Again, I find myself not quite sure what Hitchens is saying here except, and unless, it is the McCain position of keeping US troops in "as long as is necessary." That could never be defined scientifically, of course, and Hitchens doesn't try. But I cannot understand why a tri-partition plan is so terrifically out of the question.
I don't know, of course, but I should think that Hitchens would grudgingly support a tri-state settlement *if* a substantial amount of US troops were garrisoned in Iraq afterwards to preside over it for a good deal of time. I can understand that view and, I should think, Biden wouldn't want to carve up three pieces and then immediately walk away either.
But I don't think it can be plausibly denied that Iraq is a shockingly naive and arrogant creation of early 20th century colonialism. The sharp lines and neatly geometrical angles throughout the Middle East and Africa do, indeed, have much to do with unrest throughout the region and it cannot be expected to continue without continued unrest and tribal warfare. So, what do we do? Continue with this naivete and keep Iraq intact as envisioned by elitist, ignorant men? Can anyone confidently state that there is an Iraq or Iraqis left to us to keep intact?
I just don't know how else to get out of this without terrific amounts of more instability and unrest than a tri-state solution. Obama has, quite rightly, stated that there are only bad options and terrible options left to us. And it seems that if Hitchens (or McCain, or Biden, or Obama, or anyone) wants to try something at least somewhat sensible, maintain Kurdish autonomy, and keep other Middle Eastern states from intervening militarily, they have one "bad" option left to them.
I don't know, of course, but I should think that Hitchens would grudgingly support a tri-state settlement *if* a substantial amount of US troops were garrisoned in Iraq afterwards to preside over it for a good deal of time. I can understand that view and, I should think, Biden wouldn't want to carve up three pieces and then immediately walk away either.
But I don't think it can be plausibly denied that Iraq is a shockingly naive and arrogant creation of early 20th century colonialism. The sharp lines and neatly geometrical angles throughout the Middle East and Africa do, indeed, have much to do with unrest throughout the region and it cannot be expected to continue without continued unrest and tribal warfare. So, what do we do? Continue with this naivete and keep Iraq intact as envisioned by elitist, ignorant men? Can anyone confidently state that there is an Iraq or Iraqis left to us to keep intact?
I just don't know how else to get out of this without terrific amounts of more instability and unrest than a tri-state solution. Obama has, quite rightly, stated that there are only bad options and terrible options left to us. And it seems that if Hitchens (or McCain, or Biden, or Obama, or anyone) wants to try something at least somewhat sensible, maintain Kurdish autonomy, and keep other Middle Eastern states from intervening militarily, they have one "bad" option left to them.
