I am sick of hearing about a partitioning plan for Iraq.

[thereismore]

Last time I heard, Iraq was a sovereign country with a democratically elected government. How can we even for a minute start discussing partitioning Iraq? Also, partitioning will accelerate ethnic cleansing like you've never seen. Given the current state of the affairs, it might actually be the most humane solution, if ethnic cleansing is done in an organized humane way. I doubt seriously that there is anyone in Iraq who can handle such exodus without having it turn into a massacre or other humanitarian crisis. There is no infrastructure to house the people. The solution it seems is either install a brutal dictator who will take no shit from anyone, or really increase US or UN presence into many hundred thousand troops and oversee the ethnic cleansing, to minimize the human cost that will inevitably happen. Thank you fucker Bush. Your name will be cited in the same breath with Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot. Some legacy.

[babylonsister]

1. You're advocating ethnic cleansing?

Now I've seen everything.

[thereismore]

3. people are dying. More will die still. I'd take any solution that will stop

the killing.

[babylonsister]

4. So which group do you think should be killed, and who makes that

call? You're advocating killing more people despite wanting the killing to stop.

ethnic cleansing 
the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration.

[thereismore]

10. Please. How can you think I advocate killing. I mean, some groups of

people will have to move, swap places, etc, in order to stop the killing. Such cleansing without bloodshed might be the absolutely last option left before an all-out civil war. If you can't see that, you are a utopist.

[babylonsister]

17. Sorry, but I hear the words 'ethnic cleansing' I think of

wiping a bunch of people off the face of the earth. That's why I was so surprised at your post.

[thereismore]

19. No, ethnic cleansing does not necessarily mean killing. Like in the US in

the 19th century. Even though whites did engage in killing of Indians, occasionally there was a treaty that removed them into a reservation without blood shed. That's ethnic cleansing too. It's horrible, but better than murdering them.

[Toucano]

20. Ethnic cleansing CAN mean deportation or forced emigration,

but it frequently is used to describe mass killings without saying "genocide".

Symantics aside, Iraq will one day be divided. It's not an organic nation state, and it would never have existed as it does without British and U.S. involvement.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. What's the matter with: the Texaco Region, the Mobil Region and Exxon Region?

[wtmusic]

9. Ding!

Whatever they call it, those will be the real borders

[Virginia Dare]

16. It's naive of us to think that the troops will be brought "home"...

they'll just rearrange them like so many deck chairs. The oil must be protected.

[trekbiker]

5. partioning is inevitable.. might as well get it over with rather

than drag out this civil war forever with our troops caught in the middle. Without an iron fisted dictator forcing the peace these three groups, Shia, Sunni, Kurd will be at each other for decades to come. Partioning is already occuring in a sense as the three groups force each other out of their respective nieghborhoods and towns. Many are voluntarily leaving homes and businesses rather than risk getting killed in the ethnic clashes.

My understanding is that modern Iraq was a creation of the British after WWI forcing these groups to share one country. Sort of like the creation of Yugoslavia after WWII. We need to stop thinking that every people can be like Americans and every country can be like the USA. Some groups are going to hate each other for eternity and there's no getting around it, especially when you throw religion into the mix. Its a lose-lose situation no matter what so i say cut our losses and let the partioning begin, then shut down our bases, mega-embassey etc and redeploy, maybe to the Kurd held territory or afghanistan. more troops will end up a disaster like Vietnam

[thereismore]

11. yes, I already heard reports of families of opposite persuasion

swapping houses voluntarily. Sad as it is, it's better than killing and destruction.

[grizmaster]

6. it's not a sovereign nation now

It was before the invasion, but now it's just an American puppet government. And those so-called elections were hardly democratic.

And I'll take partition (and I bet Iraqis would too) over your two options of more brutality at the hands of Americans or installing another Saddam.

Iraq was artificially shoe-horned into one country by the brits when they invaded and it appears it's time to remove the phony boundaries and acknowledge the more real tribal boundaries.

[thereismore]

12. I know, I was writing tongue-in-cheek. Of course it is not a sovereign

country, ever since we occupied it.

[KG]

7. how 'bout letting the iraqis decide what best for iraq?

nah, too obvious an idea.

only us white folk in the west can know whats best for them furriners.

[thereismore]

14. I hear you. But dammit, if a nation is mired in genocide or a bloody

civil war, I think other nations have a duty to humanity to intervene. I think Iraqis may be past the point where "they" decide anything. If the killing gets completely out of control, as in a full-fledged civil war, they are out of options. I actually advocate a UN intervention in such a country. Violation of sovereignty is a lesser evil than allowing genocide to continue. Don't get me wrong, invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not justified, but if we withdraw and the country plunges into civil war or genocide, I'd be advocating a UN forceful intervention.

