***Since Turkey in my opinion being part of NATO is been given a green light to enter Northern Iraq, and Iran is already the Major Player in Eastern Iraq and the Sunni Arabs have been told to handle the Extremists in Southern Iraq.
US is going to pullout before Bush leaves Office, calling it a “Mission Plausible” and let the Local surrounding countries handle the situation on the ground…all events seem to be leading towards this…SPLIT!..
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
And why do you think all 3 parties will be content with part of the pie?
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
What is ‘Eastern Iraq’ ? 
Btw, how could sunnis be told to take on extremists in shia southern iraq when it is hard for them to be part of the govt in the first place. I think you are alluding to the US cooperation with sunni sheikhs in anbar…?
PS Who told about some “green light” by the americans to go in Kurdistan? You should know that kurds are pro-western and are big allies of US and Israel. Israeli commandoes are reportedly even operating and training kurds as we speak! The only plausible reason that US isn’t outright sending troops to face Turks is because of turkey’s strategic importance in terms of the iraqi situation instead of being some better ally than the kurds…
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
The US is not going to leave Iraq any time in the near future. All the signs are that they are planning to stay for atleast a decade if not more over there. Their plan seems to be twofold, to denuke Iran get a more Israeli friendly regime over there and then go after the Saudis. This could be a very long project (maybe around 20-30 years). The Iraqi oil will be used as a buffer to counter the uncertainties of the oil market during the possibly coming upheavels.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
Aqua... how familiar are you with internal US politics surrounding the Iraq war? When I look at my crystal ball, US will start limited withdrawl of troops next year (which is an election year in the US, by the way). More rapid withdrawl will take place in 2009 (when a new President is in place). There will remain some form of US military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future, but my guess is, it will be more strategic and likely be a US base of some kind, and not so much as day to day rounding up people and fighting freedom fighters. Iraq war is extremely unpopular inside US, and the new US president will find it impossible maintain the status quo.
Iraq to be be divided into 3 regions is a realistic scenario. Whether that will help reduce or inflame the ongoing civil/sectarian war remains to be seen. The sunnis in the middle of Iraq will be left as a landlocked mass with no oil and hostile neighbors on all sides. Not a pleasant scenario by any stretch of imagination.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
^ Wasn't there talk of something like getting out in 2 years (on large scale if not completely) before or probably immediately after beginning of the invasion when Saddam army had fled.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
Faisal, the troop levels will start going down by next spring to pre-surge levels which is around 130-140,000. Also once a new President is in office in '09, the troop levels may go down by another 50,000. The rest will be stationed in the barracks built around Iraq. Day to day security operations will be mostly handled by Iraqi security.
But do not expect the Democrats to bring all the soldiers home from Iraq if there is a Democratic President. For all their anti-war speeches their actions are quite contradictory and half-hearted to stop this war. There have been almost 4000 deaths in Iraq but out of 27,000 wounded in Iraq, 11,000 have succumbed to their injuries in Ramstein and the US and thus are not considered casualties in Iraq. Democrats have hardly talked about that. This is just to keep the public uproar off the project in Iraq.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
Frankly speaking, I am not sure if US pulling out right away will help bring stability in Iraq, or the region, anyway. The country of Iraq is in a complete mess. May be reducing US troops and making them less visible will bring a little reduction in fierce resistance to "foreign troops", but the sectarian and ethnic issues remain strong. US public's appetite for loss of troops is historically pretty low and this war has just brought this back in sharp focus. It would be one thing if the war/invasion is about something that people could associate with and there were clear and verifiable winning plans. There are none in Iraq. As such, to expect people to keep absorbing human loses of their soldiers in a land far far away, for a cause that people have difficulty grasping, is getting more difficult every day. Doesn't matter whether the new President is Republican or Democrat. Its just the ground reality in the US.
Whoever is the new President, he (or she) will not be so married to this invasion; and will have an easier time to take drastic decisions, which the current administration is unable to take, simply because it will be a big dent on their ego to admit that they were wrong all along.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
And why do you think all 3 parties will be content with part of the pie?
Simply because a World Super Power was not able to tame the three factions in Iraq, no one else can.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
By Eastern Iraq I mean area adjacent to Iran.
So you making my point too about Sunnis not wanting to cooperate, only solution is to split it three ways just like Yogoslavia of old is No More!
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
Aqua... how familiar are you with internal US politics surrounding the Iraq war? When I look at my crystal ball, US will start limited withdrawl of troops next year (which is an election year in the US, by the way). More rapid withdrawl will take place in 2009 (when a new President is in place). There will remain some form of US military presence in Iraq for the forseeable future, but my guess is, it will be more strategic and likely be a US base of some kind, and not so much as day to day rounding up people and fighting freedom fighters. Iraq war is extremely unpopular inside US, and the new US president will find it impossible maintain the status quo.
Iraq to be be divided into 3 regions is a realistic scenario. Whether that will help reduce or inflame the ongoing civil/sectarian war remains to be seen. The sunnis in the middle of Iraq will be left as a landlocked mass with no oil and hostile neighbors on all sides. Not a pleasant scenario by any stretch of imagination.
i dont know how accurate that is. the republicans wont scale back for sure. democratic front runners couldnt commit to pull troops out by the end of their first terms. Maybe you're right about the strategic presence, not sure if hillary will though.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
the republicans wont scale back for sure. democratic front runners couldnt commit to pull troops out by the end of their first terms. Maybe you're right about the strategic presence, not sure if hillary will though.
I wouldn't be too sure that republican won't scale back. Right now, we are seeing pre-election posturing, where republican candidates are kinda stuck in an odd position. My feeling is that to differentiate themselves from the Dems and being the incumbant party in White House they have to take a little bit of ownership for this blunder in Iraq. However, once one of them takes the oath of office, things will be different, and hopefully they can take objective decisions that are for for the betterment of the USA. Rather than continuing a bad policy in order to save face.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
But that will mean that US has to have “friendly forces” to act as a buffer [like the coalition of the willing.. 
] which is not happening, at least according to some US commanders, if we believe that iranian sponsored iraqis / iranis are heavily infiltrated in the security forces and actually might be receiving US training to fight US troops later on..
Aqua, where are you pulling out the 11,000 number from? :aq:
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
I wouldn't be too sure that republican won't scale back. Right now, we are seeing pre-election posturing, where republican candidates are kinda stuck in an odd position. My feeling is that to differentiate themselves from the Dems and being the incumbant party in White House they have to take a little bit of ownership for this blunder in Iraq. However, once one of them takes the oath of office, things will be different, and hopefully they can take objective decisions that are for for the betterment of the USA. Rather than continuing a bad policy in order to save face.
one can always hope, but i dont see how any political party that runs on a pro-war stance even during an anti-war public sentiment and goes on to win would then want to change its stance. the lobbies/corporations/interests that kept this govt in the war, the ones that are probably giving the most cash right now to the most hawkish candidate (guiliani) will remain on the scene and will expect the same kind of policy. and we know those concerns matter much more in practice than any notions of the betterment of the USA.
Re: Three way split in Iraq on the Horizon
I heard it on a radio show. The show is also posted on Youtube. I shall post the link as soon as I am allowed to.
What he host basically said is that deaths due to infections or other complications 1-2 years after the war are not considered war deaths and basically more than 11,000 of such injured have died since 2003. I tried finding those figures in news articles but I have been unable to so far.