Iraq should be 3 states...

[Some Moran]

Why must the U.S. limit itself to an artificial British construct created through the merger of three Ottoman provinces with nothing in common?

[leftofthedial]

1. yup

Texas, Georgia and Kansas

[Some Moran]

3. Hey now...

At least they have the same ethnic and religious majority...lol

Why not make Iraq into 3 countries using the old Ottoman provincial borders, as they were created to keep the peace between ethnic and religious groups who has trouble living together.

[leftofthedial]

7. they clearly ARE three countries, but . . .

the Turks won't allow a Kurdish nation on their border (Halliburton wouldn't be too keen on giving up the oil reserves either);

the Shiite nation in the south would become a defacto province of Iran and the GOPNAC and Halliburton wouldn't like that;

and the Sunni nation in the center would be even better able to focus on shooting down American helicopters and setting off roadside bombs; Halliburton DEFINITELY wouldn't like that--GOPNAC wouldn't care except for the political fallout.

three strikes and you're out

[La_Serpiente]

2. The Turks aren't going to like that

Turkey is TOTALLY opposed to a Kurdish state. They don't want any Kurdish influence in the region really.

Also, Bush and his cronies don't want the Southern Part of Iraq to become another Iran.

And with the Sunnies, the same power hegemony would be in place for the Sunnis.

I am not sure if it would solve anything really. Maybe Turkey would invade Kurdistan after the US leaves. Also, perhaps Saudi Arabia would go in for the kill in Sunni or Shiite controlled territory. The same could be said for the Iranias.

[Sufi Marmot]

16. Turkey should be strongly encouraged to get used to the idea...

I don't see why Turkey couldn't be coerced/cajoled into accepting an independent Kurdistan if the following conditions applied:

1) A healthy bribe..er...payoff to the Turkish government from the US/EU to buy their cooperation.

2) A NATO-backed guarantee that its Southern border will remain inviolte - sorry to the Kurds living in Turkey, but there's no way that Turkey is going to cede territory, just not going to happen...At least with an independent Kurdistan Turkish Kurds have a choice of remaining in Turkey or relocating to Kurdistan, analagous to Russian Jews relocating to Isreal.

3) Admission of Turkey into the EU is conditional upon acceptance of indepdent Kurdistan, per #2.

4) Ethnic Turkmen living in Kurdistan are protected - any ethnic discrimination/violence against them and the UN or NATO gets directly involved.

5) As an exchange for #2, Turkey stops cultural repression against Kurds who remain in Turkey.

It looks good on paper at least...

-SM

[wuushew]

4. Iraq should be whatever the Iraqis want

Every nation in the middle east has arbitrary borders superimposed on a traditional tribal culture that doesn't recognize borders. Does Yemen even have fixed borders with Oman?

[Aidoneus]

5. what right would they have to break it up?

imperialists in history refer to that as "divide and conquer"..

[Wonk]

8. We could call them Kellogg, Brown and Root

:+

[Scurrilous]

13. Or..

..Regular, Supreme, and Hi-Test.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Gee. Wasn't it some guy with a cookie cutter...

...that got us into this mess to begin with? This stuff is for them to decide. Not us.

Don

[RandomUser]

9. That would be a mistake

This issue is not for us to decide. We can't arbitrarily decide to partition a country. And an independent Kurd state will create regional instability with Turkey and make things worse.

[Isome]

10. I believe he was being sarcastic...

That's why the pointed mention of the British lines of demarcation that, IMO, contribute to the current tensions. (Just think of the sideways oil drilling allegation against Kuwait by Iraq -- Gulf War I.)

[Bombtrack]

11. You'd disagree if you read Fareed Zakarias book

I don't have time to get into it all right now but you should read it.

[Adjoran]

12. That is in no one's interests.

The Kurdish province in the north would ome under strong pressure from both Turkey and Iran, who fear their own Kurdish minorities would seek to secede to join a new Kurdistan.

The Sunni sections of Bahgdad and points northwest would be ripe for picking by Syria.

The Shi'ites in the south and east would be swiftly dominated by Iran.

