I agree. There’d be a huge problem with defining borders in the Baghdad area, which might look like Jerusalem when all is done. And who’d draw the boundaries, anyway? Would the Sunni area, once the Shiites are done controlling the process, have any more cohesiveness than apartheid South Africa’s Bantustans, or just also be a group of poor, isolated pockets that the dominant group could wash their hands of?
There could also be some bloodshed as the Sunnis are herded, as refugees, out of the Shiite areas, though perhaps not on the scale the India/Pakistan partitioning engendered. At least Kurdistan would most likely be as cohesive and stable as it’s been since GW1.
I don’t see how your proposal is any more based in hope than mine own.
For instance, where would we deploy such a force? Who will have us? If things go to hell in a hurry, the force we have now is not likely to be sufficient, since we would then probably have to constrain all sides, by force. The force we have now is, by all accounts, insufficient for the task at hand, which I submit is considerably more manageable than intervening in a full scale civil war/genocide. Are we to double or treble our forces in some sort of “stand by” capacity? You may recall that before the Recent Unpleasantness,we were advised by sober minds that such a stand-by deployment for months at a time was simply not possible, which was offered as another solid reason why reckless military adventure was such a splendid idea. Has the idea improved with age? Have the deserts gotten more hospitable, the supply lines shorter?
It’s intended to stave off and somewhat reduce the prospect of chaos, as opposed to “Oh the humanity! I can’t bear the killing any longer! You boys go play nice now, we’re out of here.”
Um, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kuwait? Might there be sufficient base capacity to support a basic deterrent force?
You might have heard of this fellow. If reports of his influence are not “exaggerated”, the present situation could look rosy by comparison to a real power grab.
Turkey is a not an option, they wouldn’t even let us mount a northern attack on Iraq from their soil in 2003. They sure as hell aren’t going to let us station a large force in their country indefinitely.
As much as I appreciate droll sarcasm, your characterization of my opinion is valid only within a relatively small environment, specifically, your own mind. Nowhere can you point to a statement of mine that reflects such a rosy scenario as you are content to scorn. Sneer if you will, but at least have the good grace to sneer at something one has actually said.
As noted, Turkey seems unlikely. Afghanistan is a basket case slowly evolving towards a stable catastrophe, its logistical infrastructure is hardly worth the name. And, of course, it has neither an overland route nor a sea route to Iraq, if we have to airlift everything, might as well airlift it from here. At least we already have roads, bases, ports…you know, stuff like that.
Kuwait? I suppose. Are they willing?
Yes, I have indeed. He’s the one-legged, two-legged multi-headed Hydra who is the sole source of all our ills! He’s dead, he’s alive, he’s everywhere and nowhere. He is not, as you may already know, widely beloved of the Shia, and only a small minority of the Sunni. He may have some sympathy amongst the Zoroastrians…
In short, I see little prospect, if any, that he might amass sufficient force to sieze power in Iraq. Unless you can offer some reason to believe otherwise?