Would it be better or worse to let Iraq divide into three nations?

[Armstead]

The same basic three geographic/ethnic divisions in Iraq that were mentioned -- and ignored -- since the early war debates in 02, seem to be coming to the fore again, with the internal pressure to basically become three Iraqs in one way or another.

Question: Would this be a positive, a negative or a double-edged sword?

Iraq as a single nation was basically cobbled together by western powers anyway. The creation of a unified Iraq was encouraged by Britan and western powers, and then fostered by Sadaam. The notion of Iraq as a democratic super-state is now being pushed by the neo-cons and otehrs as one of the basic goals, and necessary for regional stability.

But maybe instead of trying to bring groups together who want to be seperate, would it be better to allow the region to revert to more natural boundaries and entities?

Or maybe not, if it adds to the inherent tensions and regional rivalries. The unequal distribution of oil also would create a patchwork of economic conditions.

Would it be destabilizing or healthier in the big picture to let Iraq revert to smaller, more homogenous regions/nations?

[The Magistrate]

1. Absent A Totalitarian Central Regime, Sir

That is inevitable....

[SteppingRazor]

2. It would cause Civil War...

The Kurds and Sunnis would fight over the northern oil-producing areas.
The Shiites would probably be a satellite state of Iran, which could then march into the Sunni terrotory to protect Shiite interests.
An independent Kurdistan would probably cause protests among the Kurd population in southern Turkey, which could likely cause Turkish oppression inside its borders, and possibly even into the new Kudish free state.
So, no, I think it's probably a bad idea, though I've given it a lot of thought. I think it would do more harm than good and severely destabilize the region.

[alfredo]

17. The Kurds will control the water flowing into Sunni and Shia areas

The Shia will control access to the Gulf. With Iran in control of the Shia area, Kuwait should be very concerned.

The Sunni will get the shaft. They will lose control of the oil, the Gulf, the water. Of course they supported Saddam, reaping the benefits of being in charge. I can't blame the Kurds and Shia wanting a bit of pay back.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. The Sunni would control the majority of Iraq's agriculture.

It's the best solution because that's how it'll likely come down after the armistice, post-civil war.

[alfredo]

25. But the Kurds will control the water coming down the rivers.

I believe the major dams are in Kurdish territory.

[ewagner]

3. I'm in the process of writing

about this very subject and the logic is leaning toward the "water seeking it's own level" solution.

That is, the only way this will be finally resolved is probably by an enforced solution; a solution backed up by might, not politics. If we pull out then the faction with the strongest militia or the greatest outside support will prevail.

In any case, the Sunni population will be the weakest link because they have the least population, least money and maybe the smallest militia.

The Shiai'i, on the other hand seem to have the most going for them in terms of outside support, organized militia and money. They may prevail as long as they don't get into a prolonged dispute with the Kurds.

The Kurds are probably the best fighters. They have and excellent militia and they have an established society which prospered pretty well under the protection of the "no-fly zone".

I can't predict that the Shai'i will prevail but it looks that way. And, for better or worse, a Shai'i government will be relatively stable once they subdue the Sunni.

That's about as far as I have progressed and, of course, I'm still looking for other opinions and input.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. We must pick up the "white man's burden".

Or, we could let the Iraqis sort out their own problems.

Our own history of building the USA is hardly without a bit of squabbling. Several "insurrections" culminating the bloodiest war in our history - the civil war. Not to mention wars of aggressive expansion a rather successful foray into genocide, repression of various races and women, violence against the working class.

But we, in our august wisdom, have taken on the mantle of purveyer of "democracy", "truth", and the "free market" to benighted Iraq.

Will Iraq "fly apart"? Very likely, or some uneasy confederation will result. But, it's ultimately going to be up to the Iraqis and the sooner we stop "helping" them the better.

[Karenina]

6. Shall "WE"

"LET" the Iraqis...

Oh, Tierra. That white man's burden will be our death, eh?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I don't recall being asked if I wanted the "burden".

They did ask me if I'd like to extend my enlistment in 1965 to "help" the Vietnamese, but I declined. Which, I've been told by the RW chickenhawks, is the very reason why "we" failed in that previous glorious enterprise. You know, "we'd have won if it weren't for those traitorous, commie, protesters...etc, etc," ad nuaseum.

When Iraq continues to be the shambles we have made, whether we leave or not, we can certainly expect to hear the same crap from the same types after the fact.

If fact, I do believe that our idiotic attempt to "pick up the white man's burden" (colonialism) WILL be the death of the American Empire. We're accumulating more enemies than the wealth and resources to fight them.

Sadly, I won't see the day when America is just another 2nd class power (if it survives at all) going about it's business, taking care of it's own, becoming civilized and building libraries instead of Star Wars.

[Armstead]

13. Stay the course...

even if it leads us over the bridge.

[0rganism]

5. Maybe better at first, but how long would it stay that way?

Just for starters, the Turks have been historically opposed to an independent Kurdistan. I would give an unoccupied Kurdish state at most five years before being overrun.

[ohio_liberal]

7. I've heard talk of Turkey

being violently opposed to a Kurdish state. What would happen?

[Armstead]

8. They were adamantly opposed but not much heard from lately

Turkey has been strangely silent in all of this. Or has it been ignored?

Unless they've had a dramatic change in attitude, that's just one of the shoes waiting to drop in all of this.

