« REPORT: DEVELOPING FIRST RESPONDER CAPABILITY | Main | ARTICLE: NIGHT OF THE LONE WOLVES »

November 25, 2007

Comments

Eddie

So one could presume that following Tony Zinni's advice and "preempting" conflicts outright by carefully deploying assets of influence and power to the scene beforehand could play a role in future Sudanese conflicts? Obviously, it will be much easier to negotiate with one or two rebel groups and the government compared to the disaster we face now in Dar Fur.

A fascinating post and I would love to get a copy of whatever essay or monograph Kimberly Zisk Marten wrote WRT her third way. (its not available at the link you provided).

A.E.

Eddie, I thought her article was only accessible in the journal. But I was able to find a copy of it at the Belfer Center site. Enjoy :)

http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/831/warlordism_in_comparative_perspective.html?breadcrumb=%2Fexperts%2F998%2Fkimberly_marten

subadei

I'm a bit divided on Linds take. In one respect his angle on letting the Shia majority rule (though I don't think Iran is as pervasive an element) is one that I agree with. But he doesn't (unless I missed something) address the Iraqi Sunni nor the Kurd elements? Certainly Jordan and Syria will absorb some but not all displaced Sunni's. What of the rest? A quasi state in much the same fashion of Palestine? A tribal region that mirror's that of Pakistans NW frontier? Or does he assume some degree of integration?

Where does this leave the Kurd's who've been the "silver lining" thus far? Apologies for wandering away from the initial point of your post and these questions are best put to the author but I'd like your take.

A.E.

Soob,

I don't wholly agree with Lind's approach either. I think that we still have some power to influence the political outcome, but it will be after we're gone and in cooperation with other regional states (especially Iran). As for what'll happen to the Kurds (and other outcomes), I would say that no one really knows for sure. Considering that any withdrawal would begin in 2009 (when the new president comes into office), that's a very long time in which much on the ground could change. The only thing we can be certain of is this downward trajectory in our strategic progress.

The comments to this entry are closed.