Full Version: Absorption
Another option, not desirable imo, would be to allow the Shia area to be absorbed into Iran, the Sunni area by Iraq, and the Kurdish area stand alone and absorb parts of Turkey and surrounding regions.
I think that could be considered the worst case scenario.
Not unlikely, if all hell breaks loose, I suppose. A scenario this admin seems to have not well-thought out.
Oops, blame? Yes, yes it is.
A less stable ME would have to be considered a serious failure of the invasion of Iraq. Objectively, a failure.
Not unlikely, if all hell breaks loose, I suppose. A scenario this admin seems to have not well-thought out.
Oops, blame? Yes, yes it is.
A less stable ME would have to be considered a serious failure of the invasion of Iraq. Objectively, a failure.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Jun 19 2006, 01:07 AM) 
Another option, not desirable imo, would be to allow the Shia area to be absorbed into Iran, the Sunni area by Iraq, and the Kurdish area stand alone and absorb parts of Turkey and surrounding regions.
I'm not sure I got all of that, but as I understand it, the proposal is:
* Iran absorbs the Shia-predominant regions of Iraq, approximately 1/2 to 1/3 of the territory, 65% fo the population, and all the oil fields in the South. The problem being that despite being Shia, these territories are predominantly Arab in language and ethnicity. The resulting expansion would completely surround Kuwait and weaken the position of other states in the region.
* The Sunni area then becomes an independent rump Iraqi state, entirely landlocked and without resources. Or perhaps it is absorbed into a Syrian, Jordanian or Saudi state. I don't think any option is appealing to those involved.
* The Kurds then become a stand alone independent state... 'and absorb parts of Turkey' and 'surrounding regions'... Surrounding regions would be presumably the Assyrian, Turkmen, Yeziday and Arab areas of Iraq surrounding or bordering on Kurdistan? Or are we talking about the Kurdish areas of Iran and Syria. Frankly, that's just a prescription for ten years of incredibly violent regional war. The Turks will not allow their country to be dismembered. Nor will the Iranians or Syrians. The other Iraqi minorities have nowhere to go, their options are expulsion or genocide.
I dunno. Not the best options at all...
And for the record, I don't see it as the natural outcome.
What, in your view, would the natural outcome or range of outcomes, be?
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 06:49 PM)
What, in your view, would the natural outcome or range of outcomes, be?
Most likely outcome?
Well, first of all, the Kurds are screwed. No surprise there. They had uprisings under the British, they failed. They've had six major uprisings since the British left. Failed every time. They're landlocked, surrounded by hostile nations, have no resources (unless they can get the oil), and their borders are indefensible. So, barring outside intervention and a continuing outside presence, they're going to fail again. Sorry to say it, I know everyone is rooting for the Kurds, but that's just life.
After that?
The most likely outcomes are:
1) Sadr crushes Dawa and SCIRI, and forms a nationalist Sunni/Shiite government that rolls over everyone.
2) Dawa and SCIRI with Iranian backing knock Sadr out and form an Iranian-supported theocracy which sits on the Sunni and Kurds.
3) Baathist remnants take it all back. Kind of a long shot. But they're definitely in a position to play spoilers.
4) After a period of civil war, the dominant militias form an uneasy coalition.
5) Open ended Lebanon/Somalia/Afghan style civil war, with some peripheral group like Hezbollah/Taliban/Islamic Courts coming from behind to take power.
QUOTE(Valdron @ Sep 29 2007, 02:28 PM)
Most likely outcome?
Well, first of all, the Kurds are screwed. No surprise there. They had uprisings under the British, they failed. They've had six major uprisings since the British left. Failed every time. They're landlocked, surrounded by hostile nations, have no resources (unless they can get the oil), and their borders are indefensible. So, barring outside intervention and a continuing outside presence, they're going to fail again. Sorry to say it, I know everyone is rooting for the Kurds, but that's just life.
As you say, I am rooting for the Kurds. My outlook for them is not as bleak as yours, if they can come to terms with Turkey over the Kurdish rebels in Turkey and those operating from Iraq. I see their recent accord on hot pursuit as a hopeful sign. The Peshmerga are the best organized of the militias currently operating, and I think the Kurds will receive continuing American support, including, perhaps, lasting US bases.
After that?
The most likely outcomes are:
1) Sadr crushes Dawa and SCIRI, and forms a nationalist Sunni/Shiite government that rolls over everyone.
2) Dawa and SCIRI with Iranian backing knock Sadr out and form an Iranian-supported theocracy which sits on the Sunni and Kurds.
3) Baathist remnants take it all back. Kind of a long shot. But they're definitely in a position to play spoilers.
4) After a period of civil war, the dominant militias form an uneasy coalition.
