Partition Problem
There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about the three options put forward by the Pentagon...called Go Long, Go Big or Go Home. Well the military strategists on the evening news put forward a fourth option called the Partition. Essentially this means a partitioning of Iraq along tribal/religous lines to bring about peace.
From my perspective, I don't think this will create the peace desired in Iraq. Let's say for a moment that we do partition Iraq. Great, now we have a multiple of areas that will be fighting with each other. Additionally, weaker states may be taken over by stronger states putting us back to where we started. A failed nation.
What we have in Iraq are the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis and Shia's in the middle portion. How their current government is set up is beyond me, but it sounds confusing.
And here is another thing that I don't understand, someone in the press stated that our troops need to be redeployed to the border areas. Was this not done to begin with? Is this really going to bring out victory if it is done? To the west of Baghdad there is nothing, do we really need to secure this nothingness or can we just secure Baghdad and be happy?
Finally, there is a lot of talk about the violence in Iraq being caused by sectarian groups. However, what goes unsaid is the effect of other units or countries who are encouraging this violence. In Meet The Press today Joe Lieberman hit the nail on the head, but his opponent did not. His opponent (whose name escapes me) stated that Iran and Syria had national interests in Iraq and that they did not want to have a failed state on their borders...additionally, Iran had helped us in Afghanistan. The Senator has it wrong, Iran and Syria want to see a failed state beside them because when it fails, they can take it over or at least insert their influence. Although Iran did help us with Afghanistan, I remember quite a few border incursions and displays of force done against Iran while I flew in Afghanistan. I don't think Iran was being that helpful.
From my perspective, I don't think this will create the peace desired in Iraq. Let's say for a moment that we do partition Iraq. Great, now we have a multiple of areas that will be fighting with each other. Additionally, weaker states may be taken over by stronger states putting us back to where we started. A failed nation.
What we have in Iraq are the Kurds in the north, and the Sunnis and Shia's in the middle portion. How their current government is set up is beyond me, but it sounds confusing.
And here is another thing that I don't understand, someone in the press stated that our troops need to be redeployed to the border areas. Was this not done to begin with? Is this really going to bring out victory if it is done? To the west of Baghdad there is nothing, do we really need to secure this nothingness or can we just secure Baghdad and be happy?
Finally, there is a lot of talk about the violence in Iraq being caused by sectarian groups. However, what goes unsaid is the effect of other units or countries who are encouraging this violence. In Meet The Press today Joe Lieberman hit the nail on the head, but his opponent did not. His opponent (whose name escapes me) stated that Iran and Syria had national interests in Iraq and that they did not want to have a failed state on their borders...additionally, Iran had helped us in Afghanistan. The Senator has it wrong, Iran and Syria want to see a failed state beside them because when it fails, they can take it over or at least insert their influence. Although Iran did help us with Afghanistan, I remember quite a few border incursions and displays of force done against Iran while I flew in Afghanistan. I don't think Iran was being that helpful.
posted by Jason at 5:58 AM
1 Comments:
Hi all!
that were in effect before having an , A large portion .
have advocated having
Post a Comment
<< Home