Iraq, sectioned off

[BobHunt]

Can anyone tell me why this would not be a wise thing to do?

[Hans Deventer]

Please explain a little bit, Bob. I don't follow you (yet).

[Bruce Carriker]

Bob,

Are you talking about putting Iraq back the way the West found it, after WWI? If so, I agree that is what we probably ought to be working towards, and that will be the final result of the years of civil war that lie ahead. But we won't agree to it because:

1. A Shiite-controlled region would be closely aligned with Iran, AND that region would control most of the oil in Iraq;

2. Turkey is STRONGLY opposed to an independent Kurdistan, because then the Kurds in southern Turkey would want to separate from Turkey and join themselves to Kurdistan.

Ultimately, the bottom line in all of this IS NOT self-determination for the people of Iraq. The bottom line is self-determination, as long as they agree to "self-determine" what's already been determined for them.

[BobHunt]

ok, so if we make Iraq a democracy, and have equal representation from all groups in this new government, this is still not satisfactory to all of them? Im trying to determine why they are still fighting amongst themselves, or is it religious differences? Are those who are fighting only those who are still loyal to the former government or Sadam?

I am trying to see, a little bit at least, of how the study group will go about their study of Iraq, I think this includes the new Robert Gates.

[Hans Deventer]

ok, so if we make Iraq a democracy, and have equal representation from all groups in this new government, this is still not satisfactory to all of them? Im trying to determine why they are still fighting amongst themselves, or is it religious differences? Are those who are fighting only those who are still loyal to the former government or Sadam?

Power. Under Saddam, the Sunni's had all the power, the Kurds and Shiites were oppressed. But, they have all the oil, the Sunni's have none.

[Bruce Carriker]

ok, so if we make Iraq a democracy, and have equal representation from all groups in this new government, this is still not satisfactory to all of them?

No, this isn't satisfactory. By a fair margin the population of Iraq as a whole is Shiite. In a true democracy, the Shiite clerics and their close followers would win the elections and align themselves with Iran. This is unacceptable to the Sunnis, the Kurds, the United States, and most of the rest of the Middle East.

There is little doubt that a Shiite-controlled government would be as oppressive to the Kurds and Sunnis as Sadaam and the Sunnis were to the Shiites and the Kurds. Tit-for-tat may work for five-year olds, but it ought not be a national policy.

Im trying to determine why they are still fighting amongst themselves, or is it religious differences? Are those who are fighting only those who are still loyal to the former government or Sadam?

Some are loyal to Saddam. Some are simply Sunnis who don't want to relinquish the power they enjoyed under Saddam, though they don't really care if he comes back. Some are Sunnis who fear a Shiite majority government. Some of them are Shiites who want revenge for the past forty years of oppression. In the north, which is relatively stable compared to the rest of Iraq, the Kurds want to be left alone to form their own country; or at the very least, a state within an Iraqi federation that allows them a great deal of regional autonomy.

I am trying to see, a little bit at least, of how the study group will go about their study of Iraq, I think this includes the new Robert Gates.

Gates has resigned from the Baker-Hamiliton Commission. It would be a conflict of interest for him to continue sitting on the Commission, while serving as Secretary of Defense.

Gates was an influential voice in the first Bush administration. So was James Baker. Remember, that's the President Bush who, given the opportunity, chose NOT to de-stabilize the Middle East and start a civil war; declining to invade Iraq when he had the chance. Gates' nomination does give us some indication that there is a change in policy coming in regards to the war in Iraq. It won't be withdrawl, but it won't be "stay the course" any longer.

I think the Commission will recommend changes that the President will then adopt, using those recommendations from a "bi-partisan panel of experts" as political cover from the Republican base. I also think there will be a new UN ambassador (Baker would be an excellent choice, if he could be persuaded to re-enter public life) who will try to mend fences with our historic allies, and craft a multi-lateral solution.