Iraq partitioning

[Kaj]

I agree with Krauthammer's assessment and have thought from the beginning that the only solution to a stable Iraq at this point is 3 Iraqs...

[ QUOTE ]
It took political Washington a good six months to catch up to the fact that something significant was happening in Iraq's Anbar province, where the former-insurgent Sunni tribes switched sides and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, Washington has not yet caught up to the next reality: Iraq is being partitioned -- and, like everything else in Iraq today, it is happening from the ground up.

1. The Sunni provinces. The essence of our deal with the Anbar tribes and those in Diyala, Salahuddin and elsewhere is this: You end the insurgency and drive out al-Qaeda, and we assist you in arming and policing yourselves. We'd like you to have an official relationship with the Maliki government, but we're not waiting on Baghdad.

2. The Shiite south. This week the British pulled out of Basra, retired to their air base and essentially left the southern Shiites to their own devices -- meaning domination by the Shiite militias now fighting each other for control.

3. The Kurdish north. Kurdistan has been independent in all but name for a decade and a half.

Baghdad and its immediate surroundings have not yet been defined. Despite some ethnic cleansing, the capital's future is uncertain. It is predominantly Shiite, but with a checkerboard of Sunni neighborhoods. The U.S. troop surge is attempting to stabilize the city with, again, local autonomy and policing.

This radically decentralized rule is partition in embryo. It is by no means final. But the outlines are there.
-------
Washington Post
September 7, 2007
By Charles Krauthammer

[/ QUOTE ]

The sad thing is that this should be obvious. And yet it can only be a combination of 2 reasons why this isn't happening, both of which are telling:

1) The administration doesn't want to admit it's overall strategy is a failure and it's rush to form an Iraqi constitution and national govt was near-sighted and has done more harm than good. Meanwhile, thousands die needlessly because of political stubbornness.

2) The real focus of American policy isn't Iraqi democracy, self-determination, and security, but rather control of Iraqi resources and staging areas for Middle East operations. If Iraq were divided into 3 separate areas, that would make it more difficult for Washington to influence the region, and as control of the diverse Iraqi people by a single government requires American power, then a single Iraq is a strategy that ensures some American presence for years and years to come. Meanwhile, thousands die needlessly because of American lust to secure its "interests" in the region.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I agree that a 3-Iraq partition should have been the correct endgame from the outset. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's a viable solution right now since we've spent way too much time going down the nation-building rathole.

[bobman0330]

It worked for India and Pakistan.

[GoodCallYouWin]

One of the GOP candidates was going on about this in the first debate. Hunter maybe? It seems to make sense to me, have three countries for three ethnicities... the sunnis in the shia section can leave for sunniland, etc.

[morphball]

[tomdemaine]

If you can split into 3 states based on terms of population characteristics why not 10, why not 500 why not disband the idea of government and let people form into however many groups they want? It can't [censored] things up any worse than trying to force them into one amorphous blob based on some random british guys doodling on a map can it?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

One of the GOP candidates was going on about this in the first debate. Hunter maybe? It seems to make sense to me, have three countries for three ethnicities... the sunnis in the shia section can leave for sunniland, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

1 of the three ethnicities ends up with no (or little) oil and are not happy. 1 of the three ethnicities encourages a mass migration/fight for their own piece of land in Turkey. The end result of partition, be it temporary or permanent in design is continuing hostilities. Germany after ww2, korea, vietnam, india/pakistan.

[Felix_Nietzsche]

The problems with partioning.
1. The Sunnis have no oil.
2. The Kurds will demand the land they lost from Arabs via ethnic cleansing.
3. The Shia in the south will likley become a 'little Iran' and use their oil wealth to spread Shia terrorism.
4. The Kurds will be land-lock and exporting their oil will be a huge problem (not through Turkey or Iran).
5. The Turks will be ticked and seek to overthrow the Kurdish govt.

Add these together and you get war.
If it were up to me I would find the meanest and toughest Kurd and establish a Kurdish dictatorship. Turkey will be upset but screw them. When we needed their help before the war the screwed the USA. Time for payback to these former friends. A Kurdish dicatorship has the advantage where we have a friendly govt and the oil will no longer be used for terrorism. The new Kurdish dictator will need to raze a few villages to establish his 'alpha dog status' but afterwards it should be smooth sailing. After all, in Syria a 5% minority rules the entire country. The Kurds can do this easily....especially if Kurds from Turkey/Iran emigrate into the newly formed Kurdistan.

The USA can give the Kurds cover in the UN after other Arabs countries vote for sanctions after the Kurds use "Arab' like tactics to pacify the country...

EASY...

[AzDesertRat]

The biggest 2 obstacles to this are the divvying of the oil revenues and the effect of what an independent Kurdistan would do to Turkey. It is the most logical way to fix this country that was artificially put in place by the British in the 20's though.

[Fnord]

Saudi
Homelands
Independent
Territories

LoL