Democracy (sharing) is not strength but an opportunity for a powerful individual, good or bad.
Why dont the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo get to do the same?
Turkey doesn't want an independant Kurdish nation on their border, if I remember right.
On the surface this may seem like a last ditch effort to get out of there, but I think it has merit. Iraq has always been a country fractured by ethnic and religious differences. The real problem comes with oil profit distribution, most of it would end up with the Shiites in the center and south of the country. If we are speaking of truely autonomous areas then the oil-rich are not likely to share with the oil poor.
The Kurdish section of Iraq is nearly autonomous and has been spared much of the strife that the sunni areas have been through. The difference is that an autonomous Kurdistan may be inclined to strike at, or at least render itself as an infernal nuisance to Turkey. (Full of kooks like the rest of the neighborhood, but at least they are secular.)
In a single source economy like Iraq, anouther question is who gets the ports and major roads that the oil must flow through? If Shiitestan and Sunnistan are at odds, can one strangle the other?
The Turks have long brutally suppressed Kurdish nationalism and a Kurdish state on their border is one thing they don't want.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.