« A long time ago... | Main | Another year, another APSA »

August 29, 2006



The logic of your argument against the mini-emirate possibility seems flawed. You say,

" It is difficult to believe that a post-American Iraqi government would tolerate such an al-Qaeda entity in its midst."

But of course the entire point of the failed state is that the post-withdrawal Iraqi government likely won't have effective authority in Sunni areas like al-Anbar, so what it would tolerate is irrelevant. The question is whether the local Sunni population would object to al-Queada's presence. Maybe they would if the question was put in isolation, but if you factor in likely conflict with the Shias, probably not. To think otherwise you'd have to believe the Sunnis would choose to fight a two front war against both al-Queada and the Shia. Wouldn't they be more likely to take allies wherever they could find them against the Shia? You might not have an Al-Queada dominated mini-emirate, but you could certainly see a modus vivendi in which Al-Queada is allowed to train and operate against other nations in the region in return for help in the Iraqi civil war.


I just saw you referenced in a Newsweek article. Congrats.


ali hasan

Why you never mention of"oil factor" as the real background of cheney's intention of keeping american force in iraq?I think by now halyburton cs is pumping oil out of iraq's soil around the clock.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad