Third Party & Independents: Archives

Update: I have just been informed that the video of Warner on Iraq is not now available on C-Span’s site. I just checked myself, and there are no videos listing at all since Oct. 1. Perhaps it will reappear later, I will keep checking throughout the day. It’s a keeper.

“We did not realize that they just somehow could not bring it together as quickly as we anticipated on a time table to exercise the full range of sovereignty. I suppose if we had gone back and studied the culture…”

My thought was: Duh, You think?

He continued: “Maybe somebody did it. [Studied the culture] But somehow we never got it in this body, the briefings on here’s what’s gonna’ happen if we achieve some measure of military stability…military stability as it related to Saddam Hussein’s army and forces…. But suddenly those forces were disbanded. Suddenly those forces disappeared and in their place started the insurgency and the civil war. “

——————————————

It is utter absurdity what Senator Warner speaks. The weak-kneed defense of “No one briefed us” on culture or what might have happened in the aftermath of the war doesn’t wash with me. One simply has to refer to the vast sources of information on the internet or in the local library. (It seems to me, if I remember that there is a pretty large library in Washington, Oh yeah! The Library of Congress). Hell, even the CIA fact book has decent information regarding cultural matters in a foreign company.

Warner’s admission of ignorance now piles upon Senator Lott’s amazing admission of not being able to tell the difference between Shia and Sunni’s or understand why they are killing each other makes the Senate look like a bunch of idiots.

Here’s the link for the video: rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/iraq/iraq100506_warner.rm

Dennis, quite right. The year 2000 CIA fact book has a section on the differing sectarian factions and implies that that there is a repressed conflict between them. I researched it for an article some time ago and used their references to demonstrate that there was no dearth of CIA information regarding what would happen if Saddam was removed from power.

In my opinion, Michael Ware, who appears on Blitzer’s Situation Room (CNN) has been doing the best job of anyone on television to inform us of what the reality actually is in Iraq. Ware has also been giving a few of his personal thoughts on what “stay the course” is and isn’t doing.

Here are a few recent clips:
Oct. 5th:
“She [Condi] is so far from reality”

Oct. 4th:
While All Eyes Are On Foley, Iraq Is Rapidly Deteriorating

September 21st:
President Bush and Generals “Divorced From Reality”

Adrienne, yep, yep, and YEP!

Beware though, there is a Republican vindication scheme in the works as lightly touched upon by Sen. Warner in his conference yesterday. If February rolls around, and Maliki’s attempts to broker a deal between the militias fails, you will see a change in course on Iraq forced by Congressional Republicans upon the Bush Administration.

Depending on which way that course is changed, Republicans could actually vindicate themselves to a greater degree prior to the 2008 elections. In which case, the lame duck would become a soaring eagle in campaign literature and speeches, threatening a Democratic win in 2008.

Adrienne, P.S., the politics of it is this. If the course change fails, Bush gets to blame it on both Congressional Democrats and Republicans. If it works, Bush and the GOP will hail both Bush’s vision and Republican’s foresight as indispensable for national security and foreign affairs.

Impeachment.

Not in this lifetime, Tim.

Let’s not mince words: President Bush is a profound threat to the US constitution.

From the AP …

President Bush, again defying Congress, says he has the power to edit the Homeland Security Department’s reports about whether it obeys privacy rules while handling background checks, ID cards and watchlists.
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.

But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency’s 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section “in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch.”

His contempt for the rule of law needs to be ended.

Tim, I am not arguing with you. Just stating a simple fact. There aren’t enough votes in the House of Representatives to impeach him. Even if the Democrats take the House, there won’t be enough votes.

Not in this lifetime will Bush be impeached. Simple political reality. That’s why Pelosi said impeachment is not in the cards. It’s not for lack of desire. It’s for lack of House votes.

Impeachment is no longer optional. It is no longer a matter of partisan debate nor decision-making.

There is no support for it in Congress, there is no momentum for it in the mass media.

Only out in the country is the call for it growing.

We, as a country of laws, due process, individual liberties, cannot avoid the obvious anymore. We have become a rogue state, oblivious to and part-and-parcel of, human suffering on a massive scale. From insisting on abstinance-only policy in AIDS-devastated Africa, to globalized economies interlinked with wage slavery and severe repression (China), to wars of aggression in the Middle East, to undermining democracies and enabling cold-blooded murder—we, as Americans no longer have a choice.

