Funny, that. Iran is supposedly, per Bush, one of our biggest problems in Iraq. Yet, according to the massive intelligence community review, Iran is mentioned only as an afterthought.More than that. The NIE applies the term "civil war" to the conflict, though only for lack of some even more depressing descriptor. I think now that the world must consider partition as the least horrible alternative -- or perhaps as an historical inevitability best faced sooner than later.
The NIE presents "Chaos leading to partition" as the worst-case scenario. One doesn't have to do much between-the-lines reading to see the worst-case scenario as the most likely. Best, perhaps, to get through the "chaos" phase as rapidly as possible.
We've heard many arguments as to why partition won't work, and those arguments will surely prove valid in all sorts of bloody ways. But nothing else will work either. Iraq's neighbors (especially Turkey) do not want this outcome, but they cannot prevent it.
The rest of the world -- the Islamic world, in particular -- should call for a conference dedicated to the goal of a peaceful division of Iraq. America cannot do so; we are now an international pariah and have lost all moral standing. We can help the process only by standing aside.
ADDED NOTE: Sometimes, one does not see the apparent contradictions in one's own positions until rather late in the game. In the past, I've advocated a single-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here, I've advocated a triple-state solution to Iraq. Frankly, it isn't easy to explain why unity feels like the best choice in the one instance while disunity seems the least-ghastly outcome in the other case. I guess the best explanation has to do with size, there being much more territory to divide in Iraq. Also, in Iraq, the overthrow of Saddam is still a recent memory. An overthrow is a time for starting anew.
3 comments:
Perhaps Bush should use a little more Rumsfeld logic here... and fight the war he already has and not the one he wants.......
Three years ago I felt that tri-partite division would be the ultimate solution. Now I doubt that even that can work. The US is still deluding itself that it has some influence over the future of Iraq. It probably doesn't.
While there are situations in which nation-systems break down into smaller functioning parts, this is not one of them. Iraq is not collapsing into smaller parts because the expense of sustaining it became too great, as happened with the USSR, or other historical empires. It is on fire; it has been set on fire by the US. As with any fire, the internal bonds are disintegrating and the energy released from them is fueling the fire now.
Unless its neighbors can discover some way to extinguish this fire (a forty day deluge might work), Iraq is likely to continue burning until it is reduced to ashes. What is left will be absorbed by neighboring states like Iran and Syria and Turkey (although perhaps with a separate Kurdistan). The US might end up with a military base or two, like Guantanamo.
I do hope I am wrong, because in this scenario the Mideast will be at the center of a virtual world war. There is just too much oil at stake.
I am not that familliar with Paul Street, but he has an article on Znet called For "Democracy" and "Republic" that is one of the best explanations I have ever read about what is wrong with our system of government today and in the past (today being a direct result of past political thinking/structure).
The article is a response to an editorial in Nation (Feb. 5th) called "For The Republic", which asks whether the Congress can stop Bush from attacking Iran.
Street asserts that the Congress and the Nation weekly may be overlooking the big elephant in the room, namely that America has never been a democracy and even as a republic, Bush has violated the very rules that govern a republic.
What caught my eye was his point about Capitalism and its inherent opposition to Democracy (something I believe in and hold to be the root of the problem, despite the claim of "The End of History..." and later backtracking by Fukeyama).
Another good article I read yesterday was by Chalmers Johnson called "Empire v. Democracy" (truthout.org) in which he claims that Emperialism can not be sustained without sacrificing democracy at home. I find his reasoning sound. Furthermore, it finds emperialism to be directly caused by unrestrained capitalism.
There you have it! Capitalism without a straith jacket is the root of all evil!
Post a Comment