1. George W. Bush was fond of saying “I will never forget the lessons of 9/11”

Now we can reasonably conclude that 19 Arabs, rightly or wrongly were so angry that they were willing to sacrifice their own lives just to harm the USA. CAN WE ALL AGREE ON THAT?

What would be the result of the USA then invading an oil rich Arab country which had not attacked the USA and was no danger to the USA? IS IT LIKELY THAT ACT WOULD MAKE ARABS LESS ANGRY AT THE USA AND LESS INCLINED TO COMMIT TERRORIST ACTS AGAINST THE USA? ANSWER ME THAT!

IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT INVADING IRAQ WAS NOT APPROPRIATE AND EVEN DELITERIOUS TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE USA, ONE MIGHT QUESTION THE COMPETENCE OF GW BUSH AND HIS ABILITY TO REASON LOGICALLY.

BUT IT GETS WORSE.

2. GW Bush said many, many times “I will never forget the lessons of 9/11” in the same breath when he was talking about Iraq. As a result, with Cheney saying it outright (to this day) at one point 70% of Americans thought that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. With that in America’s mindset along with (giving Bush the benefit of any doubt) flawed intellegence about uranium from Niger and aluminum tubes we were led into an unnecessary (I am being charitable) war.

GIVEN THE FACT THAT LESSONS OF 9/11 AND IRAQ IN THE SAME BREATH WERE SO OFTEN REPEATED MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR ME TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING BUT DELIBERATE DECEPTION ON THE PART OF GW BUSH FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRICKING US INTO WAR.

AND IT GETS WORSE THAN THAT…. but that is another story for another post

Forcing Shiites Sunnis to live together is kinda sick if you ask me.

It is the USA who is meddling in their internal affairs by forcing them to stay together. How dare we?

The present US policicy is worse than shooting ourselves in the foot. It is more like shooting ourselves in the chest.

Whether the iraqis realize it or not , they want partition.

It is as if we have set our hair on fire and are trying to put it out with a hammer.

And we are losing lives, wasting money and creating badwill by holding it together for no good reason. Iraq was created by The British (not the Iraqis) after World War One to benefit Britain not the local population.

The biggest problem in Iraq now is fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. Does it not make sense to separate them? It is not as if God had joined them together in Holy Matrimony which no man may put asunder.

The demographic and economic geography of Iraq does lend itself to dividing the presently dysfunctional Iraq into three parts which will function much better when politically separated from each other.

The present strategy in Iraq is not succeeding and gives no indication that it will ever succeed. I do not think that the Iraqis would prefer to continue killing each other to dividing the country’s resources and goiing their separate ways.

Maybe, it will be an easy sell. It certainly would be to the Kurds. I think that the Sunnis given the choice of taking their chances against the majority Shiites or going their own way with a fair share of the oil resources, they would chose the latter. The Shiites would benefit from the cessation of bloodshed and the possibilty of going with their brother and sister Shiites in Iran.

I think that the Arab world (which is mostly Sunni) would like to see the iIaqi Sunnis survive.

And three ethnic groups can get on with their lives. However if they choose to continue killing each other, that is THEIR problem. Oil reserves are geographically distributed in such a way that it would be possible to draw borders that would be fair.

We have been “staying the course” 4 years now and there does not seem to be any progress at all. Power, the infrastructure and oil production are still below levels under Saddam.

How about giving 4 months to DISCUSSING partition of Iraq? 4 weeks? 4 days?

If we “Stay the course” there is little if anything to make me believe that we will not continue losing American lives, wasting money and continuing to look bad, not to mention the bitter hostility between Americans that this war generates.

If we “Cut and run” ,we will possibly leave a massive breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq and in any case leave a mess which would rightfully blamed on the USA.

If we were to get representatives of the world community, including Arabs together discussing and brainstorming what is best for Iraqi people we may actually come up with a solution other than the two aforementioned approaches.

Maybe partition is the answer maybe it is something other than that

WE CAN STILL WIN IN IRAQ

April 26, 2007

If we were to render Iraq peaceful and stable we could bring our troops home proud that they have done something good in the Mideast and all those US soldiers will not have died in vain.

We would need help from the world community, including Arabs for mediation , input and support.

Iraq is an inherently unstable structure. It was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the British to suit their purposes after World War One without regard to the three ethnic groups present there. It originally included Kuwait. Even if it was not a bad idea then , it is an anachronism now.

I submit that partition of Iraq is in the best interests of all Iraqis. It may well be that it would be an easy sell to most of them. If the resources of Iraq could be fairly and logically divided among them and the bloodshed could be stopped it would seem to me to be a good deal.