If we continue to look the other way while human liberty, human rights, indeed human life, are destroyed in our name, the divine retribution will be terrible to behold.
Never mind our individual peril of a growing totalitarian state masquerading as a democracy, we are on the verge of a global Dark Ages of unimaginable proportions.

If this creeping dictatorship of Bush/Cheney is left unchecked and unchallenged, whether it finally falls or not of it’s own mendacity, the unparalleled precedents embedded in our laws now will assure the destruction of liberty. It has come to this. We have no choice—the wolves are at the door.

This afternoon and this evening, I am going to write three of the most carefully crafted letters my limited skills and talents can muster—one to my US representative, and two to my senators.

Sometime this weekend I will construct a sign and go down to a major intersection of my city and show my sign to passing traffic. It will have one word on it. I will have a one-page explanation of my position for anyone who might approach me.

I am going to investigate other methods of protest. I hope by the very nature of it, others may join. I can’t stand it anymore. I must do something.

“Impeachment”

“Not in this lifetime will Bush be impeached. Simple political reality. That’s why Pelosi said impeachment is not in the cards. It’s not for lack of desire. It’s for lack of House votes.”

This is a convenient sop to do nothing. The British will never leave India, the US will never leave Vietnam, the seperation of the races is affirmed in the Bible, women are second-class citizens, corporations rule the world.

President Bush will never be impeached.

Impeachment

David,
Where do you get the idea that this leadership will suddenly do an about face and start listening to anyone? If they had listened to top military brass, wouldn’t they have fought this war far differently? If they listened to anyone at all, wouldn’t Rummy have been history by now? They’re the Deciders, remember.

Tim, put your rational thinking cap back on. There is only 2 years left to impeach him. The British were not driven out of India in 2 years. Nor the U.S. out of Viet Nam.

It’s simply a matter of not enough time to get the votes necessary in 1 election cycle.

Be passionate. But, don’t lose your wits in the process. In the interim show your sign, and tell all you meet why voting out incumbents is the only non-violent way government is ever going to be restored to the people. With time and pressure, it will work.

Adrienne, the answer is in Warner’s interview. Take 45 minutes to listen to it with an open mind. He says flat out, the Republican Congress will force a course change. They control the budget for the war and everything else Bush wants. Bush cannot defend it against the Congress on that basis, his legacy is at stake don’t forget. He cannot afford to be wrong and against his own party’s leadership. His legacy will not stand for it.

Tim, have you ever heard of The Freeway Blogger?
Started with one guy. There’s lots of them now.

David,
Warner says. But McCain, Graham, and Warner also said a lot of things about the torture bill too. Then they caved, and Bushco won. Bushco always wins.
They’re the Deciders.

” Tim, put your rational thinking cap back on. There is only 2 years left to impeach him. The British were not driven out of India in 2 years. Nor the U.S. out of Viet Nam. “

This is assuming that only the ‘normal’ law-breaking will continue by this administration, the ‘normal’ murder and mayhem. If you hadn’t noticed, David, the outrages, the law-breaking, the lying, are increasing—habeas corpus, loss of privacy, end of due process of law, signing statements, have all become the norm.

People seem to have the naive assumption that if the Dems win in the November elections, everything will somehow magically return to normal. The Republic will be saved. This administration has broken some critical laws, lied us into a war, has tranferred trillions of dollars into corporate and plutocratic bank accounts, has refused to enforce laws made by Congress, obstructed inquiries by Congress and others under the Freedom of Information Act. Do you honestly believe they will magically honor the laws of the land if the Dems win in November? The law-breaking will become worse. If the Dems don’t win, there will be war with Iran. When will the absolutely impossible, the unthinkable, start suddenly to become thinkable, possible, even urgent?

What if something so outrageous is perpetrated by this administration that even the ‘rational’ ones like you can’t ignore it? How soon could an impeachment and conviction be forthcoming? Six months, three months, one month? What if a second ‘terrorist’ catastrophe involving tens of thousands is followed by summary imprisonment of thousands of innocent people, total suspension of the rule of law, the ‘temporary’ recess of Congress?

What will it take for the ‘rational’ to act? What are you willing to ‘look the fool’ for: the Constitution, human freedom, responsible government? When will we have the courage to act on what we know? Not just as American citizens, but as human beings??

Rationalism is a powerful tool for change and an inseperable ally to the rule of law. But often, it can be used to placate, obfuscate, cripple, ignore. What is even more powerful than rationalism, what is soars above the human mind? What is the wind that rationalism rides upon?

Simple human truth. Whether this administration will be impeached or not, the simple truth is, that because of it’s behavior and policies, it should be impeached. I, as one person, can only do what I can do.