[nyhuskyfan]

19. Turkey has a heavy Kurdish population in the south...

If a Kurdish state was formed, those regions would certainly then wish to secede from Turkey and join Kurdistan.

[kcass1954]

9. Let them?!?

How about we get the hell out of there and leave them alone. Whatever happens, happens.

[Armstead]

10. Pottery Barn Rule

I'm not endorsing our involvement either way. We should have stayed out in the first place. But we broke it, so we have to pay the bill.

Your answer can be rephrased to we should let them divide into three country if that's what "happens" if we get out.

[leftylady]

11. I'm with you.

It's their country. Let them decide.

I just hope that women's rights don't go right out of the window.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Too late for that

Women losing their rights in Iraq IS George Bush's legacy and I don't think anything can stop it now.:cry:

[leftylady]

15. Kind of sounds like that may be exactly what is happening.

Sounds like that is what is happening all over the MiddleEast.

Back to the burqua.

[theboss]

16. It would be the best solution if there was no oil involved

But you are going to end up with two states with oil and one impoverished backwater.

[geek tragedy]

18. Better. Iraq itself is a colonialist construct. eom

[TX-RAT]

21. Thats up to the people of Iraq.

[David Zephyr]

22. Should Divide. Here's What I Wrote on This Subject in May 2004

The only solution left for what's left of the Old Iraq and that may still work at this late point is a quick move to begin the division of the nation of Iraq into geographic "pieces". This is not such a radical idea, for the truth is that "nation" Iraq was an invention of the British anyway...sort of like South Vietnam was an invention of the Pentagon in the early 1950's.

The Past is Prologue:

After declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914, the British invaded and occupied Mesopotamia including Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul.

Clandestinely, the British, along with the French, in 1916 had drawn up the very imperialistic "Sykes-Picot Agreement" dividing up the old Ottoman empire. By 1919, Britain had created the current national borders that the world recognizes today as "Iraq". The following year, the "League of Nations" dutifully sanctioned and granted British control over the new nation of Iraq.

So, the unfortunate, yet popular understanding that the current borders of modern day Iraq are some sort of sacred and cultural extension of the ancient Persian Empire is simply wrong. The borders of Iraq are mere pencil marks from a British pencil less than a century ago.

Here's How to Divide Up Iraq Now and Possibly Spare A Holocaust in Civil War:

1.) Establish either an independent Shi'a Islamic Iraq which will probably meld into Iran within two years --- or fast forward the inevitable and cede the Shiite territories now to Iran. Since the Americans must always "save face" and have "peace with honor", the former is more probable, but the latter is inevitable.

2.) Establish a Sunni Iraq with Baghdad as the Sunni Capitol.

3.) Establish a new national state of Kurdistan.

4.) Cede some of the northern Iraqi territory to Turkey as a trade-off for the establishment of Kurdistan. Turkey currently has oil leases in Northern Iraq and this would be the quid pro quo and would finally deal with the business left undone after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.


The Saudis and The Israelis Will Just Love This:

The Balkanization of the current nation we know as Iraq as I have prescribed above will have the further benefit of pleasing both the Saudis and the Israelis who would prefer having smaller, less powerful neighbors in the Region than the former, unpredictable Iraq. Imagine that: the Israelis and the Saudis nodding approvingly at the splintering of their old nemesis.


Make Certain That The New States All Have Oil Fields of Their Own:

One of the greatest sources of friction between the world's predominately Islamic Nations has been this: some have oil resources and others don't. The solution I've described above begins to address the uneven distribution of petro-wealth in the Muslim world.

Certainly, the ability of Saudi Arabia to lord its proud purse over Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians (Muslims without oil) and over the poor in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims without oil) has been at the very root of so many of the world's problems. Indeed, Osama bin Laden's initial appeal in the poorer Islamic world was made possible by his Saudi petro-wealth, wasn't it?


The Nations Out of One Keep Osama Out of All:

With the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis truly independent and having their own states; and with allowing Turkey to "get a little of the goodies" in return for good behavior, Osama bin Laden and his crowd will have to go hunting for another scab to pick for they would hardly be welcomed in either of the three new nations.


Little Time Remains For Dividing Iraq Before Civil War Begins:

Let's face it. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now advocating exactly what they had crowed against: Cutting and Running. The arbitrary date in June of the facade of turning over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people will be the beginning of the upcoming bloodbath between the distrustful Kurd, Sunni and Shiite camps. Why wait until thousands are thrown into the nightmare of Iraqi Civil War?

If the British could divide up the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century for Imperialistic motives, why can't we, along with the United Nations, finally address the elephant in the living room and now divide up Iraq without bloodshed...before it divides itself up, pretty much as I have described, but only after a horrific bloodbath?

--D.Z.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1635616

[bribri16]

23. Better or worse for whom?

It would be worse all the way around because there would be constant fighting over oil resource control and pipeline passages etc. The Kurds think they will be better off but i lay you odds they won't be. They will be just another puppet state for us to prop up and to continue to feed our tax-payer dollars.

[Armstead]

24. I wonder why Bush administration thought this would be easy

Seems like there are so many Catch 22's involved

[Roland99]

26. Reading Tariq Ali and Riverbend...

it would seem that MOST Iraqis live together (Sunni neighbors with Shiite neighbors with Kurds.)

Only the militias and power-hungry politicians are eager for federalism.