Sadr backs down in Iraq

[iron81]

El D, the reason I chose Iraq as the topic is because I share your concern that people around here aren't giving the war enough attention. There was recently a protest in Washington with 30-70k people that didn't raise a peep in here. I wanted to do this thread because most people don't come into my forum.

Suzzer, I think the most likely outcome is that Iraq will remain unified. The Democracy will continue, but in an autocratic fashion similar to Egypt: technically a democracy, but with little actual freedom. The Democracy will be ruled by Sadr or another Shiite religious figure. The country will not be divided because of US and Turkish pressure and the Kurds are pretty happy with their current autonomy, even though they are the only faction that truly desires independence.

[mrkilla]

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the other day about how after WW2 they chopped up Germany but good and Berlin why something like that wouldn't work there too. I admit I haven't looked at all the sides nor care enough to but it seems "logical"

[MrWookie]

A big opponent to the split is Turkey. The Kurdish region of Iraq is in the north, near Turkey. Turkey's south east also has a large Kurdish population. Turkey, a US ally and NATO member, fears that if northern Iraq was made into Kurdistan, then the Kurdish part of Turkey would want to secede and join it. Turkey doesn't want a civil war, and they don't want to give up their land freely if their Kurdish citizens ask nicely instead, so they're quite opposed to it. It's too much of a risk to their stability.

Iron,

I think that this is a pretty reasonable political thread for EDGD. It's not as disgustingly partisan as many, and it's more informative than argumentative.

[Ricky_Bobby]

Germany got chopped because the allies let the Soviets take Berlin. We had to airlift food there in what, '47? Patton saw the cold war coming and maybe if we had more foresight the Berlin Wall and subsequent oppression of eastern Europe wouldn't have happened.

Iraq can't really be divided because the only ethnic group with a strong regional presence is the Kurds in the north, and they have been autonomous for years. Baghdad cannot be divided amongst Sunnis and Shiites and that is where the violence is taking place. I don't know the solution but I agree that too few people seem to care about what is happening. Sound bites won't result in a victory or even a net positive outcome for the U.S. yet that seems to be the primary weapon of the left and right regarding Iraq.

[bobman0330]

The Economist discussed this development last week, and brought out two important points:
1. The execution of Saddam did a lot to make the Shiites feel secure in their position in post-war Iraq. At least some of the violence against Sunnis must have been driven by a desire to protect against them returning to power.
2. Sadr himself is a politician, not a frothing-at-the-mouth genocidaire. Supporting atrocities against Shiites was once a profitable position, but both the Iraqi government and Bush have signaled their intention to crack down on this sort of behavior. So it makes sense for him to realign, not ruffle any feathers, and allow the fringe elements of his organization take the fall.

Bottom line I think this is a very good step. Even if Sadr intends to bide his time and start up again later, if this lull is combined with strong law enforcemen operations against his troops and a decrease in the level of violence in this country, he may find it impossible to drum up support for a revival of his war against the US and the Iraqi government.

The big downside is that this does nothing to protect the Shiite population from Sunni attacks. In fact, it will likely make them more vulnerable. If something can't be done there, then this will all be for naught.

[omegadan]

Partitioning Iraq is more complicated than it seems. Iraq is a country with artificial borders. In fact, nearly every country in the mideast has extremely artificial borders. There is a reason why a lot of those countries are referred to as "tribes with flags.
If they split up Iraq based on the idea that the borders are artificial and people don't get along, it will open a pandora's box. Those two problems exist in every country in the region. This line of thinking will probably encourage secession in other places.
In addition, we already know that Iran is becoming a player and Saudi Arabia said it would step in to protect Sunni interests. Any fighting during or after a partition will thus involve Iraq's neighbors. There is also the problem of who gets the oil.
It may be that there will not be peace in the Middle East until we have organic and tenable borders. But to solve that problem is to upend the whole foundation of the region.
An ironic note to this is that the British created Iraq from 3 distinc provinces and chose the name "Iraq" because it means "well-rooted country" in Arabic. Incidentally the main person in charge of drawing the borders for Iraq and every other country was the Colonial Secretary post WWI, Winston Churchill

[ed8383]

Haven't you guys read the story of the new american embassy in bagdad? (1 billion dollar embassy). The usa ain't going nowhere for a long, long time.

For your history buffs, correct me if im wrong but advisors to the american president during ww2 suggested 3 million troops to occupy germany. It doesn't take a genius to see that Rumsfeld left out a couple of 0's in terms of how many troops where needed for the Iraq war.

[goofball]

Iron81,

Do you feel comfortable doing an 'ask me' thread about the situation in Iraq?

I feel the same way as El Diablo. Basically I know enough to know it's a terrible spot we've put ourselves in and that something needs to be done. With some more specific knowledge I would feel more comfortable discussing the subject.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
For your history buffs, correct me if im wrong but advisors to the american president during ww2 suggested 3 million troops to occupy germany. It doesn't take a genius to see that Rumsfeld left out a couple of 0's in terms of how many troops where needed for the Iraq war.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard multiple local politicians (e.g. Senator Jon Kyl among them) bemoan the half-assed effort regarding Iraq, i.e. doing enough to placate the American public, not enough to get the job done. Akin to dipping a foot into the pool without jumping in - how much difference could it make?

FWIW I'm glad this thread hasn't devolved into total partisan stupidity yet, I've enjoyed it, but it seems that if it goes on long enough something like that is inevitable.

[calmasahinducow]

[ QUOTE ]
the country should be split in three, is anyone really against that? some people just hate other people and that's the way it's going to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple posters have touched on why the country will not be split up but no one has mentioned the worst case scenario:

A Sunni state will become a safe-haven for Al-Qaeda.

A Shia state will be nothing more than a puppet for Iran.

A Kurd state might have the same outcome as a Shia state.

This situation is extremely complicated and there is no easy way out. Slate did a multi-piece set on Dubai a couple weeks ago and a Palestenian who lives there now and lived in the U.S. before said that Dubai is what the Middle East could have been if all the colonialism and intervention didnt happen; Great Britain left Dubai in 1922 I believe.