| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| War to transform Iraq into another Afghanistan |
| 2003-02-07 |
| Saudi Arabia said Wednesday it feared a U.S.-led war to overthrow Saddam Hussein would transform Iraq into another Afghanistan with rival ethnic and religious factions fighting for power. "If things fall apart, who will come back and bring it all back together?" Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told a news conference. "All the factions inside Iraq will present their visions for a new government like they did in Afghanistan. These are the consequences of a conflict, and if that happens, it will result in the division of Iraq." That isn't necessarily so. They might argue out some sort of a compromise — not that the Soddies could conceive of that being a good thing. But if the country breaks up into pieces, it might be because having a single country there wasn't that good an idea in the first place... Prince Saud said a possible U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and Saddam's ouster would not only splinter his country's neighbor but also set off turmoil in the volatile region. Which is also a terrible idea from the Soddy standpoint, but simply another problem to be dealt with for the rest of us... Prince Saud also asked the United Nations to "give equal attention to the territorial integrity of Iraq" before sanctioning military action. "The goal of military action should not be to punish Iraq or occupy Iraq," he said. "It should result in maintaining Iraqi integrity and independence ... because if internal security is lost I don't think the United Nations, with all its forces, can regain it. There will be a collapse of the administration and that will result in grave consequences for the region... The Security Council is not an authority charged with granting permits to go to war but rather a body called upon to seek peaceful solutions to safeguard security, peace and stability in the world... World peace and security will not be able to be guaranteed without safeguarding the territorial stability and integrity of all countries, including Iraq.â He's talking about Iraq, but he's thinking about Soddy Arabia. If nothing ever, ever changes, then the princes will always, always be in charge... Prince Saud said he had discussed his country's fears with President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, adding: "Our aim is to make the United Nations aware of its responsibility ... not only to (issue) a decree allowing the use of force against Iraq but to have one that would create a force to maintain Iraqi security but not occupy it." That would leave Iraq to its own devices, which likely would involve the factions fighting it out internally until something like Sammy and the Ba'ath arose to clamp "order" on them. Then we could do the same thing again in 20 years... |
| Posted by:Fred Pruitt |
| #6 Welcome to the Republic of Holy Shiiteistan! |
| Posted by: john 2003-02-07 19:16:35 |
| #5 I don't see what would be so terrible about splitting Iraq into ... (iii) Shiiteistan. Except nobody would be able to say "Shiiteistan" at the U.N. without giggling. (Or at the parade of nations at the Olympics) |
| Posted by: Rw 2003-02-07 18:02:29 |
| #4 I don't see what would be so terrible about splitting Iraq into (i) Kurdistan (ii) Iraq (iii) Shiiteistan. Each location would have some of the oil. Even better would be a confederation along the Swiss model including (iv) Syriastan (v) Jordanistan (vi) West Bankistan (vii) Lebenon. One big country with enough oil to spread around and enough oil that they feel they have something to lose if they get uppidy and attack Isreal. Also the big country would be a nice democracy because the US will sit on them and force them to accept democracy. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-02-07 16:56:39 |
| #3 I think the Qaedas will try to move in, but I think there'll be a greater danger from the Paleos, Iran and the Syrians. Along with the Soddies, they're the ones who're going to be on the front line with a western-style regime in Iraq. If a new Iraq gets off the ground, the oil wealth available alone should make the whole country prosperous for as long as the kleptocrats can be controlled. If we make no further moves after Iraq, in ten years that contrast itself will kill all three regimes. Iran, remember, used to be a very prosperous country, especially for the Middle East. |
| Posted by: Fred 2003-02-07 12:11:08 |
| #2 "...transform Iraq into another Afghanistan with rival ethnic and religious factions fighting for power" Sure, when the Saudis start meddling. But Iraq isn't fraught with Arab veteran has-beens from the Afghan-Soviet war, and therefore has a good chance to be a prosperous, normal nation. Although...surely enough, watch for remnants of Al-Qaeda and the other dweebs to stir trouble in the beginning. |
| Posted by: Rw 2003-02-07 11:51:37 |
| #1 "Our aim is to make the United Nations aware of its responsibility ... not only to (issue) a decree allowing the use of force against Iraq but to have one that would create a force to maintain Iraqi security but not occupy it." Sounds like he thinks Chirac is going to cave in before too long. My guess is as soon as he hears the troops have a go-ahead signal, so he can claim not to have been left behind. And I do hope his offer of four airplanes is turned down. This is the force that voted and turned down a mission in Afhanistan, leaving guess-who to rearrange schedules and cover the hole in the line. |
| Posted by: John Anderson 2003-02-07 10:20:13 |