WP: Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed

[sabra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/29/AR2006042901142.html

Merits of Partitioning Iraq or Allowing Civil War Weighed

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 30, 2006; Page A18

As the U.S. military struggles against persistent sectarian violence in Iraq, military officers and security experts find themselves in a vigorous debate over an idea that just months ago was largely dismissed as a fringe thought: That the surest -- and perhaps now the only -- way to bring stability to Iraq is to divide the country into three pieces.

Those who see the partitioning of Iraq as increasingly attractive argue that separating the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds may be the only solution to the violence that many experts believe verges on civil war. Others contend that it would simply lead to new and dangerous challenges for the United States, not least the possibility that al-Qaeda would find it easier to build a new base of operations in a partitioned Iraq.

One specialist on the Iraqi insurgency, Ahmed S. Hashim, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College who has served two tours in Iraq as a reservist, contends in a new book that the U.S. government's options in Iraq are closing to just two: Let a civil war occur, or avoid that wrenching outcome through some sort of partition. Such a division of the country "is the option that can allow us to leave with honor intact," he concludes in "Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq."

Bush administration officials have expressed relief and optimism since Iraqi politicians ended a four-month impasse this month by finally choosing a prime minister, Jawad al-Maliki, a Shiite politician. Such political milestones, coupled with the ongoing training of Iraqi security forces, are the cornerstones of U.S. policy and the keys to building a unified, stable Iraq, U.S. officials say.

[Teaser]

1. It's awful that we think we have the right

to decide this either way...

[leveymg]

2. Of couse,. Division into 3 easy chunks was the point all along.

How can anyone pretend to be surprised by this? This was so obvious that even I could see it coming 18 months ago: http://mboard.rediff.com/board/board.php?boardid=news2004sep27iraq

CIA's Iraq plan shot down

Subject: CIA Iraq Covert Political Plan Aired and Then Axed

This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard of! All of the candidates were vetted by the PA. It's like the RNC saying it won't play covert games to determine the outcome of Republican primaries!

The choices are utterly proscribed to begin with -- the object being to keep the majority Shi'a clerics from taking immediate control over the central government, where they might actually keep Iraq together in one piece long enought to reunify the country with Iran! You know, those borders are just lines drawn up in the British Foreign Office 90 years ago. For a long time before that it was all the Ottoman Empire. That common identity never really went away.

Everyone knows that the game plan is to break Iran up into three more managable pieces -- Shi'a south, Sunni center, and Kurdish north. Each oil exporting region will have its own U.S. controlled pipeline and its own petty tyrant, and some randomizing terrorist groups thrown in to keep everyone off balance. These squabbling potentates will assure the need for an American armed presence for years to come.

The British tried to do things more directly -- by putting the larger minority faction in control over the rest. But, that would mean resurrecting the Ba'ath Party by another name.

The stuff I read in the major U.S. papers about the "New Iraq" is recycled Pentagon press releases -- it's the Saigon Five O'clock Follies all over again. It's like reading about how Thieu will be more of a democratic leader than Kye, who was more of a democrat than Diem, who was too French and too Catholic. And poor Diem, before Ambassador Harriman offered him "safe passage" and coaxed him to meet his maker inside that armored personnel carrier, he was so much nicer than that wicked Madame Nhu. Big crocodile tears at MACV and CIA.

Even if there are elections in January, this has absolutely nothing to do with the warlords who will actually be running all those little warring fiefdoms a year later.

- M


Posted by Mark Levey on 28-SEP-04

[struggle4progress]

14. Bingo!

[ConcernedCanuk]

3. "Divide and conquer" comes to mind

.
.
.

I think the PNACers had this in mind right from the get-go.

Look at the KNOWN permanent bases they already have



and from the same website:

As of mid-2005, the U.S. military had 106 forward operating bases in Iraq, including what the Pentagon calls 14 "enduring" bases (twelve of which are located on the map) – all of which are to be consolidated into four mega-bases.

http://www.fcnl.org/iraq/bases.htm

Heck, they are building bases faster than hospitals!

That should tell us something . . .

(sigh)

[midnight armadillo]

25. contrast with oil map

[enigma000]

4. how about this?

Kurdistan - pro-American and pro-western population sitting on lots of oil. Turkey will have to live with it (what else could they do? Challenge one of their most important allies?)

Shiastan: moderately grateful Shia, (for emancipating them from Sunni rule) siting on lots of oil. Still the most democratic state in the Arab world.

