PDA

View Full Version : A workable solution for Iraq


BucEyedPea
05-28-2006, 09:40 PM
Okay let's see...:hmmm:

1)Sunni's hate the Shia's
2) Shia's hate the Sunni
3)Kurds? I dunno who they hate, but I do know they want their independence.
Their land extends into Turkey and Iran as well and they want it back.

Sunnis are afraid of being left out of the proceeds from the oil rich Shia region of Iraq if they have no power.

Iraq is basically a fake country cobbled together after WWI by the Great Britain who was granted a mandate over it by the League of Nations. Lines were drawn through tribes to weaken them.

Question: How and when does an area become a nation? When it forms borders or because their is a common national identity, as well as borders? Has this ever happend in Iraq? I say no. I don't think the other criteria exists in Iraq either.

Solution:
I think that instead of trying to force these people to live together under a central govt (Ugh! Centralization sukks!) that Iraq be divided up into three separate nations. In order to handle the concern of the Sunni over losing out from the oil rich regionóhave revenue sharing by all three.

Kurds get their independence.
Sunni and Shia live separately but more likely live in peace.
Afterall, sometimes fences make good neighbors.

That's my solution. :)
Got any better ideas?

Logical
05-28-2006, 10:21 PM
...
Solution:
I think that instead of trying to force these people to live together under a central govt (Ugh! Centralization sukks!) that Iraq be divided up into three separate nations. In order to handle the concern of the Sunni over losing out from the oil rich regionóhave revenue sharing by all three.

Kurds get their independence.
Sunni and Shia live separately but more likely live in peace.
Afterall, sometimes fences make good neighbors.

That's my solution. :)
Got any better ideas?

I have thought this was the only way to make it work other than to just move out and let the Civil War happen for quite a long time. Good idea for a thread to discuss it. Thanks.

WoodDraw
05-28-2006, 10:47 PM
I doubt it would do more than open up the next round of instabilities. Turkey - with a repressed Kurdish population of their own - has always fought any attempt at a Kurdish independent state. Any Shi'a state would be immediately allied and dominated politicaly by Iran. Seperating each group would likely magnify the extremists in each sect. As unstable as Iraq is right now, there has at least been some level of compromise away from extremism.

[edit - added]

I'm also not convinced the current civil war resulted from any deep engrained ethnic tension. A lot of it grew out of basic insecurity. When the nation as a whole can't provide security, people turn to the smallest dependable group that can - in this case, their ethnic groups. If the militias can be brought under the control of one state army then a lot of these problems would be solved. As they say though, easier said than done.

Count Zarth
05-28-2006, 10:58 PM
Here is Scott Adams solution:



I keep wondering what would happen if terrorists demanded something that we wanted to give them anyway. Would we need to concoct some reason why we canít give it to them so we donít encourage more terrorism?

It sounds ridiculous, but weíre getting closer to that situation. For example, the terrorists want the U.S. military to get out of Iraq. And so do a lot of Americans. The preferences of the two groups arenít identical of course. There are questions of timing and continued influence and the sort of government we leave behind. But there is a lot of agreement on the big point. They want us out Ė American citizens want us out.

The terrorists would like the U.S. to stop meddling in the entire Middle East. And so would a lot of Americans. Again, there are lots of differences in the how and when, but the positions arenít that far apart on the big picture. Itís still not a majority view in the U.S., but I could see it becoming one someday.

The terrorists would like us to stop raping their countries of natural resources. Likewise, Americans would love to find other economical sources of energy.

Let me emphasize to the slow-witted amongst you that I donít condone terrorism. And I understand that itís a bad idea to encourage it by giving in to demands. But what would happen if the majority of Americans eventually started agreeing with the terroristsí big points, albeit for our own selfish reasons? Must we thwart ourselves in order to thwart them?

I keep asking myself what would happen if we just abandoned the entire region except for buying oil when they felt like selling it. I think the Muslims would get busy with all-out civil/religious war and leave us alone. The funny part would be when Saudi Arabia tries to buy military supplies to defend against Al-Qaeada, and the only country willing to sell it weapons is Israel.

Our oil supply might be disrupted if we pull out, but I canít convince myself that getting desperate about new energy supplies is a bad thing in the long run. Sometimes you need a little extra incentive to do the right thing. Itís a little like the Y2K problem Ė when you know for certain the nature of the problem and when itís coming, you can usually find a solution. We Americans do the best when the threat is specific and imminent.

Now suppose I add one more condition to our complete withdrawal from the region. We state that if needed weíll support with our military the existing borders for all countries in the region. That includes Israel, of course. But if Iran is attacked by a standing army, we promise weíll defend them too. That gives all of the leaders the comfort of knowing they donít need nukes. And it gives them a good reason not to attack us or each other.

Iran and Syria arenít likely to trust us to protect them. But on the flip side, no one will want to invade their neighbor and test our promise. With Saddam gone, the region doesnít have a government that is likely to invade anyone else any time soon. I think most of the leaders in that region would be happy with not being deposed.

None of my ideas are practical. I realize that. But I like noodling about them.

Ugly Duck
05-29-2006, 01:06 AM
Iraq be divided up into three separate nationsGood! I'm with you. I figured thats what we were going to do when we invaded. Damn government never listens to me.....

banyon
05-29-2006, 09:24 AM
This solution is unacceptable to the Sunnis because it basically screws them out of most of the oil.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2006, 09:29 AM
This solution is unacceptable to the Sunnis because it basically screws them out of most of the oil.