Now, you’ll have to excuse me—I have some letters to write.

Impeachment.

Tim, I don’t want Bush impeached. I want him imprisoned. He should be tried in a criminal court for negligent homicide of the 2700+ soldiers he sent to Iraq.

David, I would like to hope that the light has finally come on for the repubs but it seems just to hard to believe. Having little trust in our current group of leaders and realizing the Warner is considering running for the top job, I have little faith that they will do any thing that would conflict with the need to stay in office. So unless the insurgents decide to insurge elsewhere I dont see our leaders having the moral fiber required to do anything but stay the course for the remainder of w’s administration. I realize that even a glimmer of change by the repubs is cause for hope but judging from this blog, there still appears to be a significent numbers of our fellow Americans that still see the current “stay the course” attitude as being the way to go.

Did anyone read this article yesterday?

Quote:

Cheney flatly rejected predictions by pundits that Democrats will take control of the House and Senate in November.

“We will retain control of both houses,” he said.

Pretty sure of himself there, isn’t he? Can any of you remember any other time when politicians made such unequivocal statements like this? I can’t — not in all the time since I began following politics. Is it just a show of arrogance, or are they now so absolutely certain of their complete and total lock on power that they suddenly feel free to make comments like this?

Sorry, just realized my link didn’t work. Here it is again.

Can any of you remember any other time when politicians made such unequivocal statements like this? I can’t — not in all the time since I began following politics.

Then you must have been following politics for about five minutes because candidates and party leaders ALWAYS say they’re going to win even when you know they can’t possibly believe it. Even Ralph Nader stands there before crowds and talks about what he’s going to do once he’s elected President of the United States.

“candidates and party leaders ALWAYS say they’re going to win even when you know they can’t possibly believe it.”

No. Politicians say things like “the people want this and that — and that’s what our party can and will deliver for America”, or “the other party is out of touch, but the people know our party can give them the best leadership” They don’t flatly say “We will retain control of both houses” like Cheney just did. He didn’t even mention “the people” at all, instead, “we will retain control.”

I can’t ever remember a politician speak as though 100% certain that their party’s fix on the election is firmly in.

Then again, I also can’t remember a Republican president going around the country telling crowds that “Democrats take a law enforcement approach to terrorism. That means America will wait until we’re attacked again before we respond”, or “it sounds like they [Democrats] think the best way to protect the American people is — wait until we’re attacked again.”
The president of the United States is saying these things. This too, is a brand new kind of rhetoric that I have never heard before.

j2t2, for me it’s not hope, but, probability theory based on politics. Republican Congressional politicians know they are going to lose seats. They know if they don’t change some dynamics about their game plan, they will lose more in 2008.

They know Iraq is the single biggest drag on their poll numbers, and their lockstep support for Bush on the war is very likely going to be the one dynamic they change in order to prevent a rout in 2008.

It is efficient, economical, and will serve to provide the biggest bump in Congressional Republican approval ratings if they can change course on Iraq and either produce signs over there of permanent gains and progress, or recede from the civil war sparing our troops and tax payers, while preventing the oil fields and revenues from falling into terrorist hands.

I see this as the most likely scenario for the GOP to salvage lost ground with the public without having to abandon much of the rest of their policies, if any. Economic issues will play in their favor due to growth in national debt and downward wage pressures. Border security won’t benefit them because they can’t commit to rapid border security plan in the face of deficits. Tax cuts won’t raise their poll numbers because every tax cut means higher deficits and debt.

So, the logical position for them to make a change with the hopes of recovering poll numbers is with Iraq. Any reduction in activities in Iraq will also mean lower deficits. So, I think Sen. Warner was being forthright and honest when he said Congressional Republicans will be looking for change in course if, in 60 to 90 days, the militias have not significantly reduced the sectarian violence. And the prospect of that happening does not loom large at this point in time.

Adrienne, you may be proved right on hinting that there is a connection between Cheney’s certainty and Deibold machine’s capacity to deliver elections to those who buy the expertise to hack them. However, there will be intense scrutiny and if Diebold machines fail to return above board results, it could damage Republicans for decades and they know it.

Also, Cheney has always been 100% certain about WMD, Saddam al-Queda links, yellow cake, etc., even long after such myths were debunked. So, perhaps you are reading far more into Cheney’s certainty than his simple penchant for projecting his wishes on reality and calling it reality. (Which btw, calls into question his mental health, in my opinion.)

Adrienne, feast your eyes on this little tidbit.

