![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
As I have no real-world experience to back this up, I do not know if this is a viable position. However, I think that breaking apart Iraq into different culturally and ethnically monotone nations is not a good idea. Even though, as you said, Sir, the different ethnic groups are always at each other's throats, they do have one thing in common, they are Iraqis, whether they call themselves that or not. Also, if these different groups all have their own nations and armies (aside from the difficulty of setting these governments up and stabilizing each one individually), these conflicts WILL develop into another ME war eventually. I realize that you are not suggesting that each one of these groups be given autonomy and independence, but is the Kurds got their own nation, these other ethnic groups would almost definitely also want and demand their own independence. Even as bad as the civil unrest is currently in Iraq and the deathsthat it has caused, a large scale revolution or civil war by a group seeking to secede following the precedent of the new Kurdistan would be far worse in my opinion.
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
Or: Say we don't want to lose Turkey. We have some good things in Turkey, we don't want to piss them off unless we have to. So we tell Turkey that in exchange for them yeilding on the Kurdistan issue we will help them get into the EU. Call Germany and France on the carpet and tell them that despite their superior airs, they are, in fact, racist pricks and the only way to avoid South-African like sanctions is to let Turkey into the EU. (obvious as to why I'm not a diplomat) While I would love to think we could give the Kurds a free state, not because I like them, but because I believe we could potentially have the support and staging area we want/need within the region, and in turn (with a little force and a harder stance) gain more control within the ME. The problem with this is that the Kurds have very little (read: nill) pull within the ME. I seriously doubt we can afford to take the risks at this time. I'm not convinced (especially after seeing what was recently approved in the Iraqi constitution), that the Islamisation of Iraq is avoidable even if we do stay there for a decade. It has already, in fact, happened under the occupation in places like Al-Sadr City (5+ million people) which is now uder Sha-ria law. The Kurds will bear the brunt of this outcome, as will we. |
![]() |
|||
![]() |
Quote:
![]() It would be nice to have a somewhat true muslim allie in the ME, but like I said before, I think that the creation of such a state might be a catalyst for out and out civil war in what remained of Iraq as the different ethnic groups tried to obtain their own independence. |
![]() |
||
![]() |
Quote:
The existing national boundaries in the middle east are all artificial for the most part so I do not think we should be bound by then in looking at how to best settle the region. *enter dream state* The Southern part of Iraq would become part of Kuwait (they share the same sect of Islam). Syria's leadership has to be dealt with eventually anyway so why not now; once that country falls its Sunni majority along with the Sunni part of Iraq should be absorbed by Jordan. Give the Kurds the north of Iraq and Syria as a homeland and allow all Kurds living elsewhere the right to immigrate there. You would then have (ideally): A large Sunni state run by the somewhat stable peaceful Jordanian royal family (and somewhat working legislature and court system). Couple this with the oil revenue available from the Sunni triangle and you have the makings of a prosperous peaceful stable state that already is at peace with Israel and has friendly relations with the US. This would also free Lebanon to go back to being a truly independent state free of Syrian interference. The current ruling Alawite minority of Syria would lose its grip on power to the majority and the obsession with Israel’s destruction would be watered down and eliminated under Jordanian leadership. Giving the southern part of Iraq where the Shiites are to Kuwait allows the Kuwaities to spend their money developing it and settles long standing boarder problems between the two nations. It also settles the political issues between Iraq Sunni's and Shiites trying to work together after so much hate for so long. The current southern Iraqi's would provide much needed manpower for Kuwait and would be gradually brought into the political process to facilitate a smooth transition. This would establish a prosperous state much more able to defend itself with good relationship with the US. A Kurdish state with oil revenue to support it. Adding in the ability of Kurds from other nations to immigrate allows Kurds elsewhere who wish to leave the persecution they face in Turkey and Iran thus actually helping those nations with their Kurdish problems. The state would be large and prosperous enough to defend itself and would undoubtedly be very friendly toward the US for nurturing its birth. ![]() But, since nothing is ever that easy - so much for a quick and easy fix. We're in a catch 22. Even if Iraq is stabalised (unlikely) the Kurds will not give up their land, the oil, nor will they lay down arms. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Once again, I don't know if this is viable since I have no experience with the ME, and I don't want to seem like an armchair social reformer, but is making ethnically monotone states a good idea? I know the ME is a different world, but it seems like such states would only serve to increase the ethnic identities of these groups (as opposed to a national identity) which would broaden the social and political borders between these hypothetical new states and give rise to a region with even more border disputes and militancy than it currently has. (See the Iran-Iraq war repeated ad nauseum.)
|
![]() |