Replies

I actually agree with your assessment. This is France's and Britain's mess from long ago. I do believe the Elder Bush was also in a no-win situation. Partitioning is easier said then done, I do understand that(note my first post that said a lot of hurt and death). I never believed in the pipe dream of democracy in the Middle East. I thought we would loose this war from the start (not because of the troops, but because we have an active 5th column in our country (and to take Iraq without taking Syria was just nuts (like the Syrians would just stand around doing nothing while we 'rebuild Iraq', that was very naive of the powers that be, however we could never have won world opinion on taking out Syria nor Congressional approval, so we should not have gone in at all))). But eventually Saddam would have gained some type of weapon and either used it himself or given to someone who would. A whole other mess.

I understand fixing one problem leads to making new ones (the law of unintended consequences) or leading to fixing others as you state. But by that logic, we should not have gone after Al Qaeda or stood up to NAZISM or Communism. In fact standing up to Communism is what helped create Al Qaeda as you probably well know. I want a homeland for the Christian Arabs, I will not get what I want, because nobody will seriously consider partitioning Iraq except the Iranians and the Syrians. Iraq will implode and those two countries will be there to absorb the pieces. The Kurds will be out once again (like Poland over the 300 years) and the Christians will be forced to emigrate, convert or die.

I would love to give the Kurds and the Christians the chance to fight for their own survival, that is why I would like to see a partition, but it will not happen. It is politically taboo here, but not in Damascus or Tehran...