Fred Dehl wrote:
Harry Krause wrote in news:05adnVDg0K195mLeRVn-
:

...on Iraq...

How bad or good for the United States as a nation would it be if Iraq
devolved into a much larger scale, ongoing civil war that resulted in
the dividing of that country into Sunni and Sh'ite sectors?

You mean like how it actually WAS before Churchill f%xked it up?

I wasn't going to comment in this thread- but I'll make an exception
since for maybe the first time in a zillion I *agree* with Fred. :-)

Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

wrote in message
oups.com...


Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

Chuck,

Good job. You have hit the nerve of this problem and you are 100% correct,
IMO.

RCE

"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...


Nations form when people have common bonds of language, religion,
tradition, and other values. Trying to make a nation from three groups
like the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds is like pouring crankcase oil,
water, and honey into a gallon jug and then wondering why it doesn't
all blend together nicely. The Brits probably thought, "Hell, nobody
lives out there but a bunch of sand people anyway- so let's just lump a
big area together, give it a name, and make it easier to administer."

According to Churchill's grandson, his grandfather favored the creation of
"Kurdistan". It was the rest of the British parliament that opposed the
creation of Kurdistan.

I have to wonder what effect that would have had on the region over the past
eight or nine decades.



The only reason it hadn't fallen apart in the last 20 years is that
Saddam insisted on a secular government and also scared the crap out of
all sides. The US has allowed the people to vote in a constitution that
is at least semi-religious, and we can't scare the crap out of
*anybody* without playing into the propaganda program of the religious
fanatics.... we're in a tough spot. We should have looked at a bigger
picture before invading this place, but now that we're there it's
obvious that *nobody* has a good solution for resolving matters and
getting out. Too bad.

So in other words, we're back to where things were early 19th century...and
Bush is in the position to play Churchill's role all over again. Maybe this
time he'll do it right and carve the country up into three separate regions.

Chuck,

You are *almost* right on the Brits partitioning scheme. If you look at
some older maps of the area you can see that the borders were drawn in
such a way as to split the various groups and lump them together.

Then a local leader was installed up to hold the mess together. The
local divisions insured that said leader would be kept busy and never
present much of a threat.

The divide and conquer method of rule is much older than the British
Empire but they used it very skillfully.

Mark Browne