http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6060544.stm According to President Talabani, this would see an end to terrorism. An alternate solution to whats going on now is definetly a good idea although I don't know what good Iranian and Syrian involvement would do.
Well I know this is up for debate, but if Syria would actually do something about allowing in fighters into Iraq from Syria that could help slow some of the violence. The other problem is that Syria and iran may be allies now, but don't forget that one is sunni the other shia and we see how well these 2 groups co-exist in the region. I think this just reinforces the need to have a 3 state solution. The Syrians can cozy up to the Sunni side, Iran the shia side, and the US can be with the Kurd side.
That may be their goal, but combined they aren't strong enough to do so. That is why I think the 3 state idea is best. I predict that the US/Kurdish area will be the most peaceful of the 3 while the other 2 continue to snipe and fight with each other.
Gee I wonder how could they do such a hard task? I mean we could move the troops we have in Iraq right now by convoy, etc... into the area designated for Kurdistan, we also could include in the borders a strip of land that would split the shia sunni lands and give them a port. Also, we have the ability to build airports and use planes like C-17's C-5's, 747's and other "airplanes" to "lift" our people and equipment in and out of the country.
Sunni doesn't have your strip land. The strip land is in Shia's area. I guess those Iranian-friendly Shia Government will be so happy to give that stripe land and the only port they have while USA is so busy to push econonic sanction on Iran in UN and still have military option against Iran on the table. Or those Sunni Jihadists who have no US ground troops around will just watch those C-17s and C-5s flying over their sovergin airspace without someone just shot a rocket into it.
Although Talebani currently is forced to rely on the US to a greater extent than Iran would prefer, ultimately he is very close to both Iran and the US. He is a frequent visitor to Iran, speaks Persian, and has lived in the country. His idea is premised on getting the US to resolve its issues with Iran (and Syria) by opening up direct negotiations. Through such negotiations, he believes that the issues in Iraq can be resolved. And he is right. The proper solution for Iraq would only emerge through such negotiations. However, to be fruitful, those negotiations cannot solely tackle issues about Iraq but must deal with other issues as well. Once everyone is on the same page, as opposed to having competing agendas, a realistic arrangement which meets the historic, cultural, and political imperatives of Iraq can be arrived at. At the same time, some larger issues affecting the Middle East as a whole can find an acceptable solution as well. If the US stops attempting to groom Iraq as a potential base to be used against its neighbors, Iraq's neighbors will be able to help Iraq come out of its current predicament. In the process, a lot of other issues in the Middle East can find an acceptable solution as well.
Yeah because up til now those same people have had so much success shooting down US planes of any type....oh wait no they haven't. Also do you think there is any group in the region that could prevent the US from taking a strip of land and holding it? You may think the US is weak, but the reality is that we can if we want too. Try again.
The government of Syria is not Sunni. The Syrian ruling regime is heavily Alawite which is an obscure Shia splinter sect. The majority Sunni population of Syria have no more control over the Syrian government than the majority Shia population of Iraq had over Saddam's government.
Thank you, I did not realize that the Alawite were a shia splinter group. That clears up alot of my wonderment over the ties between Syria and iran. Can you tell me how well that govt. in Syria is accepted by the Syrian population? Do they have the underlying problems that seems to me at least have plagued sunni and shia in other countries?
Ya. US is very strong. So the ground troops will go back to Sunnistan and Shiastan to make the condition stable. Here you just come back to what you have today. Also that idea to take a strip land from Mosul to Basra and with troops alone side to protect it will work.
Where did I say they would go back? There is a big difference between setting up a strip of land and holding it and holding an entire country.
Syria's leadership are Shi'a. They are Alawite which is a sect of Shi'a Islam. Alawite's holiest figure, after Prophet Mohammad and Ali, is Salman the Persian.
Under the current situation, Iran and Syria would probably be allied anyway given their common interests, regardless of their current regimes. Like the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, the current Syrian regime grew out of the Baath party movement, which was an attempt to create a secular Arab nationalist movement that would unite Arabs on the basis of language and culture to overcome differences in religion. I have no idea how accepted the Syrian government is by the population, since it's a dictatorship, however like the Saddam regime in Iraq it probably has large groups of supporters as well as large groups of opponents. Generally anyone who wants secularism is reluctantly supportive of the current regime for fear of what might happen if it should fall (looking at neighboring Iraq as an example of what to expect), and by secularism I don't mean a Western-style separation of church and state, but rather Arab nationalism which sees Islam as the cultural norm but which is tolerant of religious minorities as long as they are Arabs and support the regime's policies. Sunni fundamentalists would generally be hostile to the current regime whereas secularists and religious minorities in Syria (Alawite, other Shia, Christians, etc.) would, if not support the current regime, at least accept it as the lesser of two evils. I would assume Syria has the same underlying problems between Shia and Sunni that exist in Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
That is the part I think funny. You cannot have a strip land from Mosul to Basra and expect you can protect it. It is a perfect shooting alley.
Alawites are NOT Shi'ites. It is a very liberal Islamic sect that has its roots in Shi'ism. It's closest other sect is the Alevi sect in Turkey. Alevis in Turkey are some of the biggest backers of the secular state of Ataturk's founding because in the Ottoman days they were treated second class under Sunni domination. Alawites and Alevis do NOT pray 5 times a day, let men and women worship together, and are allowed to drink alcohol. Furthermore, Syria's orientation is Baathist, it is a secular state, far different from Iran. Syrian and Iraq had different ideas about Baathism and have long been enemies. The Lebanese Maronite leader, Michel Aoun, took money from Saddam to help fight the Syrian occupiers in Lebanon. The Syrian government aided Iran during the Iran/Iraq war. But Iran's ties with Syria could not be less based on religion. Ironically, a lot of Iranians make a pilgramage to Syria, to the Canadian Embassy there to apply for jobs in North America. They can breathe their in the sense because it is socially relaxed. But politically Iran is more relaxed. Iran has a more of a reformist movement, and more civil society. Iranians are not afraid to criticize their gov, whereas Syrians are. Syria is much of a totalitarian state when it comes to stifling dissent and has a much bigger secret police presence.