I advocated a revenue sharing program for all three for that.

banyon
05-29-2006, 09:35 AM
I advocated a revenue sharing program for all three for that.

Is there an analogous situation where a country has a claim in resources located in another country?

That sounds very problematic. One of the causes of the first Gulf War was slant drilling. I would think that these groups would not trust each other enough to properly dicslose the revenue.

But I'm not trying to just naysay.

It is a better solution than the current clusterf***.

Ugly Duck
05-29-2006, 09:38 AM
I advocated a revenue sharing program for all three for that.Therein lies the problem. We'll see the three states, but after the upcoming Iraqi Civil War for Oil. The Shia will grab the lion's share by force of arms because they are the ones we are arming. The Kurds are positioning themselves to make a play on the oil fields of Kirkuk. The Sunnis are up the creek and are way pissed off.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2006, 09:46 AM
banyon and Ugly Duck,
I knew it was not a perfect solution when I proposed it, just better than now.

I knew that the possibility would exist for conflict over that oil...due to greed.

I'm not against the idea of letting them battle it out and settle their own differences in a Civil War, like we did once. But something is better than now.
I don't see these people ever being able to live together. They're still tribes in a sense.

Duck, I heard our CIA was directing Salvadoran Death Squads for both Sunni and Shia to kill one another. That we're using some paid mercenaries, some being the same ones used under Pinochet.

KC Jones
05-29-2006, 10:42 AM
Good try pea, but I'm not sure there is a workable solution for Iraq - At least not one I really believe will work. Look at India and Pakistan, they split and didn't even have oil to fight over but have been in several wars. Problem with the upcoming Iraqi wars, is that the stakes are huge and lots of players have a vested interest. I halfway wonder if the crazy shit Iran's PM has said about Jews/Israel isn't just an attempt at getting some street cred from Sunni's in Syria, Egypt, etc. before they get drawn into something in Iraq.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2006, 11:15 AM
I halfway wonder if the crazy shit Iran's PM has said about Jews/Israel isn't just an attempt at getting some street cred from Sunni's in Syria, Egypt, etc. before they get drawn into something in Iraq.

I never read all of what Iran's PM said. But I read an analysis on what Iran's PM really said: that it meant he was saying Israel should be in Europe because it was Europeans that slaughtered them. That the ME is paying for the crimes of white Europeans.

Lake
05-29-2006, 11:41 AM
This situation was bad before we came in. I doubt that we made it that much worse. With what Iran could be doing right now, I do not know if Sadaam would have stood by and watched. There is a good chance that Syria and Iraq would have had to eventually align and defend themselves against Iran stirring up a revolution and joining the Shia in Iraq to overthrow Sadaam. This still could happen. It would just place us in the middle because we just happen to be there. We would be forced to evacuate or choose sides. It would also take some heat off of Israel while this was going on. A temporary removal of the hatred of Isarel and our exit would be the only good things and could end up being the best things to take place in this region in a long time. Africa and Asia are the most unstable areas of the world right now. They are worse than Latin America and any parts of Europe or on any of other continents. It was partly due to the European Colonization of these places. It was even more due to the fact that when they decided it was too much of a pain to stick around that they redivided the lands among people who did not like one another at all. It has shown over the past few centuries. Yet the U.S. never learns the lesson that we should have learned from Old Europe and it is paying too much for something is still less expensive that having to try and make war to make peace every so often. There is not a workable solution that for any part of this region that involves us. We need to let them do it for themselves for once and adapt to living with whatever the outcome is.

BucEyedPea
05-29-2006, 11:48 AM
Lake,
Good post.
If they were just left alone to their original de-centralized tribal organization, with no outside interference that would be fine with me too. I don't see why anyone has to try to impose some sort of nation-state centralized gov't on that area. Those systems have their own justice systems etc. (even if we don't agree with those systems).

On the other hand, that area (ME, including Israel) has been subjected to outside forces of all kinds ( Roman, Greek,Egyptians, Assyrian, Persian, Ottoman, European) trying to dominate and conquer the area.

Radar Chief
05-30-2006, 10:07 AM
I think we should combine Iraq and Iran into one country and call it ďIrateĒ. Then we can send all the pissed off people there so at least we know where they are.

ROFL

HC_Chief
05-30-2006, 11:04 AM
Best solution would be to "Fallujah" Baghdad: encircle the city, send the elderly, women and children packing, then roll through each street in force. Apply maximum firepower to squash opposition. Crush the will to resist; obliterate the enemy before he can snipe, or take mortar pot shots, or setup IEDs. As each street is cleared, put an Iraqi army unit in place to guard the flank and secure the buildings. In other words, use the military to kill people and break stuff. Treat the WAR as if it were a WAR. Political statements to the effect of "Mission Accomplished" (be they in or out of context) be damned! Do the job right, then get the f**k out of dodge.

We've played the "you break it, you buy it" game for long enough. Time to apply pressure to the Iraqis: take ownership of your country or surrender it to external forces; just know that those "external forces" won't be <i>us</i>. If we're not going to crush the enemy with extreme prejudice, it's time to disengage completely.