NationStates Jolt Archive

I overheard a conversation a few days ago about Iraq. They were two conservative guys who basically agreed that the invasion of Iraq was right in principle but had an interesting solution- we shouldn't have gone all the way into the Sunni Triangle. This is very much a hindsight idea, but it makes sense. What if the US let Sadaam's regime keep the Baghdad-Falujah- Samarra area and simply set up a new Iraqi government in the north and south? Or, what if they just took over the oil fields and held the rest of the country hostage pending Sadaam's acceptance of weapons inspectors?

The first idea (stay out of the Sunni triangle) would probably work well. Sadaam's army would be badly weakened, and the "Coalition" would avoid the insurgency now taking place in Baghdad and Al-Anbar. The second idea would wreck Iraq's economy but probably wouldn't convince Sadaam to do anything. Both plans would take a lot of flak from the US public and congress simply because they are so unconventional- people would insist on finishing off Sadaam to end the war thinking that they could avoid a long occupation. Plan #1 would seem like a good idea, but the US wouldn't do it because a Shi'ia state would side with Iran and a Kurdish north would upset Turkey.

What do you guys think?

20-20 hindsight, it's wonderful!

Yeah, who knows, one or the other might have made things turn out differently. The best alternative was still to stay the hell out of there and concentrate on catching Bin Laden. With that trial in the news instead of Scooter Libby's, the GOP would have had no problems retaining control of Congress.

Actually they may not know it but this isn't a hindsight idea. The idea was thrown around by several think tanks with close ties to Rumsfeld during the planning of the war, but they could never sell Tommy Franks or David McKiernan (commander of all Coalition ground troops) on the idea and it petered out.

I don't recall the specifics, but it was in Cobra II (which you should read if you haven't).

The main problem with this, is that the stated purpose of the war; find weapons of mass destruction and bring democracy to Iraq, would not be fulfilled by an incomplete invasion of Iraq. It would come across as a half-done job to the US public, and as another example of imperial division of states by the rest of the world.

They shouldn't have gone without a UN mandate. (And in hindsight, not at all.)

The main problem with this, is that the stated purpose of the war; find weapons of mass destruction and bring democracy to Iraq, would not be fulfilled by an incomplete invasion of Iraq. It would come across as a half-done job to the US public, and as another example of imperial division of states by the rest of the world.

They shouldn't have gone without a UN mandate. (And in hindsight, not at all.)

Actually Iraq's modern borders are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn by the British back when they controlled most of the region. These and other flawed divisions are a root cause of much of the region's instability. I think a peaceful partition of Iraq would have been far more beneficial than the current situation.

Actually Iraq's modern borders are nothing more than arbitrary lines drawn by the British back when they controlled most of the region. These and other flawed divisions are a root cause of much of the region's instability. I think a peaceful partition of Iraq would have been far more beneficial than the current situation.

Better than the current situation, sure. However, it wouldn't be a politically acceptable option based on what the US claimed it was fighting for. You can't 'liberate' Iraq by keeping half of it 'imprisoned'. Nor can you find weapons of mass destruction by looking in half the nation.

Trouble is, dictators have a tendency to try to return to power after being deposed or put into exile. Power is a habit that is harder to kick than heroin.

Better than the current situation, sure. However, it wouldn't be a politically acceptable option based on what the US claimed it was fighting for. You can't 'liberate' Iraq by keeping half of it 'imprisoned'. Nor can you find weapons of mass destruction by looking in half the nation.

If Iraq had been properly divided years ago the situation with WMDs and Saddam's regime likely would have never developed. Basically you could have an independent Kurdistan, the Sunni areas would be part of Syria (the Ba'ath Party rules both and the nations tried to merge in the 80s but Shi'a issues derailed the deal) and and independent (though Iranian influenced) Shi'a south. Odds are the Iran-Iraq war never happens (maybe an Iran-Syria War though), Saddam likely never rises, the first Gulf War never happens, and Operation Iraqi Freedom never happens either (though the US and Syria could ahve faced off). It's not perfect, but is it any worse than what we have today?

Of course such a plan is well beyond the diplomatic skills af any recent US President.

If Iraq had been properly divided years ago the situation with WMDs and Saddam's regime likely would have never developed. Basically you could have an independent Kurdistan, the Sunni areas would be part of Syria (the Ba'ath Party rules both and the nations tried to merge in the 80s but Shi'a issues derailed the deal) and and independent (though Iranian influenced) Shi'a south. Odds are the Iran-Iraq war never happens (maybe an Iran-Syria War though), Saddam likely never rises, the first Gulf War never happens, and Operation Iraqi Freedom never happens either (though the US and Syria could ahve faced off). It's not perfect, but is it any worse than what we have today?

Of course such a plan is well beyond the diplomatic skills af any recent US President.

Well, now you're talking about something that was completely out of the power of the US government until the recent invasion. The only government (other than the Iraqi government) that had the opportunity to divide Iraq in such a way was the UK. However, the geo-poltical situation of the time probably didn't warrant it, and frankly, the UK only gets flak for the way it 'partitioned' its former colonies.

And you can largely blame the rise of Saddam and the Iraq/Iran war on US foreign policy to begin with. Western Oil interests are the biggest motivators for mid-east conflicts; supply (arab states for their interest) or demand (western powers and their need for cheap oil).

Not to mention, an independent Kurdistan poses issues for Turkey, and other mideast nations who have no desire for an ethnic-nationalist Kurdish nation.

No matter which way you slice it, the mid-east is going to be a headache for anyone who has a vested interest, i.e. - all of us.