Guest simple_language@yahoo.com Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19796266/ If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly." Quote
Guest Joe S. Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 <simple_language@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1184652383.370721.200190@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com... > source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19796266/ > > If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three > developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive > Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern > Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish > north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence > there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. > > That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises > conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. > "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who > has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But > "it will be ugly." > He left out the part about US troops would remain in control of Iraq's oil fields, leaving the Iraqi factions to fight over nothing. Quote
Guest Jerry Kraus Posted July 17, 2007 Posted July 17, 2007 On Jul 17, 1:06 am, "simple_langu...@yahoo.com" <simple_langu...@yahoo.com> wrote: > source:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19796266/ > > If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three > developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive > Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern > Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish > north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence > there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. > > That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises > conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. > "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who > has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But > "it will be ugly." Probably fairly accurate. At least we won't be actively involve in combat there. Quote
Guest zzpat Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 simple_language@yahoo.com wrote: In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. Wouldn't it have been easier to start here? -- Impeach Bush http://zzpat.bravehost.com Impeach Search Engine http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm Quote
Guest tgm Posted July 18, 2007 Posted July 18, 2007 In article <f7k3s9722gs@enews4.newsguy.com>, zzpatrick@gmail.com says... > > >simple_language@yahoo.com wrote: > In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations. > >Wouldn't it have been easier to start here? Never happen. Starting from the south, The Shiite regions are politically unsophisticated. They don't have the political infrastructure or the knowledge base to form a viable Government. Even the Immans from the various sects of the Shia do not agree among themselves so even an Iranian style Theocracy is highly unlikely. Will probably follow the Afghanistan model with warlords in control of their own militias staking out a territory and fighting amongst themselves. Central Iraq has the remnants of the Bathist party and the mid level bureaucrats necessary to form a Government. Those are the insurgents we are currently fighting. The Shia's would be loath to let the Bathists re-emerge as a viable political entity and will likely slaughter any who would dare to try. Besides, they have no money nor source of income to sustain a viable State. At best they would become another basket case, like the West Bank, and rely on handouts to even survive. The Kurds in the north have the political savvy, the oil reserves and the desire to form a separate State. What they don't have is an army capable of fighting off the Turkish and Iranian invaders who would love to get their hands on all that oil. Perhaps with a robust American presence and sufficient air power we could protect the Kurds from invasion. They would, of course, reward us with access and Halliburton control of their oil fields. THAT just might happen. You know what might have worked a couple of years ago and still has a slim chance of working now, is a United States of Iraq. It worked for us and it is worth a try there. The three regions would form their own state with Shias in the south, the Sunnis in the middle and the Kurds in the North. They would have their own local government running domestic policy for their region while having a Central Government in charge of foreign affairs, defense and in control of the oil resources. It would have a bicameral Congress with one house based on population, the other with equal representation from each of the States, and a President elected by popular vote of all Iraqi's. With the power of the purse, the Central Government would be sufficiently strong to keep the peace and resolve differences between the States. While each of the ethnic divisions would be free to practice their own religious beliefs in their own territory. Worth a try, if only we had the time. Tom Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.