The Future of Iraq

Its not a theocratic state but Islamic Republics of Pakistan. The country has given constitution by founding member / mr.Bhutto of 1973. Which is living documrnt and will change with time and will be modified as needed. The constitution is basic document for all muslim nations including India and others who want to improve the law and order situation by useing this Bhutto constition. Look at Pakistan market is defying gravity and going up like crszy and higest reurn on srock.Just few years had highest return on equity market.Economy is booming. Pakisrtannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn n is economy on rise look at realestate, stock market, interst rated, dollars can Indian economy do this it can not. The country is at war against intially India and ussr and that country was oput out od misery by insurgent pakistan, usa and china. And now usa and pakistan are fighting extremist and still easternfront is not cold, Fight fr kashmir is going on on long term. Which economy has done better after taking into account this ongoing war on eastern front and now on eastern front. The terrorist and extremist on run . Soon usa is also going to upgrade military hardwere specially mobility assets like addition of Helicopter gunships which will put terrorist at great advantage and JF aircraft produced by China and pakistan with powerful Russian engines which are same SU-30 the russy most modern air machines engine. I am tired of silly comparison between india and pakistan. India is like fat elephant while pakistan is asian power animal like bengali tiger which can smash any thing and put wild fat elephant out of misery. The economy is expanding at fast rest by absorbing huge foreign investments. Now these rich companies from west and arabland are not stupid to pour billions of dollars fro electricity to car companies and gas and oil production sector is booming like rocket. With defreezing of oil and gas prices and allowed to raise to international levels it is going to country like middle east. Sindh and B.Stan is full of oil and gas. Canadian, usa companies are pouring money in this sector and every month new discoveries. Now Chinese are going to pour money in that sector. World class coal deposits will used by Chinese companies to make power and may be India can get some juice at little concessional price to help poor people of India. Soon power lines will be carrying power from central asia to fuel economy of pakistan. IPI pipe line is coming on line and Indians will be forced to pay $500 million per yer as transit fee. If Indian do not behave properly then Iran Pakistan line will work properly but India pakistan cab burst what India, Iran can do. Precisely nothing . It is in interst of india to solve K problem tp pakistani satisfaction or Pakistanis will control gas from Iran.
Iraq problem can be solved if Muslim armies under UNO are employed and others go home. But long term as Jinnah suggested type solution be implimented as Iraq mind is very hot headed and same with Kurds. Division of Iraq will solve problems like india pakistan. And they will be all right if India pakistan can live Sunni, Shia, Kurd Islamic republics can live. PIA is needed that P(akistan)+I(ran)+A (a.stan) which will be good for pakistani people, afghan and Irani and USA will not be able to threaten PIA as such combination will be very powerful with huge army and atomic bombs and resources and all can move where there is job need etc like europe.

This just in …

A few days ago Bush got checked for colon cancer. Doctors found nothing alarming. They did find one lump that Bush has not been able to pass. It is being investigated further, but for now, the doctors are calling it "Iraq".

Ranjit #25

Given the utter and total incompetent mess that the US has made with Iraq with its basic peace keeping and national administration, I am not confident at all that it can replicate a yoguslavia here.

Second, it requires a sustained decades long multi-national effort to make sure that yoguslavia works, and i cant see that happening in Iraq, not the funding, not the people, not the police, not anything.

Third, yoguslavia succeeded because the pressure on all the 3 parties worked, everybody was getting something out of it. In this case, while I can see the kurds and possibly the SICRI group getting something out of partition, I cant see what turkey, iran, the mahdi army, the other arabs, etc. getting out of it, so it will be a bit of an issue.

Fourth, the crux of the matter, i simply cannot see how an equitable distribution can be established. Why on earth would the kurds give up their share of the oil to the sunni's in a different country or shia to the sunni's? or or or or.

Not very sure that it will work. In any case, i cannot see or hear any legitimate backing to this idea in any corner of the USA at all. So lord only knows who will push it? The republicans? nope. Democrats? nops. So not very hopeful i am afraid.

cheers

bd

Ranjit

Makes sense... that may be the only viable option left...

Re:beady#18 and harish_hyd
"Well, an orderly transition. I presume along the lines of India and Pakistan?"

The India-Pakistan partition was a good idea that was terribly executed by the british. At the end of the day, both Indians and Pakistanis are very happy with the way things turned out, in fact the Indians are overjoyed at the prospect of not dealing with the kind of crap that Pak society/army is dealing with these days.

I was referring to the Yugoslavian model that was executed very systematically by US and NATO. A deal was reached, borders were demarcated, peacekeepers were deployed and everyone is happy since then.

Coming to the point of external parties, since when has the US cared about their opinions? It can just tell them to take a hike and parition the country since it has physical possession of it. The internal stakeholders will comply since they will immediately get a chance to get power. The Kurds are doing quite well. The Sunnis would prefer to get their own place to rule rather than play second fiddle to the shias and see their people die every day. The Shias may not mind either since it will mean the end of suicide bombings by sunnis. The jihadis are not a party to any dispute and are a "microority" anyway. What we see in Iraq is basically a sectrian civil war. Either one party wins completely like the US civil war, or the parties get tired like in lebanon or they need to be separated physically. If the US doesnt leave, no party can win anything. No one is tired of the fighting either since the US is managing to keep some level of control. Therefore the only option is to separate them out.