And don’t forget to note the name of the author.

Now, if you still can’t remember it right after reading it, you should know that it’s simply meaningless. It’s just what ALL politicians do. It’s like the football coach who tells him team at halftime that they’re gonna go out and win even though they’re behind by forty points.

David some good points. Perhaps you’re right.
You wrote:
“if Diebold machines fail to return above board results, it could damage Republicans for decades and they know it.”

And yet, the fact that they’ve been giving highly questionable results hasn’t really hurt the GOP very much these past six years. A lot of this has to do with the fact that the media has barely touched upon this issue. It’s been word-of-mouth and netroots that has raised most of the awareness that does exist.

Pilsner, Howard Dean’s article is overflowing with what I was talking about. It wasn’t anything close to Cheney’s one-dimentional and flat statement: “We will retain control of both houses.” Dead Eye Dick didn’t give anybody any REASONS, didn’t even mention the people at all, didn’t talk about WHY America would want the GOP to “retain control.”

Adrienne, how absurd.

Howard Dean personally writes an article which he flatly titles, “Dems will win House and Senate in 2006” but you STILL can’t for the life of you think of a single instance when anybody but Dick Cheney has made such a strong definitive statement and about his party’s electoral prospects?

Let’s not even mention, now that you’re changing the goalposts so you can still pretend that you’re right after being blown out of the water that perhaps the reason Cheney doesn’t “give reasons” and elaborate like Dean is that he’s being quoted in an article instead of actually writing it!

“now that you’re changing the goalposts”

Nope. If the title of Dean’s article had read “We will gain control of both Houses” then you’d have a right to this claim. But Dean used the word “win” instead. This indicates the goal that Democrats must first meet. The rest of the article gives all of the reasons why the people should want to vote for them.
Cheney’s statement did not acknowledge that there was a race to be won at all, nor did it refer to the people — the ones who are (supposedly) to be making that decision.
His is a bald statement of absolute certainty.

A prediction: A few months from now the GOP will come up with some sort of Nixonian “Peace with Honor” formulation and come out in favor of more-or-less immediate withdrawal (within a year, say).

Bush would never support this, but the rest of the GOP will. Otherwise they will lose in 2008.

Woody, if you listened to Sen. Warner’s press conference, you would realize how very wrong your prediction is.

As Sen. Warner pointed out numerous times, Republicans and many Democrats will never allow Iraqi Oil fields or their revenues to fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. For that very compelling reason, there will not be any full withdrawal of our troops from the Iraqi region.

Though it does leave room for Murtha’s recommendation of removing our troops to just over the horizon where immediate redeployment in Iraq can be accomplished should the oil infrastructure once again become the target of al-Queda or Iranian backed factions or other terrorist supporting organizations.

The flaw in this reasoning is that the Iraqi government contains terrrorist supporting entities and thus, the potential exists that the greatest threat to American’s intentions to safeguard oil revenues from terrorist organizations may come from within the Iraq government itself. I can envision an Iraqi government oil minister of Shiite origin funnelling oil revenue to Hezbollah at some point, for example. So much for Americans wanting Iraq to become a self-sustaining sovereign nation, if that occurs, eh?

David,

I should have elaborated. I don’t think that every last serviceman and servicewoman will be withdrawn. But there is going to have to be a massive drawdown. Our current commitment is unsustainable. Politically, fiscally, even logistically, this can’t last. So the GOP will have to come up with some fig leaf.

Woody, your post above confuses me. The number of troops in Iraq at the moment can’t keep a lid on things. How could a reduced force? Seems to me there are two options, significantly increase the numbers, with no guarantee that that would work, or get them all the hell out of there. There is no guarantee or even a likelihood that increased numbers could solve it. The coalition troops are now part of the problem. This thing is going to have to work itself through, and it’s hard to see any positive outcome from it. Usually in life, if you do the wrong thing, you have to pay the price. Bush’s old man knew better that to invade Iraq in ‘91. Powell said before the war, if you break it, it’s yours. What is happening now in a direct outcome of putting virulent ideology ahead of common sense. As a great friend of mine says, common sense is a wonderful thing, pity it’s so uncommon.

Actually, Paul, there is the third option of keeping small lethal rapid response teams in Iraq in just a few defined areas. The Rapid response units could reside in the Kurdish territory fairly safely, and the other key area is around the capitol in Baghdad to protect the seat of government from military coups and insurrection. That would leave the rest of Iraq open to fight its civil war out to the point where Sunnis and Shiites either tire of it, or one acquires victory over the other.

