John wrote on August 24, 2007 04:25 PM: Hmm...split warring factions into different countries/states on ethnic/religious/cultural boundaries...has a familiar ring to it. It didn't work in Yugoslavia, Germany and Israel/Palestine, what the hell makes him think it will work in Iraq?

Doug wrote on August 24, 2007 03:22 PM: Question- What would be so bad about handing everything over to the Iraqis and say "It's all yours"? Meanwhile we regroup and watch from not too afar.

This is their problem now. Did what we had to and now time to concentrate on Bin Laden's whereabouts and eyeball other "hotspots". I think we've got enough combat experience for now and are able to turn things down and stay poised. Also, intel efforts to continuous improve and shared amongst coalition/internal. I feel this will work fine.

Propping-up a fragile govenment is only beating us down.
So what if Iraq becomes a haven for insugents and terrorists. They're all over anyway and for us to stay close, Kuwait, Turkey and offshore, won't cause too much concern.

Bob Jack wrote on August 24, 2007 02:44 PM: The idea of splitting Iraq into three separate states--Sunni, Shia and Kurds, is an ideal solution if all the demographic, political, and environmental factors going on inside the nation were in harmony with such a split. But they are not. First of all, there are many more Shia than there are Sunnis and Kurds. Next, the oil is not geographically distributed along the same distribution pattern as the population. Next, there are political forces that militate against a peaceful federation of separate states. Iran does not want Iraq to settle down . Al Qaeda wants a haven from which to launch attacks against the West. They would certainly interfere with any such peaceful alignment,as would Iran. Such interference would continue to result in sectarian violence that would prevent such a neat and tidy solution to the settlement of Iraq.



For there to be something like a peaceful confederation of states, such as the EU, there must be internal security first. There must be a balance of power. There must be cultural cohesiveness between the states. The individual states must have independent means of economic survival, and comparative economic advantages under their individual control. These do not exist.



While the split suggested is an alternative to the present situation, and for that reason alone may sound appealing, it is the opinion that for the reasons mentioned that a federation of separate states would not be feasible under the prevailing circumstances.

Bob Jack wrote on August 24, 2007 02:44 PM: The idea of splitting Iraq into three separate states--Sunni, Shia and Kurds, is an ideal solution if all the demographic, political, and environmental factors going on inside the nation were in harmony with such a split. But they are not. First of all, there are many more Shia than there are Sunnis and Kurds. Next, the oil is not geographically distributed along the same distribution pattern as the population. Next, there are political forces that militate against a peaceful federation of separate states. Iran does not want Iraq to settle down . Al Qaeda wants a haven from which to launch attacks against the West. They would certainly interfere with any such peaceful alignment,as would Iran. Such interference would continue to result in sectarian violence that would prevent such a neat and tidy solution to the settlement of Iraq.

For there to be something like a peaceful confederation of states, such as the EU, there must be internal security first. There must be a balance of power. There must be cultural cohesiveness between the states. The individual states must have independent means of economic survival, and comparative economic advantages under their individual control. These do not exist.

While the split suggested is an alternative to the present situation, and for that reason alone may sound appealing, it is the opinion that for the reasons mentioned that a federation of separate states would not be feasible under the prevailing circumstances.