The Saudis would view all this as threatening their own regime, and use all their US and British arms to stop Iran or Syria from gaining influence on their border.

If we want to bring peace to the region, this is the worst possible idea. The central government must be turned over to Iraqi control. If they wish to grant autonomy to the various regions after a true democratic process, then so be it. But they should make those decisions for themselves, after the US is OUT.

[minto grubb]

14. The problem in Iraq is...

it seems to me that Britain in the olden days would go into a region and stop all this tribal squabbling between the natives, and when they went, all the old troubles are back.
Saddam kept the country together by violently suppressing the minorities, but after America pulls out, either Saddam will return, or we will see more bitter ethnic in fighting between the various factions...
I do not have any answers, just saying what we should be aware of, and try to avoid.
Do we on the left believe in intervention? Is the Anglo American coalition going to continue to be the world's policeman? for how long, and at what cost?

[Wonk]

15. Hi. Welcome to DU :-)

http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml

[Isome]

18. go into a region and stop all this tribal squabbling

By killing them.

[Lexingtonian]

17. basically

If Iraq got broken up that way the pieces would be too small to be selfsustaining or genuinely autonomous. Each piece would get hijacked by some interest or foreign power in no time.

In the Middle East political boundaries have traditionally been defined by cities and local potentates' reach into the countrysides- by the allegiance of populations- rather than imaginary lines among anonymous sand dunes. The problems of drawing sharp border lines for nation states in the Middle East has always been a problem- the peoples involved tend to form ethnic and linguistic and cultural continuums everywhere around the Fertile Crescent.

In short, since no other country around them is willing to get broken up to make for more "natural" boundaries Iraq is headed for becoming a confederation of several units, arguably three.

[Sufi Marmot]

19. But....

In the Middle East political boundaries have traditionally been defined by cities and local potentates' reach into the countrysides- by the allegiance of populations- rather than imaginary lines among anonymous sand dunes. I'm not convinced that regressing into city-states is a sensible model - in unstable and violent countries where this is likely to happen, doesn't this lead to the type of situation that exists in Afghanistan with regional warlords battling each other while the country is reduced to rubble? To me it makes more sense to try to build nations that are more or less homogenous ethnically or religiously (or which at least comprise different ethnicities/religions which can coexist peacefully), with a stable central government. I'm not saying that if Iraq was paritioned everything would be ideal, but to me it seems important to prevent Iraq from turning into Afghanistan or Rwanda.


If Iraq got broken up that way the pieces would be too small to be selfsustaining or genuinely autonomous. Each piece would get hijacked by some interest or foreign power in no time.

Not necessarily...I mean, sometimes those tiny countries, if they're strategically important, become adept at playing off larger powers against each other. Think Azerbaijan (playing off Russia, the US, Turkey, and Iran against each other...) Or, for an alternative argument, doesn't it make sense to try to break Iraq into ethnically/religiously sensible pieces if the alternative is to try to force it to remain a cohesive entity. Any partitioning would leave some people unhappy, but it theoretically it would at least make formation of stable governments in each of the three pieces easier...

If the Shiite part falls under Iran's influence, so be it, as long as it's not being used as a haven for terrorists. I would note that Azerbaijan is also predominantly Shiite and has mostly kept Iran at arms' length, perhaps because it is ethnically Turkic. It's not clear to me how much political (as opposed to religious) influence Iran would have over Shiite Arabs. And Iran seems to be slouching towards liberalization in fits and starts anyway...

I'm not sure who would influence the Sunnis - Jordan? Syria? Saudi Arabia? Maybe it would make more sense if Arab Iraq were kept intact minus Kurdistan - I have no idea if this is tenable or would just lead to secterian violence...

I posted above what I think is a sensible solution for Kurdistan

Obviously the US wants to have influence in all areas of Iraq and obviously our current administration will operate in Iraq in a self-serving manner. But I would think that under a less rapacious American government, along with lots of support from the rest of the world, Iraq could possibly be partitioned sensibly in a manner that allows its pieces to be self sustaining. It would probably require UN peacekeeping troops for 10-15 years, as well as buying the cooperation of a lot of local politicians.

