Teribus--

As I've said before-and it's actually your own observation--why don't you take credit for it?--based on the Bosnia model, at the end of 16 years, not Iraq, but a part of the wrecked state that used to be called Iraq, may be stable.

Re the "MNF"--does anybody but you call it that?--reminds me of Tom Lehrer and MLF--anyway, the "MNF" casualties from Bush's Iraq debacle already dwarf those of the involvement in the former Yugoslavia. Would you mind telling us how many deaths (non-"Yugoslav" ) there have been in the involvement in the former Yugoslavia? Especially how many UK and US deaths.

I venture to say that had casualty rates been similar, the "MNF" participation in the former Yugoslavia would have been cut short long ago. So your parallel, as usual, is worthless.

And these casualties in Iraq are fated to not result in as stable Iraq, but a split Iraq--no matter what we do.

If this is not so, exactly why?


Those who predict an officially independent Kurdistan are also wrong--for the reason I cited months ago. It will remain de facto, not de jure, independent. And Turkey will therefore not attack except in raids against the PKK--as it is already doing. So those who predict a wider war because of Kurdistan are wrong. And the US will stay in "Kurdistan"--with the enthusastic support of the "Kurdistan" unofficial government.

Regarding the pitiful state of US foreign policy now----Bush is reaping what he sowed. Couldn't happen to a nicer despicable worm, incompetent at anything but propaganda.