Shitty-stan: Sunnis with no oil.

One pro-American country, one reasonably moderate country, and one hell-hole. Works for me.......

[NYC]

9. The Sunnis would have the water.

Yes? Quite valuable.

[enigma000]

21. water? the Euphrates?

Only if they diverted the flow.......that would be considered grounds for war.

[Selatius]

5. Iraq is an artificial creation anyway

These were, and perhaps still are, tribal people. At one time, they all existed under the boot of the Ottoman Empire. In one perverse sense, they were all equal in that regard. When the Ottoman Empire was crushed and its lands eaten up by European superpowers, the conquering powers decided to draw lines on a map and call it Iraq regardless of the peoples that inhabited that particular piece of land. They clumped together several distinct peoples who are still tribal in nature and expected peace and harmony? The only reason Iraq has remained together for so long is because of iron-fisted rule that forced those peoples to live together.

[HuffleClaw]

6. hmmmm. deciding the fate of a SOVEREIGN iraq ?

well, this is a real surprise. NOT. this was their intent all along, per PNAC plans. what a disgrace.

[spindrifter]

7. We need to stay the F*** out of this.

Partition has never been a good word in the long run.

[BikeWriter]

20. "Stupidity got us into this mess, why won't stupidity get us out?"

Will Rogers

[StevieM]

8. Partition gets complicated

I do support the idea, but it isn't that easy. The simplistic description of "Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle, Shiites in the south" is not a proper representation. National and ethnic borders aren't shaped like Utah. They are a mess.

Steve

[alfredo]

10. Partition will happen

with or without our help. It won't be clean, it won't be quick.

[Copperred]

11. Forgo the Civil War and got to the end...save the lives.

I'm all for it... how Turkey will fair with it..i do not know....

and may Pakistan be next and in G_ds speed......

[IndianaGreen]

12. Why don't we partition the United States first?

Let Jesusland go their own way with their theocratic bigotry and intolerance, and leave the rest of us live in peace in freedom and democracy and without fundies.

[Judi Lynn]

17. The vision of them as they try to make it on their own is hilarious!

What would they do without bright people, sane people, and cheap labor?

[cantstandbush]

13. Partitioning Iraq will just be a temporay fix . The various states will

be waring for generations. Only a strong arm leader like Saddam could keep Iraq together and from civil war. When he was in power they all had him to hate but they feared him also. Now they fear no one and hate each other.

[magellan]

15. How does one partition families?

Sunnis and Shiites have been intermarrying for a long time. Who gets the job of splitting husbands from wives, grandparents from grandchildren, cousins from cousins?

This is stupid, stupid, stupid!! The vast majority of Iraqis have nothing to do with the religious nuts who were set loose on the country when the US installed a theocratic rather than secular gov't. (The representatives are extremists and thugs themselves.)

There are no benefits in dividing Iraq -- it will only cause more sorrow and anger to the majority of Iraqis, who are some of the most moderate Muslims in the Arab world and have suffered quite enough at US hands already for the sins of the extremists the invasion unleashed.

[daleo]

16. A partition would eventually lead to a war of unification

I think the idea of Iraq is too firmly entrenched for a 3-way partition to have staying power.

[EFerrari]

18. Are we still in the position to "allow" or "disallow"

civil war in Iraq?

[Ignacio Upton]

19. Not a good idea

I was for it originally, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea now. If a completely-independent Kurdistan is formed, how do we know that ethnic minorites within that country (ie. Assyrian and Turkomen) won't be persecuted in their own right? Also, there is plently of overlap in some of these areas, with Shia living in Sunni areas, Sunnis living in Jurd areas, etc. As another poster mentioned, there is also intermarriage between Shiites and Sunnis. They are still ethnically Arabs, after all.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

22. Does the work Custer

mean anything to these guys?

[truthisfreedom]

23. i've been telling my friends that this would be the ultimate outcome since

the beginning of the war.

here's a map of Iraq... try to imagine how it could be broken up.

[fujiyama]

24. The old colonial mindset

well at work! Divide and rule!

Gee, this place is a pain in the ass to govern. Why don't we split it up? It worked like a charm in India/Pakistan and how about that Palestine/Israel thing?

Nevermind that along the way thousands will likely be killed in ethnic cleansing by the majority groups in different reasons. Forget the humanitarian crisis that will ensue.

As long as we get our oil.

And the fact that the WP quotes senior officials in our government saying this with a straight face makes me sick.