Quote:
I reiterate my request to look at what the US did to the Kurds in the 1950's. Once we were done, i.e. had regime change in Iran and oil was flowing to British Petroleum again, we turned them over to the Iranians, the Turks, the Syrians and the Iraqis for extermination. Two things are amazing. They survived and they agreed to fight for us again against Hussein. They are smarter now because they have essentially learned that they have to cut out their own territory and control their own resources to survive when they are surrounded by traditional enemies.
This same principle applies to each and every group that have been "used" as freedom fighters until regime change occurs in a desired manner, then they are branded terrorists when they have moved past their usefulness, become expendable and/or grumble about their treatment.
This has always been the guiding principle for us (whatever colonial power du jour) to control obstreperous countries. A single individual is easier to bribe or coerce to do your bidding. The real problem in Iraq was the artificial boundaries placed on countries in the middle east that cut across tribal boundaries. Rather the best option would have been to define countries based on tribal boundaries, then educate them to forms of government. The problem began with mistrust between tribal groups and never improved. The idea of a "strong man" is always predicated on fear or brutality to generate obedience. To which the sponsors turn a blind eye as long as exports flow.
The whole of North Africa and middle east through India was carved up by the colonial powers following WWII so as to not be too stable and thereby not difficult to bring to heal. Look at the India/Pakistan issues. Read 
