My uninformed Opinion........
 

I think Bush and Condi think they can keep it together. I think they are wrong. That is why the Kurds are waiting for the US to pull out before they make their move.

If I were in charge I would pressure the Iraqi government to allow the split. But I think Bush and Condi will see it as a failure on their part if there is a split and really do whatever they can to stop the split. Whether or not they will encourage the rest of Iraq to use force - I don't know.

I think the split is inevitable but I also think the US will try and prevent it which is unfortunate.

Dear God
 

npi. sts. nice one, Spankster!

Dear God
 

I realize I am in the dog house. I promise - soon as Collapse gets here I will tackle it immediately.

Dear God
 

Go to the store, Mr. Works-At-Home. Christ. This is the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

Most of my friends think I am crazy, but I think the Ethnic Nation State is what people gravitate towards. I think that it is the natural state of politics. That is why the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czeckoslavakia never really had a chance. If you look at Europe it eventually ended up split along ethnic lines. There are a few exception like Belgium (which is on the verge of splitting) and Switzerland. I think the only reason Austria has not merged with Germany is because of WWII. It would freak everyone out. Swizerland is really the only exception.

Stalin understood this that is why when he gave Eastern Germany (Prussia - Pomerania, Silesia and Kalingrad) to Poland he cleaned out all the Germans and made them move to the rump of Germamy. He gave Konigsberg to Russia, cleaned out all the Germans and renamed it Kalingrad. He Knew that if he left the Germans they would eventually want to reunify with a greater Germany.

I think the Middle East has not had the chance to do what comes naturally. Mainly because it was colonized and random lines were drawn. But I think eventually all of the states will change to conform to ethnic boundaries. That means eventually a unified Arabia. All the people want it is just the leaders that don't. All the leaders have to give unity lip service when the run for office. The main goal of the Baathist party was Arab unification. But when they took power in Syria and Iraq the leaders did not want to give up control to a larger state and betrayed the goals of the revolution. But eventually the people will win. I think eventually the Kurds will have their own state.

The Azerbaijanis in Northern Iran will eventuall split from Iran and merge with Azerbaijan. And in the longer term Turkey will merge with all the turkih states in Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Turkemenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kirgistan). Stalin tried to prevent Turkish nationalism by split up the Turks into smaller ethnic groups and trying to give them separate identities (hence the names of the countrys). But I don't think this really worked. Turkmen and Uzbekis really think of theselves as Turks.

The Tajiks are persian speakers. I think they will eventually merge with the Tajiks in Afghanistan and with Iran. I think the Pashtuns in Afghanistan will merge with the Pashtuns in Pakistan. So Afghanistan will split in three. The North Eastern portion joining Turkistan, the center merging with a greater Persia and the Easter part becomin part of a greater Pashtunistan. The Baluchis in South Western Pakistan will merge with the Baluchis in Souther Afghanistan and south western Iran. Then of course Pakistan will fall apart, leaving Sindh, the Punjab, Baluchistan becoming part of a greater Baluchistan and the Northwest Frontier merging with the Afghan pashtuns to form a greater Pashtunistan.

I think the Chinese understand this and that is why they are doing ethnic cleansing. IN Sinkiang (Eastern Turkistan) provice the people will always want to merge with the Turks on the other side of the border. That is why the Chinese are moving the Han Chines into Sinkiang and into Tibet. They already did it with Outer Mongolia. Outer Mongolia is only 12% Mongolian now because of the Chinese ethnic dilution program. But with out the cleansing the underlying nationlist force stays.

I am not saying this will happen immediately but I think that these national aspiration will always exist under the surface and so eventually that pressure will win. The only way to stop it is with ethnic cleansing.

I know - I am crazy. But it what I think.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

I generally agree, but with the caveat that there are alternatives to a nation-state, such as an independent polity within a larger federal state. I suspect we will see both ethnic nations seeking self-government as a theme of the century and the development of increasing stronger coalitions of states like the EU.

Someone pointed out the big issue before though, which is the places where many ethnicities share one geography, which defines much of the MiddleEast. These will always be unique areas.

Also, the Swiss are one ethnicity, even if they are bound together more by cleanliness and precision than by common language. A german speaking Swiss has much more in common with a French-speaking one than with another German speaker.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

I think they don't like eachother, just like the Flemish and Walloons in Belgium but are smart enough to see the advantage of their unity.

I just don't think people feel comfortable sharing a government with people who don't speak the same language. They just don't want someone who speaks another language to control their fate. And for some weird reason people feel that need to unite with their linguistic brethern. I guess people think there is strenght in numbers. There is also some romantic nationalist element also.

