> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2271755,00.html
>
> Iraq's salvation lies in letting it break apart
> The partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi'ite areas
> is the only route to peace, writes Peter Galbraith
This is the rub: if people like Peter Galbraith want Iraq disunited, then naturally one feels that it would be rather a Good Thing if they were disappointed.
I wondered back when the war started whether tripartition of Iraq was or was not an explicit and conscious war aim in either Washington or Jerusalem. I could imagine that some of the wilder-eyed Likudniks might have believed it would be desirable. But since I wasn't in the room when the decision was made, I dunno.
If tripartition _was_ a goal, it seems odd that nobody figured out that Iran would be a big winner. I guess that's an argument against the tripartitionist hypothesis. Or maybe not; maybe they were wild-eyed enough to smash up Iraq on the assumption that there would be no problem going on to smash up Iran.
Anyway, whether tripartition was or was not a war aim, it seems to have occurred, or to be inexorably occurring. So even if Peter Galbraith likes it, presumably we have to swallow hard and realistically accept the fact: the baddies won at least that much, if it was what they wanted, or at any rate they made it happen whether they wanted it or not.
--
Michael J. Smith
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org