03-07-2003, 07:26 AM
I sure don't think so. The only models that can hold an area that diverse are confederations or empires. Confederations require consensus, and I'm damn near certain they won't make it far past open hostility, if at all. Empires are morally repugnant to the west, but at least they're possible. If we're willing to shelve all the talk about how wonderful democracy would be, and just stick in a new Hussein (or perhaps the Shah would be a better model), Iraq might stay together, but then this would remove all of the moral trappings from the war.
Or we could just let it disintegrate. And that might even work, except that every oil field would suddenly become everyone's holy land, and unless Kofi's got more diplomatic chops than anyone else in history, it's all going to go straight to the crapper.
In a sense, Saddam Hussein is the finger in the dyke; a powerful, charismatic figure whose strength holds back nationalists, whose secular views hold back Islamists, and whose power-hunger holds back Pan-arabists. That's the crux of the (sensible) anti-war movement; removing him opens a pandora's box, and would constitute the greater evil, not the lesser.
Jester
Or we could just let it disintegrate. And that might even work, except that every oil field would suddenly become everyone's holy land, and unless Kofi's got more diplomatic chops than anyone else in history, it's all going to go straight to the crapper.
In a sense, Saddam Hussein is the finger in the dyke; a powerful, charismatic figure whose strength holds back nationalists, whose secular views hold back Islamists, and whose power-hunger holds back Pan-arabists. That's the crux of the (sensible) anti-war movement; removing him opens a pandora's box, and would constitute the greater evil, not the lesser.
Jester