Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place

What should the US now do about Iraq?

<< < (2/2)

shortfiction:
Excellent points, David.  I wish we could turn back the clock.

My fear is that we will end up waging war on Iran next, or on another country.

ifyoucantfixit:



        Unfortunately we will do this stupid thing again.  As long as this country is run by the
money grubbing industrial complex that we have..
        Twice in a very short time.  Its a place that refuses to look at the past before launching
the future..  sad* 

brokeplex:
I voted for option #2 because I think that is the eventual fate of Iraq. 3 zones: north Kurdistan, a central Sunni area and the rest of the country Shia.
But, to those who are crying out how "stupid" this war is, I would say the war has definitely been conducted in a very stupid fashion. Is this part of the war against Islamic fascist terrorism stupid? No, I think it is necessary. I wish that Prez W had used much more decisive force in defeating the so-called insurgents much earlier. Fortunately, the present "Surge" seems to be making progress, so the 3 likely successor states to Iraq may have a chance to succeed once US troops are withdrawn.
Wars are never attractive, but after the US was attacked twice (1993 / 2001)on US soil by Islamic fascists, I can't see how any President of the US could have failed to respond in a decisive manner. I fault Clinton in 1993 for treating the bombing of the World Trade Center as a law enforcment issue, not the national security issue that it was. Perhaps had Clinton been more decisive in attacking the terrorists network that existed in that time, in Afghanistan and Sudan, Al Qaeda would never have been able to launch the 2001 attack on NYC.

delalluvia:
I'm with David.  I was totally against the war, wrote letters, sent e-mails to my representatives, rallied my friends, supported the anti-war politicians, but we went in anyway.

 >:( >:(

Well, we're there now and have made a mess - like a great many of us knew we would.  :P

We need to stay until the infrastructure of Iraq is strong enough to take over.

Splitting the country into 3 sections will not help, IMO.  The oil fields and wealth of the country is not equally distributed.  As far as I know, the oil fields are located mostly in the north Kurdish areas and there is no way the Sunni and Shiah sections of the rest of the country will let those areas go without a fight or a percentage of the money and a say in how it is managed/distributed.

But I also don't see how we can let the situation in Iraq go unaddressed either.

brokeplex:

--- Quote from: delalluvia on October 21, 2007, 01:14:35 pm ---

We need to stay until the infrastructure of Iraq is strong enough to take over.

Splitting the country into 3 sections will not help, IMO.  The oil fields and wealth of the country is not equally distributed.  As far as I know, the oil fields are located mostly in the north Kurdish areas and there is no way the Sunni and Shiah sections of the rest of the country will let those areas go without a fight or a percentage of the money and a say in how it is managed/distributed.



--- End quote ---

Those are interesting observations, some of which I think are right on target. I agree with you that some US troops must stay in force to give the locals a chance to establish a lawful and orderly state/or states.

Where I depart from your observations is about the reality of the 3 countries that make up the nation of Iraq. The "3 country " solution to bringing peace in Iraq is not something that will be imposed upon Iraq by outsiders, it will naturally evolve. Iraq as presently defined is made up of 3 distinct ethnic / linguistic regions. These regions were cobbled together into the nation of Iraq after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire post WWI. The victorious allies (France / GB), chose to impose a unified state on the entire Mesopotamian region, the locals did not necessarily want it. The victorious WWI allies made the same arrogant mistake in establishing a unified Yugoslavia at the same time. Yugoslavia was actually made up of 5 or 6 nationalitieswho after the fall of the communist bloc in 1989 and a civil war, chose to voluntarily disband Yugoslavia and create several successor states (Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, etc)

As far as the geographical distribution of petroleum production and reserves in Iraq: major oil / gas production exists in the northern Kurdish areas, the central areas around Baghdad, and in the Southern areas. Iraq today has the world's 2nd largest proven petroleum reserves. There is plenty of oil and gas revenue to go around to make each successor state wealthy, if peaceful orderly governments who answer to the economic interests of their people are established. Saddam chose to ignore the needs and demands of the regions within Iraq and did not use the vast oil wealth of the county to develop infrastructure. This is one of the many reasons that the Kurds in the North and the Shi'a in the center and the South were delighted to see Saddam pushed out of power.

My hope is that peaceful, moderate nations will be established on the remains of Iraq in the near future leading to greater stability for the whole region.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page