In short, since no other country around them is willing to get broken up to make for more "natural" boundaries Iraq is headed for becoming a confederation of several units, arguably three. Given the unfortunate recent histories of those groups (namely Sunni Arab persecution against Shia Arabs and Kurds) is it really likely that such an entity would willingly remain a confederation?

-SM

[tkmorris]

20. There's a problem here

which never gets spoken of much for some reason. You people who object to the parting out of Iraq into smaller nations are exactly correct of course, it would create enormous problems. However, keeping Iraq intact creates just as many.

These people don't like each other. They don't get along. Their report card reads "does not play nice with others".

Therein lies your problem. As much as people like to demonize Saddam (and they are correct to do so, he was an asshole) The fact is it takes someone like him to keep together such a disparate group. Saddam was brutal yes, but he had to be. If he hadn't been he would've been assassinated and replaced. If you want to keep this country whole you had better be prepared to crack down HARD on those who don't agree with your vision. Because they are legion and they WILL kill you.

That's the point which is so overlooked in the argument over whether it was worth it to remove Saddam. Saddam was brutal, yes, but he had to be in order to keep Iraq stable. Had he been less so, he would have failed to keep Iraq intact and probably been killed. If you want a more benevolent ruler you had better be willing to accept a more fractioned country.

Please be clear here. I am no Saddam apologist. I simply want it understood that if you remove such a person what you leave is an anarchic mess. Americans may well find that they have become that which they despise. The despotic, brutal ruler. That is if they can see past the CNN propaganda.

[RandomUser]

22. That is the key to democracy

Tolerance and the ability to accept diametrically oppposed viewpoints. Look at America, where the far right and the far left hate each other. The key is to get them to settle disagreements in an agreed upon civil manner. Are the various Iraqi factions ready to do that? The idealogues of the various factions aren't, because they're fighting to fill the power vacuum right now. But the moderate constituents are.

There is indeed a common "Iraqi" identity that transcends the need for Saddam's fear to hold them together. Just as there is a common "American" identity that holds Republicans and Democrats together. For instance, during the Iraq/Iran war, many of the Iraqi Shiites sided with their fellow Iraqi non-Shiite brethern against Iran, despite the efforts of the Iranian Shiites to get them to turncoat and fight with them against Saddam. The Iraqi Shiites may not like Saddam, but they do identify as Iraqis first and Shiites second.

This is also the reason many Iraqi Shiites are skeptical of SCIRII, an Iranian backed Shiite group in Iraq right now.

Even without a despotic ruler, there is a common Iraqi identity. And as long as this exists, they would not want to be partitioned, nor would it be right of us to partition them. Are there people in the various factions who would want to partition (like the Kurds)? Yes. But there are many who would not want the partition, because they identify as Iraqis. The key is to get them into a democratic way of thinking, and civil dialogue patterns that allow for diverse political views to challenge each other in a non-violent way. Just as Democrats and Republicans attack each other in elections and struggle for power.

Democracy and the establishment of a stable Iraq does not mean a harmonized, uniform way of thinking. It just means the participants are willing to put down their rpgs and adopt elections and campaigns as the weapon of choice. They'll likely be fighting for centuries, just as the Democrats and Republicans will. There is no contradiction between factions fighting each other for power and democracy -- that is the root of democracy.

[MSchreader]

21. Iraq should be...

However many states the people of Iraq decide -- one, three or 52. It's their choice, not ours.

Martin

[JackRiddler]

23. This is insane...

And it's going to be the Bush plan, too: divide and conquer.

This is a prescription for Yugoslavia-times-ten.

How do you deal with minorities within each of the three putative states?

Imperial-drawn borders or not, putting them to question now is the road to ethnic madness and war. The goal should be a single, secular state with federal units accommodating all of the peoples.

This is something for countries to decide in peace and prosperity: Czechoslovakia, for example.

If this becomes an issue it will be civil war for 20 years minimum. And the end result will be a Saddam on top of the whole thing, again.