The one key thing is to ensure equitable oil revenue sharing and the US can force that on all the three parties. The other thing is to have peacekeepers. That is where the UN, NATO and muslim countries can be pulled in if the US shows leadership. At the end of the day, either the US does this or it will suffer a humiliating loss. It will just retreat and we will see an orgy of a civil war happening along the lines of Lebanon for years in Iraq.

biggest mistake of the bush admin was not so much not getting enough international support (coalition of the willing) while going in but not getting enough of banias in after going in (calling europeans old and denying them the war booty AKA reconstruction ).

"US admin thinks it could do it in 4 years"

iron_mask, in religions-cultural terms the US administration and the American people in general are the most ignorant of the lot. Worse, they cocky about their own ignorance - much like our dime-a-dozen Hindu secularists.

They will always be used by smart outsiders. The saving grace from American point of view is that ultimately, the US being relatively so strong, they are still able to get their way.

beady,

Leaders do not happen, they are created by the people. For leaders to emerge, there has to be some dominant social value and any one that exudes that value emerge as a leader, in response to the hopes and aspirations of its people.

No islamic country can have a leader, because the ultimate is to follow the book. There is no flexibility, there is no dominant value other than literally do what is in the book.

Where there is prescriptive book to follow, as in India, it creates heros, it can make an Albanian Chrisitan into a saint, mother theresa. It can make an italian woman to a national hero and give the chair that a mahatma occupied.

That is why there is no hope for pakistan, no hope for any islamic state, they have to become theocratic states.

Re: # 20
that is why I find it astonishing that the US admin thinks it could do it in 4 years. It needs a much more longer term thinking - its not a short term thing.

Maybe something like the Shia democracy (I donot want to use the other word here for obvious reasons ;) )should be the option here.

Who knows, Crystal ball gazing is best left to the people who can do it!

#16 Posted by iron_mask

well, i would advice slight caution. That's what the interim administration did, went for complete de-baathification. Not good, it created huge problems.

Also, shia democracy is not like what we know as democracy in the west or even in india. its guided democracy to put it politely. Sunni democracy, well, less said the better.

#11 Posted by HP

you are right. At that moment in 2002, it was Plan Rumsfeld all over. March in, kick saddam out, put in chalabi, put in some vague governing federal structure and walk out bearing bottles of shaat al arab water. Now look where they are!

#10 Posted by Ranjit

Well, an orderly transition. I presume along the lines of India and Pakistan? well, it wasnt orderly at all, and in any case, there are way too many parties involved who are against it. Outside Iraq, Turkey is against it, Syria is against it, most of the Arab lands are against it. Iran is ok with it but not with kurdistan coming into play. Internally, you dont have a hope in hell of convincing the sunni, yazdi's to do this, not the baathists, not the al queda buggers, not the tribal chiefs. The SCIRI might be willing to do so, but again, i dont think the mahdi army guys would like it..... And even if it was possible right after the invasion, it most certainly is not right now. And the UN, Arab League or even OIC dont have the troops, money, will or guts to step in to drive something like partition down the throats of the various groups.

#9 Posted by TahirQazi

Tahir Sahib, thank you for your comments. I agree with you wholeheartedly about the Kurd question being more than just Sunni. The history of kurdistan is a long and frequently shameful one. (see an old essay of mine here, http://www.flash-bulletin.de/2003/eSeptember22.htm#5). Oil is indeed a factor in the iraqi imbrogilo and you have identified it as such.

Re: # 13
precisely the point beady - the divisions are deep. And the reason, if I could borrow (or steal) from kaalChakra and Dash_dot (respectively)

Yatha Raja Tatha Praja

If you can trust the king you can trust the people. If the king is a slime ball, some of it will sublimate to the people.

You need a process of a complete cleansing of the stables - starting with the minds and attidues - otherwise everything else will be cosmetic.

#8 Posted by Folio on July 24, 2007 7:50:22 pm
There are no more Nehrus in this world to save us from the tyranny of the likes of George Bush. Alas!

Folio sahib(a), i wouldnt go as far as that, my friend. The tryanny of dubya bush can be rejected, and has been. Let me give you two particular examples. Turkey told Dubya to take a flying jump when they wanted to create a northern front for Iraq. Similarly, India told Dubya to take a swimming leap when they came around asking for troops and stuffies. Even iran is doing that. And none of these countries, during the time that they showed the finger to USA, has had charismatic national leaders like Nehru, Tito, Ataturk, or Khomeini. But these countries have institutions (threadbare, dusty, leaking, corrupt) but institutions none the less which allowed pretty average leaders to be confident that the country was behind them. Once that confidence is there, they could show the proverbial finger. Compare that to other countries whose leaders do not have an institutional structure, who are unable to rely whole heartedly on the country, they buckle under the pressure and trynanny of king george!

#2 Posted by KaalChakra

I am afraid without leaders who can draw the nation together, it will be impossible for Iraq to live on as an independent entity. Take Yoguslavia, India and Pakistan for example. Nehru and company managed to draw india together and developed institutions. Yoguslavia under tito tried to do the same but he didnt manage to develop institutions which could overpower the ethnic chasms and we all know about Pakistan. So while the importance of leaders can be debated, in the case of Iraq, I would say that it is absolutely vital that some form of national leadership (outside the sectarian/group/religious aligned leadership) emerges for it to survive.