5) Open ended Lebanon/Somalia/Afghan style civil war, with some peripheral group like Hezbollah/Taliban/Islamic Courts coming from behind to take power.
Most likely, I fear.
Well, first of all, the Kurds are screwed. No surprise there. They had uprisings under the British, they failed. They've had six major uprisings since the British left. Failed every time. They're landlocked, surrounded by hostile nations, have no resources (unless they can get the oil), and their borders are indefensible. So, barring outside intervention and a continuing outside presence, they're going to fail again. Sorry to say it, I know everyone is rooting for the Kurds, but that's just life.
As you say, I am rooting for the Kurds. My outlook for them is not as bleak as yours, if they can come to terms with Turkey over the Kurdish rebels in Turkey and those operating from Iraq. I see their recent accord on hot pursuit as a hopeful sign. The Peshmerga are the best organized of the militias currently operating, and I think the Kurds will receive continuing American support, including, perhaps, lasting US bases.
After that?
The most likely outcomes are:
1) Sadr crushes Dawa and SCIRI, and forms a nationalist Sunni/Shiite government that rolls over everyone.
2) Dawa and SCIRI with Iranian backing knock Sadr out and form an Iranian-supported theocracy which sits on the Sunni and Kurds.
3) Baathist remnants take it all back. Kind of a long shot. But they're definitely in a position to play spoilers.
4) After a period of civil war, the dominant militias form an uneasy coalition.
5) Open ended Lebanon/Somalia/Afghan style civil war, with some peripheral group like Hezbollah/Taliban/Islamic Courts coming from behind to take power.
Most likely, I fear.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
Re: the Kurds.
Did you ever read this from Zarqawi? Sobering.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/200402...rqawi_full.html
The plans seem to be proceeding.
Did you ever read this from Zarqawi? Sobering.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/200402...rqawi_full.html
The plans seem to be proceeding.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 03:45 PM)
I think the Kurds will receive continuing American support, including, perhaps, lasting US bases.
Well, the Kurds weren't too happy with "American support" lately. The detention of that Iranian official closed the border with Iran who, unfortunately, delivers most of their food and fuel.
How long will th Kurds, "back America" when we deal blows to their economy and well being like that?
QUOTE(Bee @ Sep 29 2007, 12:54 PM)
Re: the Kurds.
Did you ever read this from Zarqawi? Sobering.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/200402...rqawi_full.html
The plans seem to be proceeding.
Did you ever read this from Zarqawi? Sobering.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/transcripts/200402...rqawi_full.html
The plans seem to be proceeding.
Right from Zarqawi the merciful and compassionate.
QUOTE
1. The Americans These, as you know, are the most cowardly of God’s creatures. They are an easy quarry, praise be to God. We ask God to enable us to kill and capture them to sow panic among those behind them and to trade them for our detained shaykhs and brothers. ;
Cause some casualties and they'll run. He must know Harry Reid personally.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 07:45 PM)
As you say, I am rooting for the Kurds. My outlook for them is not as bleak as yours, if they can come to terms with Turkey over the Kurdish rebels in Turkey and those operating from Iraq. I see their recent accord on hot pursuit as a hopeful sign. The Peshmerga are the best organized of the militias currently operating, and I think the Kurds will receive continuing American support, including, perhaps, lasting US bases.
It's perfectly fine to root for the Kurds, as long as we keep some things in mind. First, their aspirations take them to genocide and ethnic cleansing of minorities on their hinterland. Second, their long term success is contingent upon outside support. They can't do it on their own, that's been proven time and time again. So, for the Kurds to succeed, Americans have to do some dying on their behalf.
The recent accord between Iraq and Turkey by the way, came over the objections of the Kurds and the Peshmerga who had been sheltering the PKK, so that accord on hot pursuit is not actually a hopeful sign.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Sep 29 2007, 03:06 PM)
Cause some casualties and they'll run. He must know Harry Reid personally.
Enough of this running business. The American people will accept casualties when they see progress toward an attainable goal as a result.
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Sep 29 2007, 08:06 PM)
Cause some casualties and they'll run. He must know Harry Reid personally.
Nah, Reid talks tough, and then he works hard surrendering. Completely different MO.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 08:20 PM)
Enough of this running business. The American people will accept casualties when they see progress toward an attainable goal as a result.
What is the attainable goal? And how is progress defined?
Those would be the questions.
At this point, the principal argument for staying has morphed into preventing or forestalling a greater catastrophe.
At this point, the principal argument for staying has morphed into preventing or forestalling a greater catastrophe.
Which itself may not be an attainable goal.
QUOTE(Friend Judy @ Sep 29 2007, 03:45 PM)
Which itself may not be an attainable goal.
