Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

The trouble in Iraq.

Our problem in Iraq is that two different cultures are colliding: an American culture that values life, individuality, and freedom; and a Iraqi culture that respects victory over life, sectarianism, and fear. The article below illustrates to me the difference clearly.

Iraq’s Curse: A Thirst for Final, Crushing Victory - New York Times

Unfortunately, it seems to me as if America is prosecuting the war as if Iraqis are Americans and that as soon as the Iraqis realize that we Americans have their best interests in mind, they will shape up, form a federal, representative government, and agree to get along. But Iraqis have no history and no preparation for a federal, representative government. They only know autocratic governments that control the people by fear or are overthrown. Since we are not willing (nor would it be appropriate for us) to rule by fear, torture, and sahel, it will be generations before the Iraqis begin to absorb the American mindset.

Now, I have been against the Iraq War from the beginning for three reasons.

1. I am always against the invasion of a sovereign country that has not attacked us first. As an American expatriate residing in a small country surrounded by two massive neighbors, I am especially aware of the precarious position of such nations. Just because a country is small and vulnerable does not mean that its larger and more powerful neighbors have a right to tell the smaller country what to do. There several common arguments for the invasion of Iraq that are often used by conservatives. (I consider myself a conservative). I will try to deal with those in another post.
2. I do not believe that nation building - that is, the invasion and occupation of a country with a goal of establishing a representative government - works. There may have been a few successful examples in history, but American diplomacy is littered with unsuccessful attempts to establish representative governments by force. Besides, isn't establishing a representative government by force a mutual contradiction. If the will of the people is for a representative government than force is not necessary. If force is necessary (as implied by foreign military forces remaining in a country) doesn't that indicate coercion. Coercion is unnecessary if the will of the people demands a representative government. The posted article points out that the Iraqis know nothing of a representative government. There is no history and very little desire for a true republic. What most Iraqis want is a dictator that represents their interests: Sunnis want a Sunni dictator, the Kurds want a Kurdish dictator, and the Shiites want a Shiite dictator.
3. I have always believed that this war has no good objective. In the end, a new dictator will take over the country.

So now that we've knocked Humpty Dumpty off the wall, how do we put him back together again? Our troops could stay in Iraq for a generation and only begin the process of establishing a representative government.

So what are our options. I think as long as we are at it, we should offer/threaten to destabilize the whole region and let the local players sort out the mess we made in Iraq. Here's the plan.

The country of Iraq should be partitioned into three zones: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish zones. Iran would be offered the chance to "police" the Shiite section with the implicit understanding that they could eventually annex the entire section and incorporate it into the Islamic Republic of Iran. Some might argue that we are trying to prevent exactly that: we are trying to save the vast oil reserves and population of southern Iraq from falling into the hands of one of the members of the axis of evil. Perhaps, but giving the Iranians the southern half is better than letting the whole country fall under their control.

The Saudis would be given the opportunity to control the Sunni section, again with the understanding that they are welcome to incorporate their region into Saudi Arabia in the future if they so desire. Sharing a similar religion and not wanting this region to fall under Shiite Iran's control, they would be in little position to protest.

Third, I think we should turn the northern, predominantly Kurdish section of the country back over to its previous overlords: the Turks. The Turks, of all three groups, have the least incentive to accept our offer. However, the region's vast oil reserves (Turkey has little oil) and the chance to disrupt bases for Kurdish rebellion in Anatolia would be difficult for the Turks to pass up.

Instead of a fractious Iraq, there would be an enlarged Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. We could give everyone plenty of notice of our intentions and allow the "Iraqis" one last chance to establish their own government and suppress the terrorists within their midst. Personally, as much as the Iraqi Shiites look to Iran for help, I do not think that they really want to be ruled be Iran. The Kurds have the greatest incentive for working to find a solution to a unified Iraqi government. They absolutely detest the Turks who would certainly repress them as they do the Kurds within Turkey today.

Most likely, all three countries are smarter than we are and will refuse to set foot in a country where sahel is the standard of victory.