[sam_paine]

There really should be three Iraqs; Shia, Sunni and Kurd.

Reality would be nice if it weren't so complicated.

Sure, let's just sit here like the "pirates who don't do anything" and say that three little Iraqs would be so much better.

Except that three little Iraqs might quickly turn into The Land Of Unintended Consequences.

1) Iran covertly or overtly annexes Shia-stan, occupies Basra and cuts off gulf access.

2) Sunni-stan devolves into a new hardcore Muslim Brotherhood terror training headquarters, unfettered by American military intervention.

3) Kurdistan becomes a success story just long enough to provide an example to Turkish Kurds that the best idea for them is to revolt against Turkish government and secede, bringing American troops into a hot war between the Kurds and the Turks.

Just because Iraq was an "artificial construct" of British imperialism doesn't automatically mean it's the worst option.

[bluetone006]

I disagree with your analysis. If we move our forces into Kurdistan no one is going to attack them. Shia-stan and Sunni-stan wont be clean entities for years, in other words, there will be slaughter in southern Iraq for a decade which will drain resources and energy from the entire islamic world. For our part we would be able to strike anywhere in the region on a moments notice. Sunni training camp? - poof it's gone. Persians crossing the border?, poof they're f******* gone.

The Turks are not going to take on the US. Period. Even if they did they would fare little better than the Iraq army did.

Your alternative apparently is to remain in Iraq, propping it up, for the next 50 years. No thanks. It was a stupid idea to begin with.