Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
Indeed, smaller countries are always vulnerable, that's why Bush was trying to leave Iraq intact, as a counter balance to Iran in the region. Though leaving Iraq intact made a strategic sense, it split in 3 parts anyway, after 10 messy years of trying to hold it together. The natural ethnic and religious differences (natural forcings) turned to be too much to resist.
The better way was to split it in 3, with quarantining protection over them of some coalition of countries, or even just US, against Iranian aggression. The way Kuwait was protected during Desert Storm. Iran was fighting Iraq for 10 with inconclusive ending to the war, coalition defeated Saddam in a week. Iran never was in a position to attack anyone who would have a guaranty of coalition protection. They were not crazy like Saddam, they would never dare.
The Shia part of Iraq, no mater what, would always have pro Iranian tendencies based on same religion. The Sunni country, having some peace and own government, possibly would resist IS forces. In current circumstances they let the IS to encroach into Iraq, as an ally against Shia persecution. Having their own country they wouldn't need IS for support, and maybe fighting them as foreign invaders. Things could have been different. Kurds by now should have been more organized giving them own country and shielded against corruption of Iraqi government.
Surly it was a very tough decision to split it and perhaps have to move some population around. It needed guts, combined with much more work at the beginning, and lots of political motivation. Bush had guts, but unfortunately lots of naive romanticism too. Giving Iraq democracy was supposed to solve all the problems.
Perhaps I would call it "idealism", but I take your point.
As for a coalition force to maintain "order" in Iraq and to offset Iranian hegemony, at the time the local "players" wanted no part of it, although they seem to be having second thoughts now. Such coalitions are also usually a mirage, in my opinion. Most of the European powers are always long on talk and short on money and manpower. The Gulf States are always playing a double game. There's also the fact that no matter what foreigners may think, there's no appetite among most Americans for acting as the world's policeman for long periods of time. There is no understanding of the strong streak of isolationism in American history, a desire for isolation from the ethnic and religious conflicts of the "old world" which is alive and well in American life and politics.
More and more I am thinking that it's really only countries that are the product of what used to be called "Western Civilization", countries that were part of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, who are capable of true self government and a liberal (in the classical sense) society that prizes personal liberty. Or is that Euro-centric of me?