Suppose Iraq gets up on it’s feet and becomes capable of handing it’s own security issues so that our presence there is no longer necessary, what is it that we would have won? Nothing. We would have only fixed a humongous fuck up from 6 years ago.
an ally in the heart of the middle east
Yes, i’m sure the people of iraq are anxious to thank us for bombing their cities…
they view us very favorably over there
Where did you hear that by the way? everything i know tells me that american soldiers would not be looked kindly upon…
What have you won!?
You’ve killed the bad guys, the evil-doers, you’ve made the world a better place and now you have all our hearts.
Wow, That’s worth a few hundred billion!
You mean like Sadam Hussein was? That is really why this war is so terribly unwinnable for the US. Let’s suppose we set-up a functioning democracy in Iraq. Given how its population breaks down, that democracy would almost certainly ally itself with Iran. And increasing Iran’s influence in the region, beyond what the war has already done with respect to that, goes very strongly against US interests in the region. So the US would have ‘succeeded’ on one front but lost quite badly on another. On the other hand, the US could prop up an anti-Iran dictator like they did last time which would be favorable to US interests in the region but at the expense of the last casus belli that the US can (kinda weakly) stand on.
What else can you do with money you don’t have, anyway?
As far as I’ve followed it recently you’ve got two Shia leaders in Iraq at this point. One is young and fanatical, and even though he has cut the ties with the violent extremists, it is possible he will want closer ties with Iran. The other one is milder, accused by fanatics of being an ‘American’ who seems to just want a stable country.
Then there are the Sunni’s, who definitely do not want Iran, and who also have, since the surge, have cut the ties with Al Qaida.
The Kurds just worry about the Turks.
Iraq doesn’t necessarily have to break off into chaos again. Of course it will never be Maryland, but it’s muslim leaders seem to have been either killed, replaced or calmed down.
Iraq is ~65% percent Shiite. That will naturally draw them closer to Iran when democracy starts to settle there. Plus, a good way to promote stability in one’s country is to have close ties with a nearby, functional, (regionally) powerful country. That will also draw Iraq closer to Iran.
Maybe that’s the plan.
Likely die hard Shiites will keep trying to draw closer to Iran. But it seems that one of the conditions for democracy to take hold in Iraq is a disidentification with the religion and an identification with the state instead.
If the religion remains a major demographic motivation won’t the Sunnis keep drawing to Syria, keeping the rift between the population segments painfully alive, preventing stabilizing of the democracy?
The US or Iraqi government should forge some kind of ‘Iraqi Pride’ movement, a banner under which Sunni’s and Shiites want to unite.
But it might allow for the Shia part to be annexed by Iran, the Sunni part to be annexed to Syria, and the Kurdish part to become a suburb of Sandusky, Ohio. Which would be fine, if we would just keeps our mitts off.
They’re all made-up countries to begin with.
Sure they are all made up countries, but a breakup like that would be devastating.
So, the majority Shiite population will be drawn to Iran. If the country remains a democracy, that seems likely the orbit Iraq will find itself in. The minority Sunni population will probably turn to Syria for support, so they aren’t oppressed. Let’s suppose it gets bad enough that those areas are either annexed or an extremely federalized solution is created so they may as well be separate countries. That begs the question of the Kurdish problem. The relationship between Turkey and Kurdistan is pretty damn nasty. And if Kurdistan were to ever become a country, Turkey is constitutionally obligated to go to war with it. Whether or not Turkey acntually would is a separate question, but US-Turkey relations would go down the toilet pretty much immediately. Without US support, the military that keeps Turkey a secular democracy would be very heavily undermined. That would be very very bad for US interests in the region!
Plus, a three-country solution isn’t really a sane solution for the same reasons splitting India wasn’t a sane solution. A lot of people would be forced to relocate and would be very, very angry. So the civil war that has cooled down some lately would really heat up again.
We can support anyone we want. Syria, which we do support, when it suits our purposes, and Iran, when it suits our purposes. Iran should be our ally - the sole reason it is not is that we have decided that it shouldn’t be. The U. S. is constantly playing the sort game when we should be playing the long one.
Turkey won’t go to was with Kurdistan if we don’t let them.
People relocate all the time. They get over it.
I agree US foreign policy is based on the short game and suffers for it. But that is those are the rules we are working with. Regular election cycles will prevent it from being anything else. As for people getting over relocation, that, errr, has worked out well for India and Pakistan, hasn’t it?
As long as religion is the motivation behind the politics - and it is - there are no rational decisions that will hold water.
The agenda is political stability. The hidden agendas within the religious factions make it impossible over the long term. Look at all the countries of the middle east. Of the Islamic countries, name one that isn’t governed by strong-man rule regardless the public perceptions. Turkey is the only country that has managed a separation of church-state long enough to have relative stability. All the rest simply move from one strong-man ruler to the next.
We can screw around there for the next millenia and resolve nothing. The idea that there is anything to “win” other than ensuring oil till it runs out is simply being blind to the facts on the ground.
Iran used to be a US ally, the Great Ayatollah didn’t think that was a good idea anymore, and if it wasn’t for the vast majority of Iranians feeling the same way, he would not have gained the power to break off the friendship. I think you make a mistake in thinking all human considerations are practical. They are mixed with emotions. In this case, the emotion is God. Iran has oil, which makes their God bold and aggressive.
The only way to really get a permanent foot between the door to the Middle East is to have a steadily growing number of Iraqi’s think in practical terms. For that, they need basic securities; food, shelter and secular education. It can’t be more obvious that splitting up the country is not going to bring about these conditions.
Good chance you are right about the Turks in terms of open war (a hidden war has been going on for decades) - but it’s also the other way around - the US won’t let the Kurds separate because they don’t want to stress the relation with Turkey. Turks like war, it’s better not to give them a reason than to have to restrain them.