January 4, 2007

WHICH COLONY SHOULD THE LOYALISTS HAVE GOTTEN TO KEEP?:

If Iraq fragments, what's Plan B?: A partitioned Iraq, which could preempt violent ethnic cleansing, looks ever more likely to many experts (Peter Grier, 1/05/06, The Christian Science Monitor)

The US might need actively to aid Iraqis in relocating to parts of the country where they feel safer, says [Michael] O'Hanlon. This sort of resettlement assistance wouldn't be unprecedented, he notes. The US did it in Bosnia.

Such a policy would perhaps preempt the violent Balkans-style ethnic cleansing that is already occurring in Iraq, O'Hanlon says. Sectarian strife is displacing 100,000 Iraqis a month.

"One-third to one-quarter of the ethnic cleansing that might occur [in Iraq] has occurred," says O'Hanlon.


Of course these supposed long thinkers are just as guilty of short-term thinking, having failed to consider the question of why the Shi'a should tolerate any Sunni state in the former Iraq.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 4, 2007 7:33 PM
Comments

Didn't they get to keep Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Barbados?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 4, 2007 10:37 PM

No, they were stuck with them for losing the war.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2007 12:16 AM

They got to keep Canada.

Posted by: Brandon at January 5, 2007 10:47 AM

They never had Canada. The Sunni can have Arabia too, just not Iraq.

Posted by: oj at January 5, 2007 11:00 AM
« LEARNING TO LOVE THE SIGMOIDOSCOPE: | Main | YOU GONNA LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD SELF-RIGHTEOUS HISSY FIT?: »