On 20 Mar 2006 at 23:51, David Hobby wrote: > Dan Minette wrote: > ... > > Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. > ... > > Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the > > middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you > > would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that > > natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The influence > > on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to hold > > up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant human > > rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass > > killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. > > Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn > into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. > (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) > > This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those > of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi > people, and doing what's best for them is about the only > remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place.
I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce Turkey's hand. The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign policy. That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter- factional violence and for foreign policy. AndrewC Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
