3 State Plan... Part II

Baddboy writes:

"The reality is that the 3 state plan is the best plan yet. The Kurdish state is already in place with a functioning government, economy and as soon as they recall their troops from the this JOKE of the Iraqi military and police force they have a functioning military...all compliments of the old Northern No Fly Zone. The Kurds are American allies and would like nothing more than to have an American military base or bases in their state.
"As far as the Sunnis and the Shiites...well who cares really. Let them have their civil war and let them beat the shit out of each other until there is nothing left for the Americans to do but go in and pick up the pieces. If 2 groups of people want to have a stinking war and they don't want to listen to reason it doesn't seem we should stand in their way. Once they are done we do what was the original intent and put them back together our way with our puppet government until they want to kill each other again. It's a regional tradition and we shouldn't stand in their way. If they are killing each other they aren't killing us."

I would have agreed with you whole-heartedly only two years ago, but I am worried that the "effort" involved for the US in establishing 3 states out of one would only end up costing us more time, money and (worst of all) lives. The most painful aspect (and the one that will keep Bush, or anyone else from adopting it) is that it is tantamount to admitting that we are UNABLE to accomplish the goal as was laid out by Bush in the '04 State of the Union... to build a stable, democratic Iraq out of the ruins of Saddam's regime.

Honestly, the best we can hope for (in my opinion) are at least three semi-autonomous "provinces" in the current structure, so that the central Iraqi government can handle defense, police and revenue, while the provincial administrators take care of the local (read: ethnic) issues.

I would have to dispute the existence of a "Kurdish" state, outside of the independence that the Kurds have exercised since March or '03. I am the first to admit that they have led the way in showing the rest of Iraq how to function in a post-Saddam world, but to suggest they are the fledgling "Kurdistan" that the Kurds have dreamed of for so long is misleading. Our OTHER ally in the region, Turkey, would go to any length the stop the formation of a Kurdish independent state... of this I am convinced.

I would go so far as to suggest this, though... that as long as the Kurds are doing what has to be done and are showing the hutzpah (if I can use a term like that in reference to Muslims) it takes to get their shit together, then I can't help but feel they should be rewarded with substantial powers and authority in the new government. I recall hearing Rummy suggest once (years ago) that the sooner specific regions of Iraq got their acts together, the sooner they would reap the benefits of oil and gas revenues from the State-owned wells. If that is still policy, then the Kurds should be practically rolling in money, compared to the Sunni-Shi'a regions.

What struck me as interesting was the thought of Kurdish Iraqis working as units outside of their traditional ethnic homes as police and military units. If the US really wanted to avoid the hassles and dangers of "police work", then let the Kurds patrol the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or Basrah, let the Kurds man the checkpoints on the Iranian border, let the Kurds cover the Syrian frontier... and then let's see how many "insurgents" or supplies get across the border. We can support them with all we have, but it isn't US troops in harms way, and the Kurds are allowed to lead the Iraqis by example.

The Kurds give us an example of how the support of the population is what wins the effort. One doesn't hear of suicide bombers in the Kurdish regions, and you don't see them shooting each other (or others) in the streets of the big cities. If that lunatic Muqtada al Sadr wants more say in politics and processes, then he should be rallying his "people" into the kind of efforts that the Kurdish leadership has done for nearly four years now... not calling for "jihads" against the US Army.

I am very inclined to agree with you about the "letting them beat the shit out of each other", though. If the Shi'as and the Sunnis want to fight it out in a civil war, then we give the support and revenue to the Kurds, until such time as the rest of the country gets their shit together. If I thought the US could remain safely behind the lines in that kind of a conflict, then I'd openly support it from word GO... but I'm the kind of "armchair General" that would call for the efforts of D-Day in reprisal for even one American death due to sectarian fighting in the street.

T