I propose that I give this thread a topic title so people actually know what the hell it's about.
Well thanks for that.
Also, we can pull the private businesses out, unless they wanna stay without military support.
That is quite impossible. Too many contracts have been signed that promise X number of years of support for $X millions. Granted, some of these contractors have become victim to corruption... but that is inevitable when you have the circulation of sooooo much money (just look at the relief effort after Hurricane Katrina).
Nothing any time soon. You now have to fix the mess caused by Bush so you have to leave the troops there till Iraq settles down. If it takes 5 years then good. IF it takes 10 then thats the time you have to stay there. You owe it to the 100,000 people murdered for no real reason.
Will it settle down? Peacefully? Over time will the insurgency lose momentum?
Personally i think Iraq will fragment. And you would get a new palestine. Each side pissed off at the other for having resources and arguing and fighting over it. It's going to be a long long time before it settles down to any reasonable level.
This seams to be the most feasible. However, a Delaware Senator (Joe Biden) has suggested this but was ridiculed for the decision. Apparently this has already been tried and failed miserably. I haven't seen any data backing this up, but I also haven't done a great deal of research.
Yes, splitting up the country is how it will likley end, perhaps kind of a federal system. After all, the only reason, why Iraq had been stable, was that Sadam violently oppressed any opposition.
So as an suggestion i would split up the country into federal states and a higher institution. But i am not sure, how the balance of power should be between the federal states, and the above roof institution, but the ressoures should be shared equally with the headcount as important factor (the bigger fraction gets more resources). That way the whole conflicts might settle down, and the US troops might be able to leave sooner.
Much like the US started under the Articles of Confederation? Basically, the 13 colonies were mostly autonomous, each given a governor and unicameral (is that the word?) house of government. Then, at the top, was Congress, which actually had very little national authority. They could declare war and negotiate trade with other countries... but that was about it.
It's not impossible. It's exactly what happened in vietnam. Look it up. Which is exactly why I've been wondering how the hell it's taking so long to raise a security force there, especially with so many ex-military citizens there. Mind you, Delta Force had a harder job in 'Nam. They didn't have anywhere near as much money or support as they do now.
As the republicans have been telling us... this is not Vietnam.
The war (I believe) is much like Vietnam. It is the reconstruction that is different. We are dealing with a far more diverse group of people that hold religion in a much higher tear of their society than the Vietnamese do, in my opinion.
We aren't pulling out anytime soon. Haven't you guys heard, the only reason the US went in there is to steal all the oil and we haven't even begun to pump Iraq dry.
Touché.
If the US government can handpick who is in charge (which in some parts of their ministry, the US can), then any future contracts and agreements will certainly be a little more biased. The US will not so blatantly start signing oil contracts now because everyone is waiting for them. They will wait a little.
Metaphor time.
You have an alchoholic friend. One night, he calls you and says "I got drunk at the bar, come get me." Sure, he's your friend, so you'll go get him. It's your kid's birthday party, and your buddy gets smashed in front of everyone, embarrassing you. It's ok, his wife left him, or whatever. He just needs some time. He asks you to spot him some money, because he got tipsy at the casino, and gambled away the life savings you gave him to invest in that new internet company.
Get where I'm going with this? There's helping, and then there's coddling.
No. I don't get where you are going. What is the US doing, helping or coddling? If that metaphor were true you would have to be responcible for giving him all of that alcohol... after all, it was the US invasion that distabalized the country in the first place... now we have to fix it.