Maps of Iraq showing ethnic populations and oil reserves tell me that it is possible to draw borderlines that would distribute the countries wealth fairly. It is a completely different question as to what Iraqis will consider to be fair and that is where discussion, bargaining and mediation and support from the world community ,including Arabs come in.

Most of the Arab world is Sunni and would be rooting for the minority Sunnis to survive. The Kurds want their own country and have proven they are capable of self government. Turkey is a very big obstacle to this and needs to be addressed. If the Iraqi Shiites want to join the Irani Shiites, let them.

While we are “Staying the course” let us at least have this on the back burner as Plan B. How much could it cost to get an American, a Syrian, a Frenchman , an Iraqi Sunni, an Iraqi Shiite, an Irani , a Russian etc. together in a room at the UN with a blackboard and maps of Iraq all brainstorming as a start. Even simpler and cheaper than that, it would be very easy to use the Internet employing the Delphi method for exchange of ideas.

Biden and Galbraith have proposed a partial separation of Iraq . That could be plan B and compleat partition Plan C.

At present a wall is or was being built in Baghdad so military people on the ground are thinking of the idea of separating Sunnis and Shiites. This tells me that I am not the only one who is thinking that Sunnis and Shiites need their space.

If partition worked, most of the “good guys” and even some of the “bad guys” would come out winners.

GW Bush would look good because deposing Saddam made this possible

The Sunnis would win because they would no longer be confronting the majority Shiites and they would survive with their fair share of Iraqi wealth.

The Kurds would get their own country.

The Shiites would be free to join their Shiite brothers in Iran.

The Iraqis in general would benefit by the ceasation of bloodshed.

And it had a site on the Internet is which within its openning words it stated that the world would be better off under Arab leadership. Suppose that it advocated a massive military buildup and aggressive military policy which included preemptive invasions of sovereign countries with or without the help of its allies. The reason for this policy is to make the Islam the world’s only superpower in the 21st century.

Should anyone be concerned that if this project were to go forward, it would be a threat to world peace?

To the best of my knowledge , no such site exists on the Internet however there is one with a similar name. It is called “PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY” which is a Neoconservative think tank whose members include : Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Bolton and many of GW Bush’s top advisors. I have taken its own words and have substiuted Arab for American.

Bush White house insiders have gone on record with testimony that PNAC was at the top of the Bush agenda stating in January 2001.

Is anyone concerned about this?

And even GW Bush could come out smelling like a rose.

Present day Iraq is an inherently unstable stucture that was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the British after World War with toal disregard for the three distinct ethnic groups that it cobbled together .

If we were to properly and fairly divide Iraq into three countries, the sectarian violence could stop and Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis could get on with their lives.

There are two prerequisites necessary for this to happen.

1. The Iraqis need to agree to this. It could well be a very easy sell, given the alternative of continued violence with no end in sight.

2. We will need the participation of the world community, including Arabs, for input, mediation and support of the project.

Maps of Iraq show that it would be possible to draw borderlines that would allocate oil fields fairly amongst the three populations.

There are two possible end points. The first is that they remain three separate small countries and the other is that the Sunni part of Iraq merges with Kuwait and the Shiite part goes with Iran if it so desires. The Kurds remain independant.

Probably the biggest problem would be in providing guarantees by the world and Kurdistan to Turkey that their border will be respected by the Kurds.

There would be many winners in this outcome.

1. The fighting stops and Americans come home with honor.

2. GW Bush wins because toppling Saddam made this possible.

3. The Sunnis survive and do much better than they would have as a minority in Iraq. The mostly Arab world will be happy to see the Sunnis Survive.

4. The Shiites win because the violence stops.

5. The USA wins because we have done something good in the Mideast.

While we are “Staying the Course” there is nothing to prevent our getting the interested parties together and just talking about partition. The assumptions that are made here are far more valid than the ones made that resulted in this war and are used to justify our present courrse.

and he advocated a massive military buildup and aggressive foreign policy with preemptive invasions to make the Arab world the dominant force in the 21st century.

We would rightfully be concerned and would find that an unacceptable foreign policy and could say that it was a threat to world peace.

THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT PNAC, THE NEOCONSERVATIVE THINK TANK, WHICH COUNTS AS ITS MEMBERS: CHENEY, RUMSFELD, WOLFOWITZ, LIBBY, JEB BUSH AND OTHER PLAYERS IN THE GW BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAID IN THE PNAC WEBSITE.

The policy of the Bush adninistration has been to carry out the PNAC agenda from day one. This has been well documented by direct testimony from reliable insiders who were privey to the workings of the White House.