Stay the course or change the course

This poll cannot be fairly answered. After question #1 the rest of the choices are flawed.
Aslanspal, you need to redo the poll then go stand in a corner for not doing your homework correctly.

 

I think towards the end of the Iraqi civil war we'll be seeing the globalists start running article after article on how Iraq should be be divided up into several regions. What good is divide and conquer warfare if you don't end up doing the dividing? The way I see it that was always the course the globalists sought for Iraq anyway.

 

Here's a globalist article from November 25, 2003 on the "Three State Solution".

This three-state solution has been unthinkable in Washington for decades. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, a united Iraq was thought necessary to counter an anti-American Iran. Since the gulf war in 1991, a whole Iraq was deemed essential to preventing neighbors like Turkey, Syria and Iran from picking at the pieces and igniting wider wars.

But times have changed. The Kurds have largely been autonomous for years, and Ankara has lived with that. So long as the Kurds don't move precipitously toward statehood or incite insurgencies in Turkey or Iran, these neighbors will accept their autonomy. It is true that a Shiite self-governing region could become a theocratic state or fall into an Iranian embrace. But for now, neither possibility seems likely.

<snip>

The third part of the strategy would revolve around regional diplomacy. All the parties will suspect the worst of one another -- not without reason. They will all need assurances about security. And if the three self-governing regions were to be given statehood, it should be done only with the consent of their neighbors. The Sunnis might surprise and behave well, thus making possible a single and loose confederation. Or maybe they would all have to live with simple autonomy, much as Taiwan does with respect to China.

For decades, the United States has worshiped at the altar of a unified yet unnatural Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be both difficult and dangerous. Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq's future in its denied but natural past.

SOURCE CFR

Divide and conquer. Same old plays from the same old playbook. These guys never seem to stray far from the rules made up in the golden age of empires. Civil war in Iraq works to the globalists advantage, I doubt very much they view it as a policy failure as Americans are being told but rather a victory if they can split up Iraq into three states. I think that was the real course all along.

 

I wish that if he had to do it he would've done it right and put in enough troops in the beginning to keep civil order from collapsing into chaos.

Too many people only heard the last part of Murtha's message - the whole message was put in sufficient troops OR get out. Staying the present course without enough troops to suppress the insurgents and tighten the border will not "win" anything. Pulling out and leaving the country in the hands of fundamentalist jihadists engaged in a civil war hardly seems conducive to regional stability.

 

Closed at member's request.

LE