« Green Aviation? | Main | Home heating »

October 31, 2006


James Bowery

Ignoring, for the moment, the principle of freedom, has there ever been a rational analysis of accessionism vs secessionism from the perspective of that absence of violence is the ultimate public good?

Account Deleted

So the main opponents, according to Cole, are a Saudi theocracy and a Turkish military occupation force, both of whom are oppressing minorities?

Heaven help us when our foreign policy is guided by their interests!


I think Coles worries regarding Sunni state (Sauds) opposition are salient. Consider the verbose put forth by Egypt, Jordan and the Sauds shortly into the Lebanese/Israeli/Hezbollah conflict just past. A condemnation of Hezbollah (quite contrary to usual statements regarding a Zionist state.)

An effective expansion of the Shia sect through an Iraqi quasi state of the same, coupled with Irans nuclear ambitions seem like more than enough to draw the concern and ire of the Sunni states to the west. What's next? A regional arms race? It's certainly conjecture but worth consideration.

The Turkish aspect opens an even bigger can of worms. In the short term, Turkey's want for EU status might well eclipse any martial considerations they might have regarding Kurdistan. My biggest question? Given the PKK's Marxist proclivities what will a Kurdish state look like in ten years?


If we partition Iraq, Iran will splinter.


"That doesn't really matter, since it is one of the only ideas left. In essence, the idea is: scale the state down to a level where it aligns with primary loyalties and can create an acceptable level of efficiency in its problem solving."

The idea is to cloak your intentions with percieved idiocy, like "staying the course" when failure seems evident. This could be why Rummy and others have not been canned. As Turkey will get fucked, the partition is engineered to be unavoidable. We can deny that it was ever in our plans.


"If we partition Iraq, Iran will splinter."

Really? Interesting. How and why?



Polling data from Egypt in the wake of the Hizb-Israeli conflict demonstrated that the two most popular political figures were Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad. This is not a religious judgement made by Egyptian Sunnis/Christians, but a political judgement that reflects the fact that Hizb and Iranian political stances are more closely attuned to regional sentiments than those of their "collaborationist" governments, and that the source of those stances is a rigorous rejection of US control, and a firm insistence on independence.

Whilst it is rhetorically useful ( or possibly desperate ) for Jordan, Egypt and Saudi to try to cast events in a sectarian religious light, the anxiety that they are really expressing is that they lack domestic legitimacy, and the fact on the ground that they cannot tolerate is that there is are alternate political models which can be pursued if the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi people just throw the bums out.

The comments to this entry are closed.