"Blood Borders", Armed Forces Journal commentary

#2
#2
It was not only an interesting read, it was a great read. However, like everything else that is considered great theory, it lacks in the practical application department. Granted, the author does concede that the only way in which to redraw borders is war. Trying to use force to achieve the vision of the author would most likely end in the largest war since WWII...with all the genocidal baggage of that conflict.
 
#3
#3
Things that stand out to me in the article:

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

It's hard to disagree with this... You have a majority of the world living in peace on some level and 15% of the world who were born to fight and will continue to do so until the end of time.

The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government — which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

No arguments, here. We would have been in and out in 2 years. Three seperate, self governing states also makes it more difficult for Iran and Syria to interfer. Had we payed attention in history class, we'd have known this was the best option after the war.
 
#4
#4
J.Quest said:

No arguments, here. We would have been in and out in 2 years. Three seperate, self governing states also makes it more difficult for Iran and Syria to interfer. Had we payed attention in history class, we'd have known this was the best option after the war.
Click to expand...
No. We would not have been out in two years. Out of Iraq, yes. Only because there would be no more Iraq. Instead, we would be fighting along with the Kurds against the Turks, Persians, Sunni, and Syrians. I have a feeling that would end up being a lot larger military undertaking than the one we are dealing with right now.
 
#5
#5
I guess my point was that we would be out of Iraq. As long as there is a middle-east there will be war. I don't think we'd have the terrorist breeding grounds that we see now over there. They would of course exist, but not to the same degree. You can sense that we are going against the grain by looking at the escalation in the sectarian violence. Many see killing Americans as a bonus instead of the primary objective. Is it entirely too late to create 3 states at this point???
 
#6
#6
Being that over 80% of all the violence is happening in, and within 30 miles of, Baghdad, exactly how would dividing Iraq into 3 seperate states stop anything?

Would you turn Baghdad into an international city? One would have to forcibly relocate all the Sunni and Shia within Baghdad to the NW and SE, respectively, and then construct a "Berlin Wall" through that city.

Once that was complete, then we would have to do the same thing with Kirkuk and Mosul, except with the Kurds and Sunni.

Task 3 would be waging a two front war against Turkey and Iran, on behalf of the Kurds.

Upon completion of that task, the weakened Turkish and Persian states would be vulnerable to attack on all fronts. We would either have to commit troops to these borders in order to preventively secure these states (who would happen to be very angry with us for our previous engagement against them) or wait for the strongest and boldest neighbors to attack...in which case we would be forced into a much larger war.

Apparently, you believe this is a less costly (lives, weapons, money, etc.) than pushing Iraq to provide their own security over the next 18 months.
 
#7
#7
Apparently, you think this is working and will continue to work? You think forcing western democracy on mid-eastern tribes who have engaged in war since time started is the way to go? Is that because they are so "into" western culture and would love nothing more than to emulate us, or because they actually know who they are casting ballots for and as a Sunni would feel wonderful about having a Shiite govern them (or vice-versa)? I tend to think that by dividing Iraq into 3 smaller states you establish somewhat of a geo-cultural boundary between tribes that allow them to feel secure in who they are. Does this solve all the problems there? No. But then again, this is about preventing terrorism if you listen to the talking heads, not solving world hunger. What we have now is a situation where civil war is on the brink and inevitable with the US caught in the middle with no way out and no way to save face.
 
#8
#8
J.Quest said:
Apparently, you think this is working and will continue to work? You think forcing western democracy on mid-eastern tribes who have engaged in war since time started is the way to go? Is that because they are so "into" western culture and would love nothing more than to emulate us, or because they actually know who they are casting ballots for and as a Sunni would feel wonderful about having a Shiite govern them (or vice-versa)? I tend to think that by dividing Iraq into 3 smaller states you establish somewhat of a geo-cultural boundary between tribes that allow them to feel secure in who they are. Does this solve all the problems there? No. But then again, this is about preventing terrorism if you listen to the talking heads, not solving world hunger. What we have now is a situation where civil war is on the brink and inevitable with the US caught in the middle with no way out and no way to save face.
Click to expand...
I will respond in phases.

First, tribes on the Arabian Peninsula and north around Persia have not been fighting each other since the beginning of time. Have there been quarrels, battles, and wars? Yes. This amounts to no more violence than was waged in Europe, East Asia, Africa, North America, and South America during the same historical periods.

Second, I conceded that in theory it is brilliant. If we could develop a time machine and redraw each border while they were colonies, then it would work brilliantly. We can't do that. The only way to redraw those borders is through a very cataclysmic war.

Finally, I have listened to the talking heads. I have personally talked with Petraeus and Nagl. I have also read the Iraq Study Group Report. Oh, and one more thing, I have been and fought there. That being said, I would rather try, for 18 more months, to get this thing working. If it doesn't, then I have absolutely no desire engage myself in a war with the Turks (a country with growing diplomatic ties to Europe.)

So, forgive me if I am not over joyed at this theory. The article was well written, just short of brilliance. Much like the Communist Manifesto was just short of brilliance. That little bit these authors are missing is called pragmatism.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top