Originally Posted by host

Chimera,

....we've lost 27 more US troops in just the last 3 days. The US invaded a sovereign nation that was no threat to it's security, and no threat to the secuirty of it's neighbors. I have posted quotes of that opinion that Iraq was not a military threat, starting with Powell and Tenet in Feb., 2001, Rice in July, 2001, and Cheney on Sept., 16, 2001.

No Shit Host.....we all know the reality.

The US removed the head of state of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, and disbanded the military and the police. Under Saddam, the social and political "order" imposed by the British in the early 1920's..... i.e., minority sunni rule of the country, had changed from the British installed sunni monarchy to a secular sunni dictator.

Again.....this is relatively common knowledge.

The 1920's British arabist expert, Gertrude Bell, who drew the borders of the new "Iraq", considered the political realities of the region. The remnant of the seat of the old Ottoman empire, Turkey, would not tolerate an independent Kurdish state in the north, and the Kurds refused annexation by Turkey. That stalemate has not changed.

And has absolutely no bearing on the current situation MY country finds itself in.

The sunni were judged by Bell to be the only Islamic sect in the new Iraqi state who were capable and unencumbered enough by Islamic mullahs religious edicts to entrust with transfer of power from British rule to "home" rule. They also happened to be concentrated in the center of the newly creaed state, near Baghdad, and importantly, sunni rule influenced the sunni Saudis to end their claims on southern border arears of Iraq.

See above.

Saudi Arabia has warned the US that they will balance the sunni disadvantage in Iraq, if the US withdraws.

And I care what the Saudis think....because?

Saddam was tasked, in order to maintain his power and to avoid assassination, with a balancing act that required playing one competing faction against another in Iraq. He minimized the 1200 years of strife between the sunni minority, and the far more numerous shi'a, caused by the assassination of the shi'a imam, Ali, in a mosque in Najif, back in the 700's, by minimizing the influence of islam in Iraqi politics and society. Iraqi women enjoyed the most equality in the Arab world.

Saddam offset religious and familial ties between the shi'a majority in the south and Iraq's neighbor, Iran, via a military rivalry that included an 8 year war. He responded to Kurdish ambitions for independence by brutal repression of their population and politcal leadership. If Saddam did not do this, Turkey would have encroached on Iraq's sovereignty to do it themselves.

The 1920's British partition solution of Iraq did not have to consider the "problem" of the location of since discovered petroleum reserves and the formula for distributing the financial proceeds to the competing ethnic, religious, and political interests. The areas where sunnis are concentrated do not contain oil reserves, but sunnis ruled the country, so this was not the problem that it has become now.

Like it or not....rule of Iraq by Saddam was the closest arrangement to the British designed power balancing act of 85 years ago.

The British design, and the borders that were drawn, brought stability to the region. It was not a "fair" design for the kurds, and certainly not for the shi'a.
The sunnis are now living the consequences of a minority that inherited the authority from the British to rule the country.

Churchill and Bell were sophisticated enough to know that control of the larger shi'a and kurdish populations by the sunnis who comprise only 20 percent of the population and who bore 1200 years of animosity from the 60 percent of Iraqis who are shi'a because of Ali's assassination, and the challenge of keeping Iranian shi'as on the other side of the new border, could only be accomplished by a repressive sunni regime.

Chimera, while Churchill and Bell designed borders and a political power transfer that took into account, and responded to successfully for a suprisingly long time......all of the challenges to stability of competing interests and grievances in the region, and did not have the enormous challenge of equitable distribution of later discovered petroleum reserves to solve, I see nothing in your proposals, or in any of the others posted on this thread, that considers the details of the actual problems to be solved, the interests to be balanced, or the acceptance of responsibility by the fictional future POTUS, for the US administration's sudden destabilization of the region, in the first place.

I do see similar clueless naivete and hubris, to that exhibited by the US administration that wrecked regional stability in the first place.

The only solution that I see that would restore regional stability is installation by the US of a new sunni strongman, protected from the shi'a in Iraq and in Iran, by the US, along with US "control" of kurdish ambitions.

We have systematically destroyed the machinery of stability, and cannot rebuild it within the next 5-10 yrs.....period. I , as president, would be unwilling to accept this scenario.

The US would have the option of reducing the military forces required to prop up the "new guy", if it engaged in a pre-emptive campaign to reduce Iran's military dominance in the region.

It would allow for "Other" players to become dominant....as My own plan might do.

I see no other "solution" that deals with the reality that Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and will all find it neccessary to involve themselves, respectively, to control the kurds, save the sunnis from ethnic cleansing, unite with shi'a southern Iraq, if a US withdrawal occurs. Partition of Iraq is not an option that enhances regional stability, avoids annihilation of the kurds and the sunnis, or checks the ongoing windfall that Bush has created for Iran.