Thursday, February 23, 2006

Man on the White Horse
Iraq seems to be slipping further and further into the abyss. Sunnis and Shiites are all but at war with each other; their common disdain of our actions has not been enough to keep them at relative peace.

Iraq, like the former Yugoslavia, is a mishmash of cultures that have battled each other for centuries. Also like Yugoslavia, it took a dictator to get things calm, and anarchy rose upon their leaving office (death for Tito, arrest for Hussein).

Is it too early to start discussing the partitioning of Iraq into separate countries? Can we begin to consider if a benign dicator is desirable or even possible?

I'd love to see an interim cost-benefit analysis of our endeavors. Question: if our costs continue to rise, will our objectives have to change. In other words, creating a Democracy might be good enough for $400 billion, but do we want total control over all oil at $2 trillion? I don't say that jokingly. At what point do we have to say f*** our principles, we need money, and their oil is our rich uncle.

I'm a big believer in "as circumstances require." I never would have went to war with Iraq and the radical Muslim world, but now that we are waist high in our own feces, should we peaceniks consider what actions we must take to make this worth it?

1 comment:

steakbellie said...

splitting the country into separate ethnic states sounds great, but I think the Oil is only located in one part. The other parts will be left with just desert and rocks.

perhaps they can split the money from the oil? dunno enough about how that could work.

and true, we need a REALISTIC look at where we are in Iraq. What's the end result that we want, or better yet whats the best we're willing to settle for?