[KG]

26. decades of foreign meddling is why iraq is so fucked up now

why would anyone think further meddling is going to improve things?

[thereismore]

27. so if and when the civil war is in full swing, we'll be looking at the carnage

inside and wait till it bleeds out? That would be immoral, just like looking at Darfur from the outside is right now.

[KG]

28. hint - the full scale civil war is already happening.

the occupation is only adding to the bloodshed.

[thereismore]

29. I fear that we haven't seen full-scale civil war in Iraq yet... nt

[leftofthedial]

8. it has not been a sovereign nation since king george

invaded


we need to leave totally immediately and let the Iraqis sort it out.

we can work with the international community to ensure that no regional meddlers corrupt the ensuing bloodbath (either political or actual).

if the IRaqis want to partition, they should determine that. the sunnis will oppose it--the Shia and Kurds have most of the oil.

[sui generis]

13. regional partitioning isn't entirely absurd

but it would certainly be absurd if it was absolute partitioning.

There are real reasons not to do it that have nothing to do with ethnic cleansing, but the very real issues of partitioning and sharing of resources.

Who gets mineral rights? Who administers their common front if Iran decides to invade? Who supplies drinking water? Who manages sewage treatment and electricity? Who manages interregional transport? Like any micro-cosm of real economies, they still have to interact at their boundaries for things like roads, airports, hospitals, irrigation, and even things as mundane as construction materials.

It's a nice idea if people got along, but the fact that they don't get along already means that a worst case scenario is probably the only thing you could rely on to happen.

The only thing that would have saved Iraq after we invaded is if we had DEMANDED a completely secular government and constitution with a judiciary unable to quote Shariyah law except in the most obtuse cultural sense. Maybe established some kind of balance of power that would enforce that. I have really radical ideas about what we should have done that probably aren't best shared here, but we could have pulled it out early on with a minimum of bloodshed.

Now it is too late, and if we don't honestly evaluate our losses today they will still be there in the morning, and we will still be in denial tomorrow.

[thereismore]

18. agreed, absolutely. nt

[sam sarrha]

15. Iraq was never a real country it was 3 groups that come together for common good.. that is over

as long as the Islamic leadership continues to politicizes the religion... it will continue to cease to be a religion of peace... and war and murder will escalate in the name of or for revenge of.. what ever excuse perpetuates the violence.. for the gain of individuals in power.. just like here

[roamer65]

21. This is what happens when you go in and mess around...

...with an old British partitioning scheme that dates back to 1921 and Winston Churchill. Even Poppy Bush was smart enough to realize not to mess around with it. Like Powell said, "If you break it, you own it."

[SoCalDem]

22. The schism is inevitable. When a dictator holds absolute power, disparate factions

"can" get along, and even band together in subversive opposition to the hated "leader", but when that leader is suddenly gone, the old stuff bubbles to the surface.

think Yugoslavia/Bosnia-Herzegovinia/Kosovo
think India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Kashmir
The Czechs & Slavs split amicably, but most "artificial" countries come undone..
think any African country that "loses" a despotic leader

The deep-seated, sometimes mythical hatreds are always just below the surface, just waiting for the chance to erupt

[Disturbed]

24. "The schism is inevitable."

I agree. What can be done about it? Turkey and Iran will not accept an Independent Nation of Kurds on their border. That will be a serious problem.

The US/UK won't be able to force &/or bribe the various factions to comply to partition. This mess will continue for many years unless the Iraqis decide how to live together without killing each other.

It seems that US/UK Troops are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Old and In the Way]

23. This was a concern of many DUer's before the invasion.

Taking Saddam out would open the flood gates for a 3 way power struggle. As much as I disliked the bastard, Hussein kept the state together. Now, I don't see any government in Iraq that can agree on a federation that protects the rights of all Iraqi's. For whatever reason, this administration failed to account for this obvious aftermath....they really had no plan for keeping Iraq together after taking Saddam out. That is totally their fault and every day the chances of keeping Iraq as an independent, autonomous state seems to dwindle. A blakanized Iraq may well be the only way to stop the mass bloodletting.

[Jed Dilligan]

25. At this point, it looks like the only route to "democracy"

From a humanitarian perspective, though, dictatorship is probably better. Not great, mind you, but better.