This would drastically reduce our losses, numbers and costs, while maintaing sufficient forces in combination with Iraqi forces to protect the oil infrastructure and the Iraqi Capitol.

This latter, is the most likely scenario as I see it. Which makes claims by American critics of the invasion absolutely true, This war was, and is, about oil.

The similarities between Iraq and Vietnam are increasingly disturbing.

• ignoring generals’ advice


• not just ignoring requests for more troops, but discouraging it; letting generals know that is career suicide;


• lying about the real conditions (i.e. trying to down play the civil war)


• poor planning (very poor in some cases)


• trying to fight the war “on the cheap”


• relying on the military to achieve political ends


• delivering unrealistically rosy predictions of how long the war will last and how much it will cost


• denying the severity of the situation until it becomes too ridiculous to deny any longer.


• seeking more and more money to “stay the course”, despite the lack of a real course.


• trying to mislead Americans by saying “it is making us safer” and “Iraq is the front on the war on terror”.


• torture, atrocities


• making military decisions based on political reasons (e.g. Fallujah)


• our own actions may have and may be uniting our enemies (e.g. no WMD), giving them more reasons to hate the U.S.


• squandering opportunites for successes; largely due to trying to fight the war “on the cheap”;


• it’s increasingly difficult to tell who the bad guys are; they are not all on one side;


• profiteering and fraud by contractors

Fortunately, one thing is better. Most Americans support the troops caught up in this growing quagmire (i.e. civil war in Iraq), even if they don’t support the administration that misled Americans (regardless of whether the decision to invade Iraq was a result of incompetence and bad intelligence, or it was intentional; take your pick).

One other difference between Vietnam and Iraq is: O_I_L

Why so much interest in the middle east, when other nations have serious problems causing massive loss of life (such as many in Africa; the Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Angola, Burundi, Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc., etc., etc.)?

Sadly, the interest in the middle east is looking more and more like it is because of: O_I_L

Paul,

I don’t think that a complete, utter withdrawal is going to be a politically possible any time soon. That would seem to meet the very definition of “cut and run”. As long as there is a force there the masters of war can argue that we are “standing down while they stand up”. We went through the same thing with Vietnamization.

It is true that a small force is more vulnerable than a large force. But if these pragmatic military considerations ruled the day we wouldn’t be there at all.

David and Woody, if a large force currently can’t even currently adequately protect the green zone, never mind the Capital, how is a smaller one going to do it? As for a rapid reaction force in the Kurdish area, what function will they serve? Will that be like in Vietnam where your army went in and took vills by day, then withdrew by night, leaving the VC to come back and kill collaborators like teachers etc? To the best of my knowledge, military doctrine says that in order to secure a territory, you have to have boots on the ground.
Not just now and then, but all the time until the objectives of having the troops there are fulfilled. As for having the troops in the Kurdish area, I wonder how Nato ally Turkey will feel about that? As it is, there is a real threat to the Kurdish area from Turkey if and when the situation in Iraq returns to normality.

As for your reference to Vietnamisation Woody, in reality in was a fig leaf to withdraw US forces and disengage from Vietnam. It did not serve the purpose of defending the RV, it just gave the US a face saving way of “cutting and running” At the end of the day, Vietnam is coming through it, because it is largely an homogenous society. Iraq is not, and it is hard to see how this is going to play out without leaving a situation that is much more threatening to western interests that what was there before.

Paul said: “David and Woody, if a large force currently can’t even currently adequately protect the green zone, never mind the Capital, how is a smaller one going to do it?”

That’s an easy question to answer. Right now, we have 145,000 troops spread out, large numbers trying to deal with Sadr city. We could pull all but 30,000 or so out, and both Iraqi Army and a small complement of our troops, perhaps shifts of no more than 3000 per 8 hour shifts, could keep the capitol secure. By capitol here, we are talking about the capitol buildings and a perimeter around them big enough to insure their safety for the Iraqi government to function. The remainder of our 30,000 troops could be on standby for reinforcments and rapid response to new threats on the capitol.

Your facts about Turkey are mostly wrong. What Turkey DOESN’T want is an independent Kurdish state. Turkey has been our ally in this Iraq effort and they would have no problems with our stationing our troops in the North. Now, the minute we begin talking partition of Iraq, which is what former Sec’t. of State James Baker and his study group are going to do, and present before Congressional hearings soon, then Turkey will become squirlly toward our bases in the North, for then they would be viewed as defense forces for an independent Kurd state.

