"How unusual for you to offer an actual opinion."
Not at all! I've put forward my views about Iraq literally DOZENS and DOZENS of times, and in much greater detail then that short post.
Perhaps you just don't remember....
"Your theory is possible, but I think it possible that these folks can advance to the stage where they can live in peace and tolerate different views."
Sure, that's 'possible' too. (That 'Iraq' will develop in a timely manner into a multi-ethnic, multi-religious democratic society relatively at peace, and with rule of law and economic development....)
I guess the question to ask is: What's *most likely*?
My argument is based on several factors, including the point that 'Iraq' is, and has been, a highly ARTIFICIAL nation, with borders arbitrarily drawn (by Churchill and Lawrence of Arabia --- reputedly one afternoon over a lot of drinks) by Britain in an effort to create a weak 'nation' out of three SEPARATE provinces of the old Ottoman Empire, that would be EASY for the COLONIAL 'Super Power' of the time --- Great Britain --- to rule, because 'Iraq' would be weak, internally divided along sectarian and religious lines.
The rationale sounded logical enough --- but the Brits were defeated in a few short years and forced to abandon their artificial nation. Since that time, the predominant view among most Western leaders (including Reagan and Bush I) was that a DICTATOR was necessary to hold the place together....
My argument is that Democracy is always a good thing --- but that, since the Sunnis are *never* going to be happy to be dominated and out-voted all the time by Shi'a --- the best way to achieve a Democracy that is stable in that part of the world may be to let 'Iraq' reform itself into smaller, but STABLE nationstates.
And, the ONLY process that will EVER be respected in the region, is a decision that is made by the locals, and the locals ALONE. A civil war would allow the local interest groups to reform the place along new lines of political power and ethnic realities on the ground --- (& would actually be VERY beneficial to Western interests, because any fight between Sunni and Shi'a interests... backed on one side by Saudi Arabia and on the other by Iran... would tend to neutralize the powers of BOTH SIDES on a global scale --- and would take the big fat 'target' sign off of our backs!)
"They have a great opportunity, and well have to see whether they can seize it."
Maybe. My argument is that none of this matters much until we leave them to settle their own affairs --- because a decision that is locally arrived at is the only one that will ever matter to them.... All we are doing is slowing down the inevitable process which they must go through.
"Time will tell."
True enough.
But still, in the final analysis, the amount of money that's poured down the drain, and the cost in blood along the way to a final resolution, also matter. |
