Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: dave9 who wrote (41950)	11/30/2005 1:03:25 AM
From: mishedlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

From Heinz on 1966 .... great post, i must however point out that Iran is not an Arab nation, in spite of the geographical proximity. i also don't think a plan of turning Iraq over to its neighbors would work. the very ethnical and religious divisions that run through Iraq (mainly the Sunni/Shiite, but also the Arab/Kurd divide) also are in evidence in many of the neighboring states (where in turn, usually one of the ethnicities/religious affiliations runs the other against their will), which means that those divides might break into open there as well as soon as those states got militarily involved in Iraq (since they would have to declare support for one or the other Iraqi faction). given that most Arab states are ruled by Sunnis and harbor large and discontented Shiite minorities, whereas Iran is ruled by Shiites ruling a large and discontented Sunni minority (which of all places, resides in Iran's oil province), it isn't even conceivable that Iran and the Arab states could come to an agreement over how to deal with Iraq. on the other hand, all of these states regard the beginning civil war in Iraq as a huge incentive for their own minorities to start trouble, and are worried to death over the situation (and have been from the beginning - they all told Bush not to do it). in short, one or more might be tempted to invade Iraq anyway, under cover of needing to bring the conflagration under control. even Turkey is a strong contender for an invasion of Northern Iraq, in order to stop the formation of an independent Kurdish state. however, it's a good bet that they could be successfully dissuaded from taking such action. i don't think they'd do it knowing that the West disapproves. if this sounds like an intractable problem, well, that's because it is what it is. however, there is at the same time a large part of Iraq's population that never before considered the Sunni/Shiite divide to be a problem. it certainly wasn't thought of as a problem for a long time - an uneasy peace, but a peace of sorts nevertheless. the US presence in Iraq will imo not succeed in delaying or stopping a civil war - rather, it is fueling it. a withdrawal could have the unexpected consequence of actually producing peace just by itself - THE major flashpoint uniting and motivating the insurgents would be gone, and the more radical elements of the insurgency would lose their most valuable propaganda tool, namely the presence of the infidel occupiers. i for one would not try to plan what to do, and surely wouldn't involve other nations. rather, i think the way forward is to tell all the Iraqi factions, including the insurgents (they can be talked to , since it is well known who their representatives in civil society in Iraq are - similar to the IRA and its political arm Sinn Fein) that the occupation is set to end at a fixed date, no ifs or buts. at the same time, promise them restitution for war damage, and every conceivable non-military support, provided they manage to negotiate a peaceful transition on their own. then let them duke it out - it's their country, and therefore their affair. whatever the outcome, it will probably not be worse than what will happen if the occupation continues - but there's a very good chance that it will be a great deal better. if as a result Iraq's territorial integrity ends, so what? neither Yugoslavia's, nor the Soviet Union's, nor even Chekoslovakia's territorial integrity have been preserved. the Iraqi nation state is a colonial invention - if it's not possible for it to continue as a single nation, then let it be so. who cares? the most importat thing is to realize that the argument that Iraq would collapse into chaos upon a withdrawal doesn't hold water on the grounds that it has already collapsed into chaos. the argument that it would become a haven for terrorists is similarly debunked - the invasion has already made it into one. as you have correctly stated, there's nothing to be gained from staying on - absolutely nothing.