You are right, it is hard to see how any scenario in Iraq will play out. That’s why it was a mistake to invade in the first place without an endgame plan solidly laid. Iraq is now a quagmire, and will likely remain so for decades whether we stay, leave, partition or leave whole. There are no longer any winning strategies for Iraq. The window of opportunity to invade with massive forces of 4 to 500,000 troops and confiscate weapons and armaments, secure border crossings, and prevent sectarian violence before it could mushroom into blood feuds, is closed. There is no going back in time to make it right.

We screwed up big time, and now we have a quagmire on our hands. The question now is how more American blood are we going to have on our hands for an outcome which is indeterminable?

Paul, the consequence of winning in Viet Nam was facing war with China. So, cutting our losses instead of doubling or tripling them was the smart thing to do in Viet Nam. As for running, that is a perjorative used by people who don’t agree with the decision to save lives and admit the mistake of intervening in a civil war they were not prepared to decide and win.

David, re Turkey being the US ally in this war, you may recall that at the outset, before the invasion, the US military wanted to attack from the north as well as the south, such attack coming through Turkey. Turkey declined. Having a powerful force of US troops within Kurdistan would be, I believe rightly, preceived as akin to a form of de facto recognition of Kurdish independence. Certainly by the Kurds and probably by the Turks.

I agree with your comments regarding cutting losses being the smart thing to do in Vietnam, which was a war that need never have happened. You will note David, that I used the term cutting and running in quotes. Recognising reality can and often will be characterised as something negative or lacking consistency. But as Winston Churchill said, consistency is the prerogative of small minds.

As for war with China, well, given that the Vietnamese gave them a bloody nose in 1979, it may well have been that the Chinese were a paper tiger back then.

Paul said: I believe rightly, preceived as akin to a form of de facto recognition of Kurdish independence.”

You are right, that if stationing our troops in the Kurdish area is perceived as precedent to an independent Kurdish state, Turkey would cease to be our ally. That said, the Kurds in Iraq have no designs on becoming an independent state. Their oil revenues lie outside their territory. They have a vested interest in a unified Iraq. Turks know this as well.

Unless this dynamic changes somehow, stationing our troops in the Kurd areas will not be viewed as precedent to an independent Kurdish state.

And yes, in hindsight, we now see that the Chinese, were unlikely to have allowed themselves to become embroiled in the Vietnamese Civil War. They had enough headaches of their own trying to hold the cultural revolution together.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Rice.html?source=myp

David, as you will see from the above link, the autonomous Kurdish region of Iraq has handsome reserves of oil. You will also see that they have threatened to break away from Iraq.

Paul, thank you for the link. I was not aware Kurdistan sat on large deposits.

I just researched it, and found this: “Three-quarters of all oil deposits in that state are within the Shia areas, with the rest largely in the Kurdish north.”

This means somewhere just above 20% of the oil is in the Kurdistan region. (20% of the estimated 112 billion barrels = 22 billion barrels.) Given the world’s rate of consumption of 27 billion barrels a year and growing, it does not appear the Kurds can build an indefinite future of wealth on 22 billion barrels. It the Kurds are holding out for 1/3 of the revenues, it is understandable why the analysts say the Kurds have no desire to secede from the Iraqi federal union.

Is it possible the Kurds are posturing, knowing full well that Rice and Bush seek a unified Iraq? My information came from testimony before Congress a couple weeks ago, in which experts said the Kurds recognize that they would be vulnerable to attack and lose their relative peace if they were to secede from Iraq. And that they had a vested interest in the Iraq oil revenues which they would lose should they secede.

I wrote an article about it, here somewhere.

An easy way out ……

No matter what the americans do to get out of Iraq there are going to be tremendous problems . Maybe the best thing to do would be to redistrict the country into three proportional areas one for the Kurds , one for the Shiites and one for the Sunnis , each sized proportional to the relative population of each group . Then , have a foreign entity run the oil exploitation and port business and proportionally divide and distribute the income from those enterprises to the different new governments and just let the chips fall where they may . What do you think ?

spugadiccio, partition is one option being considered. But, as you say, any option has some horrible consequences built into it. Partition negates the one thing which hopes to minimize sectarian war, federalism. Without a united government, the civil war will wage on. But, worse, the partioned civil war will draw neighboring nations into the fray, some backing Shiites, some the Sunnis. In addition Turkey would not stand for an independent Kurdistan.

In other words, partition results in regional warfare escalation amongst many Middle Eastern nations and threatens the world’s oil supplies which would become target #1 in such a regional conflict.