Which may not. The best news we have heard in four years has been the political turn in Anbar. Whether that can be sustained or spread to to other areas remains to be seen.
Captain Obvious checking in.
Anbar had nothing to do with the surge.
Anbar had nothing to do with the surge.
QUOTE(Bee @ Sep 29 2007, 04:10 PM)
Captain Obvious checking in.
Anbar had nothing to do with the surge.
Anbar had nothing to do with the surge.
Aye, aye, Cap'n.
It is still the best political news we have heard. Such as it is.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 08:59 PM)
Which may not. The best news we have heard in four years has been the political turn in Anbar. Whether that can be sustained or spread to to other areas remains to be seen.
Interesting development in Anbar. Essentially, the United States allied with the Sunni tribes who had been taking up arms against the US and the Government, against rival factions of the resistance, essentially jihadists.
Good thing? Well certainly, those Jihadist guys were bad news.
But on the other hand, this action basically amounts to a recognition of the irrelevance and impotence of the Iraqi government, and an endorsement of militias.
So the Peshmerga get a free hand in Kurdistan and surrounding areas. The Badr brigades get free hands to do what they do. And now the Sunni tribes get their free hands?
No wonder the Iraqi government is a shell. The United States is completely compromised in dealing with militias.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 08:42 PM)
Those would be the questions.
At this point, the principal argument for staying has morphed into preventing or forestalling a greater catastrophe.
At this point, the principal argument for staying has morphed into preventing or forestalling a greater catastrophe.
Well, it's an attainable goal, the way that hanging onto a balloon is an attainable goal.
You're fine as long as you hang on.
But the longer you hang on, the higher it rises...
And the worse it'll be when you finally let go.
QUOTE(Valdron @ Sep 29 2007, 04:42 PM)
Interesting development in Anbar. Essentially, the United States allied with the Sunni tribes who had been taking up arms against the US and the Government, against rival factions of the resistance, essentially jihadists.
Good thing? Well certainly, those Jihadist guys were bad news.
But on the other hand, this action basically amounts to a recognition of the irrelevance and impotence of the Iraqi government, and an endorsement of militias.
Yes, it does, at least as concerns the Sunni in Anbar. It represents an effort to build security on a local level relying on the traditional tribal structures. As prior efforts to exert control by the central government have failed, it at least represents some improvement in approach.
So the Peshmerga get a free hand in Kurdistan and surrounding areas.
They've had that, and done rather well with it for years.
The Badr brigades get free hands to do what they do.
I'm watching to South as the Brits withdraw. Can they hold milita attacks down to a dull roar?
And now the Sunni tribes get their free hands?
No wonder the Iraqi government is a shell. The United States is completely compromised in dealing with militias.
I think the central government has failed largely on its own.
Good thing? Well certainly, those Jihadist guys were bad news.
But on the other hand, this action basically amounts to a recognition of the irrelevance and impotence of the Iraqi government, and an endorsement of militias.
Yes, it does, at least as concerns the Sunni in Anbar. It represents an effort to build security on a local level relying on the traditional tribal structures. As prior efforts to exert control by the central government have failed, it at least represents some improvement in approach.
So the Peshmerga get a free hand in Kurdistan and surrounding areas.
They've had that, and done rather well with it for years.
The Badr brigades get free hands to do what they do.
I'm watching to South as the Brits withdraw. Can they hold milita attacks down to a dull roar?
And now the Sunni tribes get their free hands?
No wonder the Iraqi government is a shell. The United States is completely compromised in dealing with militias.
I think the central government has failed largely on its own.
QUOTE(Valdron @ Sep 29 2007, 04:44 PM)
Well, it's an attainable goal, the way that hanging onto a balloon is an attainable goal.
You're fine as long as you hang on.
But the longer you hang on, the higher it rises...
And the worse it'll be when you finally let go.
You're fine as long as you hang on.
But the longer you hang on, the higher it rises...
And the worse it'll be when you finally let go.
None of us really know the consequences of leaving. We do know the costs of staying are huge.
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Sep 30 2007, 01:22 AM)
None of us really know the consequences of leaving. We do know the costs of staying are huge.
Bingo
SpaceCowboy, Valdron,
Is there a point of no return?
Is there a way to determine if we have gone to far?
Most Respectfully,
Is there a point of no return?
(QUESTION)QUOTEQUOTE (SpaceCowboy @ Sep 29 2007, 08:25 PM)
None of us really know the consequences of leaving. We do know the costs of staying are huge.QUOTE (Valdron @ Sep 29 2007, 09:40 PM)Bingo
Is there a way to determine if we have gone to far?
Most Respectfully,
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.