The United States has a grim track record when it comes to sovereignty. The post-war, cold war, epoch is littered with cases of trampled sovereignty from latin america to western europe, asia and africa. People need to realise the sheer scale of how these ideologues have merely replaced the bete noir of Communism with its new best friend, Terrorism.

Nothing has changed.

Read NATOs secret armies by Daniele Ganser (published Phd).

Comment by james k. sayre

To think that the top tier Dems dont advocate the eventual outcome of Iraqs partition is, frankly, naive. They can pretend all they want, but they are as aware of the endgame as the GOP are.

the partition of iraq was always part of the strategy, that much is obvious. and whether the “chaos” spirals completely out of control or not is irrelevant. the Dems will not pull ALL the troops out and will probably be responsible for the consolidation of the permanent post-iraq re-structuring.

You really want to stop wars like this? then i suggest you start looking at your personal oil habits. because until that changes nothing else will change! Bottom line: Your national rate of consumption is partly responsible.

Of course thats a reality not even progressives want to hear

The most prominent proponent of partitioning Iraq is none other than Democratic senator, Joe Biden:

February 15, 2007
Biden Favors Revised Iraq War Resolution, Promotes Partition Plan
By Greg Giroux

“Biden — in a plan he drafted last year with Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the non-profit organization Council on Foreign Relations — proposes essentially partitioning Iraq into a loose federation of autonomous Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni regions. He is, thus far, the only presidential hopeful in either major party to publicly endorse this option.”

(Of course, since ThinkProgress.org is essentially a branch of the Hillary Clinton for President campaign, it is not altogether surprising TP would attempt to undermine one of her Democratic opponents)
http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/02/15/cq_2284.html

Another proponent of partitionong Iraq is Anti-War.com commentator Ivan Eland.

http://www.antiwar.com/eland/?articleid=9828

So, once again, TP’s dishonesty, in this case trying to portray the proposal to partition Iraq as solely as “conservative” idea, winds up backfiring…Heh! Nice try, “Think”Progress!

The way I figure it, once the Iraqi ethnic cleansing runs its course, and the fairly fluid (for now) battle lines between warring Sunnis, Shia and Kurds finally drop into place and solidify, then far less U.S. troops will be necessary to “police” Iraq.

Thus, following this logic, the faster that the Iraqi ethnic cleansing runs its course, then the sooner some semblance of ethnic stability will be achieved inside Iraq.

Remember that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld didn’t send enough troops into Iraq in the first place to stop any ethnic cleansing from occurring (or even looting). In fact, after launching the March 2003 attack against Iraq, these three war criminals (and other neo-con Republican war criminals) practiced their own variation of ethnic cleansing by firing all the Sunni Baathists and throwing them and their families out on Iraq’s lightly U.S.-patrolled streets. (Which, of course, is exactly what the revenge-minded Iranians and some equally revenge-minded Iraqi exiles and Iraqi citizens-who-stayed desired…setting in motion all the ethnic cleansing that has followed).

So, why would it be farfetched to believe that Bush administration war strategists figured in this increase in sectarian, ethnic cleansing into their surge scenario, possibly in an attempt to speed-up the ethnic cleansing this year so definite signs of improved security in Iraq might occur before the November elections next year…thus giving Republicans a slim, yet improved chance of winning.

Call me a cynic, but I wouldn’t put anything past these nutjobs in the Bush administration. To these guys, other human beings are just game pieces on a political chess board.

Comment by Jake D. — September 11, 2007 @ 6:27 pm

Yea, caring about the troops being killed….. whats wrong with him?

He should be more like you and just cheer them when they get killed. After all, they have rewards waiting for them in heaven, right? Cause they died fighting for truth, justice and the American way, right?

The only reason why Iraq was one unified country before our invasion and occupation was because the British pulled the boundaries out of their ass when they were pursuing their own hegemony over the region, and Saddam’s tyrannical rule kept it stable.

The vast majority of Americans, and probably well over 90% of the readership of this blog are against the Iraq war, and believe it was immoral to have gone in in the first place. We must therefore also agree that it is not our position to dictate to the Iraqi people how they decide to organize their political system(s).

A partition of Iraq is probably the most natural and easiest transition the country could make, if and when (some would argue it’s happening now) they decide to go through with it.

Again, we shouldn’t be telling them what to do… and likewise, there is no reason to outright oppose a partition as one of a wide range of options. There are no good options for this situation. As Senator Obama says, “there are bad options, and worse options.”

Lets just be honest about this.

Before we invaded Iraq – splitting up the country was thought to be the absolute worst thing that could eventually happen there. I don’t think the Saudis will accept it.

Comment by Badger — September 11, 2007 @ 4:47 pm

That comment about Sunnis being secularists would be news to a lot of Sunnis, including the Wahabis. It would also be news to a lot of secular Shi’a in Iraq and in Iran. You simply cannot divide the two sects into “fundie” and “non-fundie”, both sects contain variations on both approaches. It does appear to be true that Sunni Kurds tend to be far less fundamentalist than Sunni (or Shiite) Arabs.

The last sentence is also misleading. “Iraqis” know what they want, they just don’t agree with other “Iraqis.” Some of them want an Islamic state, some want a purely secular state and a significant percentage (most?), like those in Egypt and other countries in the region, want a secular state built on Islamic principles. Whatever that looks like, and I suspect there are multiple variations on that.

The general point of your comment is, however, completely true. Religious differences (and other ethnic issues) are a huge problem and are preventing unification. So are tribal issues and centuries of distrust between Kurds, Arabs, Turkomen, etc.

:|

We’d just have to clean it up a little.

Yea and while trying to keep the lights on too. But the fact that you served in Iraq and stil are willing to speak out for the truth, I’d think is a pretty good start.

Comment by Peter C — September 11, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

Well Cheney’s Haliburton retirement account should cover the bill, but the ranch at Crawdad?

We’d eat up all the profits from Cheney’s fund just bribing someone to buy it.