In the middle East there is not as much Ethnic mixing as you might think. Kurdistan is pretty continuous and there are not a lot of non kurds in their populated areas. In Pakistan and Afghanistan there really is not much mixing. Obviously in the cities there is some mixing but the countryside is mainly ethnically pure and in these countries the overwhelming majority of the population is rural. On the borders there is some mixing (like Iraqi Kurdistan) but is usually government influenced, like Iraq, and when the government influence waines the lines start getting clearer again - like is happening now in Iraqi Kurdistan.

I once drew an Ethnic map of the middle east and you would be surprized how easy it is to divide people up by ethnic lines. It would not be hard for the middle east to become like Europe.

My crazy theory...
 

I should add that I once told Dr. Rice about my theory (when she was at Stanford) and she did not buy into it. She thought the current lines in the middle east could become stable nation states with secure borders. That is why I am pretty sure the Bush administration is not going to want to see Kurdistan split and that they don't think it is inevitable.

My crazy theory...
 

This is one of the scariest things you've ever said.

My crazy theory...
 

So let me ask a procedural question here:

You and I seem to have a very similar view of where Iraq should be going (and I don't pretend to expertise here, just a series of ideas that seem supported by what I see). However, you are very defensive of the administration and their policies, while I frankly feel like they are out of touch and not listening to people with ideas. I find them stubborn and closeminded.

Is the difference just that you have bought into a "team" and declared you faithfulness to the Republican party? Without your clearly deeply-felt party loyalty, what would you think of this administration right now?

My crazy theory...
 

Sorry - didn't mean to freak you out. I should have kept it to myself. When I remembered the conversation I get a little scared. I think it was a good idea to get rid of Saddam and the Taliban but I think the administration will be fighting against the natural order of things if they try and keep Afghanistan and Iraq together.

I really hope she is right and I am wrong.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

You'd be a lousy fortune teller. Nobody wants to hear about the present.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

Dude, can I have some of your cash?

My crazy theory...
 

I really don't like dictators especially ones that really abuse their populations. And especially in countrys where the population is pretty educated and affluent. In poor uneducated countrys you usually exchange one dictator for another (Africa). I think Iraqis are a sophisticated enough country (I think most Arab states fall into this catagory) where a democracy could work and a dictator is not inevitable.

I don't care about US Stratigic Interest. I think our interest lie in there being as many prosperous free market democracyes in the world as possible. That should be our main foreign policy goal.

Saddam Hussein was really brutal and needed to be taken out and I think the Iraqi people can take to democracy. Also when democracies form people usually gravitate to the natural order (nation states).

We will never have stability in the middle east until it is divided by ethnic lines and there are stable prosperous democracies. I think that is inevitable (I should also add that I think democracy is invetible for all societies also - especially when they become affluent). If they stay poor democracy is not inevitable, but econmies will grow if government let them. Unfortunately that is not happening in Africa.

I think taking out Saddam Hussein was a good thing. I think setting up a democracy is a good thing. I think training the Iraq army is a good thing. Those are all steps towards creating a peaceful middle east. Where I differ from the Administration is trying to keep the Kurds and the Arabs together. Same goes for Afghanistan.

I differ with the Administration on many issues (they consider me a problem) but on the issue of taking out Saddam and building a democracy I totally concur.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You been reading too much Chomsky, and listening to too many fellow travellers with cotton in their ears. Liberals - those seeking big govt and wealth redistribution - are deader than Gilligan.

Moderates are grumbling, and demaning a middle-of-the-road candidate. We're all sick of stupid goddamned fiscal liberals wasting money and stupid goddamned alleged republicans who spend like idiot fiscal liberals doing the same.

Here's what 99.999999 % of people want:

1. Decent govt, with a minimal social safety net;

2. Less wasteful pork (bridges to nowhere while stem cell research dies on the vine? WTF???);

3. Less govt interference in our lives (we're regulated to the point of insanity... every do-gooder dimwit thinks the govt can solve our problems by "passing a law" or "issuing a reg" - ENOUGH already);

4. Less taxes; and

5. Less stupid social/private issues like abortion hijakcing the more important debates on fiscal matters).

I see a nation sick of idiots on the far left and right bickering about nonsense, gridlocking all the imprtant businss we have to do. We don't have the luxury anymore of debating nonsense like abortion, or listening to douchebags crying for more social welfare programs. Liberals and Arch-Conservatives have blown their wads. They're done, soon.