AMERICAN CIVIL WAR ... without a victory, Slavery would probably still be in force.

WORLD WAR 1 was an ongoing struggle between insecure nationstates which did not have any other means of securing borders than alliances.
Germany bound by Treaty to Austria Hungary.
Russia bound by Treaty to Serbia.
France bound by Treaty to Russia.
Britain bound by Treaty to France.

When Austro-Hungary gave an impossible ultimatum to Serbia, war was inevitable. "one thing led to another". (Austro-Hungary could have avoided war if it wanted to. It underestimated the Serbs)

All entirely legitimate alliances for mutually assured security. (as we are with Anzus to the Americans)

PEARL HARBOR did not start in 1941, it began in 1854 when (probably) the Japanese Emporer looked out of his window at the American Gunboat commanded by Commodore Perry, and muttered to himself "This day will go down in infamy" as Japan was forced to open itself to outsiders.

VIETNAM.... was naive and wrong from the start. (American arrogance failed to see true nationalism)

IRAQ.... is interesting. Nationalism..yes, but 3 versions. Shia and Sunni and Kurd plus Iran and Syria in the mix.... not as straight forward as any of the others.

The authors final observations are very true. Which leads to finding a way to 'move the enemy' rather than be moved by him.

CIRCLE/CYCLE
I feel partition along religious ethnic lines would be the best. That leads us back to WW1 with 'alliances'etc..where Turkey would not like any hint of Kurdish nationalism, so... that leads....in a circle, or is it a cycle ?

WHICH LAMB TO SLAUGHTER ?
I suppose the US will have to evaluate the importance of Turkey if it went for partition, and if neccessary be prepared to sacrifice its strategic contribution.

I thought the article was a bit disjointed. It seemed edited to me.

David, slavery was abolished in the French revolution and the ensuing wars the Americans were thew only westerners to hold on to it.

Personally I don't think a divided Iraq would be too bad split off Turkish Kurdistan and let the rest of Turkey in the EU. But then I don't live there and have no idea how the locals feel about it.

Ironically the oil wealth can only be spend when the oil is sold so I am sure that the Iraqi oil will find its way to market regardless of who is in power.

Hi Gusi...
I think the Turks major problem with any semblance of independant Kurdistan is their plan to dam and use the Eurphrates or Tigris water for massive agriculture in the Kurdish area..... Open to correction there, but I did read about it once.

Please have a peek at the 'Caliphate' thread also, I'm sure you can contribute some wisdom.

My mantra is: "Every peace is the result of a war, and every peace contains the seeds of the next war"

If one wanted to dig around in Japanese and German minds I'm sure one could find a considerable number of people who still felt they were hard done by in WW2.
But on the encouraging side of things, at my gym there is a Russian chap around 20, and the other day 2 young German blokes came in for some casual workouts and quickly they and the Russian bloke were the best of friends and went off for a long weekend to the 12 Apostles. Hmm hang on..he has not yet come back :) *wonders*.....

The peace we enjoy here, could easily be destroyed by a radicalization of young and fit aboriginal males, as we saw in one post here.. intimating that they have not taken up arms......yet.
So, the seeds are certainly in our zone, its just that the numbers and wherewithal has not been present to do much about it.

All it would take is an outside power or.. incompatable cultural or religious ideas, to see 'opportunity' in that to destabilize us.
Communism always thrived on social resentment.
I can see it now.
-Radical Muslims connecting with disgruntled Aboriginals
-Unions connected with Radical Muslims
-Saudi Arabia's 'covert' fund supplying funding for huge Mosques or social programs aimed at lifting up Aboriginals living conditions.
-Leftist Unions (like the ETU),Greens and Lefties all having huge 'anti racism' rallies to support the Aboriginal struggle etc....

could get ugly mate.

What if homegrown terrorists coordinate bomb attacks in every major Australian city at the same time. While the army and communities are down on their knees dealing with these disasters they then call in some outside country like some of our hostile muslim neighbours with highly trained armies to the north.

Maybe not yet but at some point in the future.

War usually leads to somebody losing control of their country unless a stalemate develops and the war just goes on for too long, until both sides have so many casualities they call a truce for a decade or two.

"Adapt to the enemy to achieve victory."

Wouldst that we could?

We would be persecuted by the world media if we did try to fight the enemy using their methods.

The West has had to constantly fight these middle eastern battles with one hand tied behind their backs so as not to upset world opinion. The same enemies who plot death to the infidel would not afford us the same niceties.

If the Roman armies had gone in to take Iraq whatever measures needed would have been used to take the country and it would have been all over long ago because they didnt have to fight their wars on world television.

America is shooting itself in the foot with its humanitarian sentiments. Its ok to strive towards a better world but not if it means the ultimate defeat and death of your own people because you use this criteria in battle.

No one should speculate how this war will end - or when - or what the peace might look like if it ever comes - it will certainly not be a democratic and unified Iraq - that was a pipe dream.