Hi Rene,
Thanks too for the interesting Asian Times article. I don't however
agree with the author's prediction that Iraq will fall apart, dividing
the country into three separate states.
First of all, Turkey and Syria will never allow the formation of an
independent Kurdish state. And further, such a precedent would
open the floodgates of all kinds of minority aspirations throughout
the whole Middle Asian region, something Russia, China and India
are very determined not to let happen. Second, the Sunni Arabs will
violently oppose this break up, since they would lose everything
thereby (a state that was powerful, power within that state, and oil);
no, the Iraqi Sunnis will fight to death to prevent it. And third the
Shiitis would probably be opposed as well, i mean, why would they
settle for a small Shiite state when they could have the whole Iraq
dominated by them after the elections ? (60% of Iraq is Shiite) And
further, would such a pure Shiite (i.e. Iran-friendly) state ever be in
the long-term interests of the US ?
In fact, i think, the US is trapped in a politico-military paradox. On
the one hand an Iraqi break up might seem to serve US political
interests, since it would take out Iraq as an important middle power
in the world geo-political arena and turn it into three small states,
which as the U.S. well knows are more vulnerable to its pressures.
Yet, on the other hand, to achieve this goal, the US should end its
military occupation immediately, because the longer it stays the
stronger its presence will fuel and unite Iraqi nationalist sentiments,
thereby empowering the armed, but not ethnically homogeneous,
resistance.
At the end of the Asian Times article the author also bodly predicts:
"America's next move will be to break out of the stalemate in Iraq
by widening the conflict." But i don't agree on this either. Up to
now the Iraq war is costing the US 200 billion USD a year and the
US must constantly find foreign investors to fund its 2 billion USD
a day deficit spending. The Iraq war has already been economically
defeating for the US (look at the oil prices). No, i don't believe the
US can financially afford another war, be it with Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Sudan or whomever. Neither do i believe that there is enough
popular tolerance left in the US of Bush's ungoing nonvictories.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
Thanks too for the interesting Asian Times article. I don't however
agree with the author's prediction that Iraq will fall apart, dividing
the country into three separate states.
First of all, Turkey and Syria will never allow the formation of an
independent Kurdish state. And further, such a precedent would
open the floodgates of all kinds of minority aspirations throughout
the whole Middle Asian region, something Russia, China and India
are very determined not to let happen. Second, the Sunni Arabs will
violently oppose this break up, since they would lose everything
thereby (a state that was powerful, power within that state, and oil);
no, the Iraqi Sunnis will fight to death to prevent it. And third the
Shiitis would probably be opposed as well, i mean, why would they
settle for a small Shiite state when they could have the whole Iraq
dominated by them after the elections ? (60% of Iraq is Shiite) And
further, would such a pure Shiite (i.e. Iran-friendly) state ever be in
the long-term interests of the US ?
In fact, i think, the US is trapped in a politico-military paradox. On
the one hand an Iraqi break up might seem to serve US political
interests, since it would take out Iraq as an important middle power
in the world geo-political arena and turn it into three small states,
which as the U.S. well knows are more vulnerable to its pressures.
Yet, on the other hand, to achieve this goal, the US should end its
military occupation immediately, because the longer it stays the
stronger its presence will fuel and unite Iraqi nationalist sentiments,
thereby empowering the armed, but not ethnically homogeneous,
resistance.
At the end of the Asian Times article the author also bodly predicts:
"America's next move will be to break out of the stalemate in Iraq
by widening the conflict." But i don't agree on this either. Up to
now the Iraq war is costing the US 200 billion USD a year and the
US must constantly find foreign investors to fund its 2 billion USD
a day deficit spending. The Iraq war has already been economically
defeating for the US (look at the oil prices). No, i don't believe the
US can financially afford another war, be it with Iran, Syria, North
Korea, Sudan or whomever. Neither do i believe that there is enough
popular tolerance left in the US of Bush's ungoing nonvictories.
yours,
Jan
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---