Justin said the following:

>Kurdistan would be invaded/gassed by Turkey. (thats a definite, we made a
>deal with Turkey that we wouldn't let this happen)
>
>Sunnistan would be invaded by Iran.
>
>Shi'istan would not sit well with Saudi Arabia and be a satellite state for Iran.
>
>on second thought, this might keep the Radical Muslim sect turned on each
>other rather than against us. . . hmmm. . . how selfless we are to look out for
>thier stability at our expense.
>
>Diversity still has its advantages.

This was one of the factors behind the Iran-Iraq War. The devil finds work for idle hands. Keep the Iranians and Iraqis busy killing each other so they won't cause mischief for more important neighbors. There was also the added plus that one could sell armaments to both sides (the French and Russians made piles of money doing that). Iran's mullahs are world class villans. An Iranian boy who sat next to me in a German language class fled his homeland because he didn't want to clear land mines. The muillahs would have young boys (untrained in war) walk in a straight line towards the battle front with each separated from the other by about 4 feet. The boy that made it all the way through without setting off a land mine provided a safe path for older trained soldiers to follow.

Looking at this cynically, the problem with having two barbarian nations slugging it out is they won't end up killing each other off completely. Instead they fight to exhaustion and then what's left is the product of extreme Darwinism. The survivors then become prime material for Al Qeida recruitment (witness Afghanistan).

Allowing Iraq to divide into three separate states would be evidence of our failure. A successful outcome is to have Iraq remain a single state under a Turkish style democracy with a low tolerance toward Islamic extremism.

Gary