Iraq disintegrates

[billvon 2,434]

So per predictions three years back, Kurdistan is now becoming a reality. They have their own flags, they have passport controls at their borders, and they barely pay lip service to the government in Baghdad. Kurdistan is signing contracts on their own. Massoud Barzani, the Kurdish leader, recently prohibited the display of the Iraqi flag within Kurdistan.

There's a lot of talk about what will happen if Kurdistan secedes, but in effect it's already happened. And I hope we have the wisdom to let them go. Sure, maybe it's a "defeat" to someone who still believes all the nonsense about a unified democratic Iraq, but Kurdistan is working - there's less violence there than nearly anywhere else in Iraq.

And that leads me to consider a similar solution for the rest of Iraq. Most people are talking about two options:

a) Pull troops out now; the country will likely collapse into violence.

b) Leave troops there forever, at least until it becomes so much like Vietnam that we are forced to leave.

Perhaps there's another option. Baghdad is getting worse day by day, and it's pretty clear we need more troops there to quell the violence. So pull all our troops into Baghdad. Make the entire city a "green zone." Support the Baghdad government with our military, and set them up with excellent defenses/border controls.

This achieves objectives sought by both US political parties. The democrats can get a significant reduction in military deaths, since it will be a lot easier to pacify a city smaller than Los Angeles than a country the size of Florida. It will likely be possible to reduce the size of the military once the current violence is quelled; you could double the number of troops in Baghdad and still send the majority of US troops home.

The republicans get their desperately-needed "victory in Iraq." The primary objective of PNAC - a stable US-supporting democracy in the Middle East - will happen, albeit on a smaller scale. And since there will be constant border clashes, they will still have an active "war on terror" to point to when they need something threatening, or when they want more money.

Outside Iraq, the various regions would likely devolve to Afghanistan-style warlord control. Some will likely remain friendly to Baghdad. Some regions will support extremists like the Taliban, but that's no different than what we have now in Pakistan. Some will align themselves with the Kurds or the Iranians, which is also OK - it's up to them.

The city of Baghdad itself would likely become a Shi'a stronghold, controlled implicitly or explicitly by the US. That's important to many military types, because the last thing they want is a Shi'a country willing to ally with Iran (another Shi'a country.) Sunnis could stay or move to Baquba, Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra or another traditionally Sunni city/area.

This voluntary division would also have the great advantage of heading off the threatening civil war by allowing the country to divide without as much bloodshed.

Finally, while violence will likely continue outside Baghdad, I strongly suspect it will decrease once the 'occupiers' have left. More importantly, it will not be US troops doing the killing; that will allow the emnity we've fostered in those areas to slowly die. No doubt it will be replaced by a new hatred, but at least we won't be directly fostering the development of the next anti-US hate group.

[sundevil777 94]

I think it would be reasonable to have a referendum on splitting the country, perhaps in 3 pieces. Canada allowed it.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[SpeedRacer 1]

except for many of the Kurds, most Iraqis do NOT want Iraq to be split up.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Michele 1]

Sounds an awful lot like the origination of the US - a confederacy. I wonder if it will work better for them then it did for us...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[pirana 0]

Quote

Sounds an awful lot like the origination of the US - a confederacy. I wonder if it will work better for them then it did for us...

Ciels-
Michele

Are you saying the US has not turned out to be a viable entity?

Partition is a pretty drastic measure, but could work. It's definitely what ought to be done in Sudan. The atrocities in Darfur make Iraq look like recess on the playground. And in Sudan there are very nicely corresponding geographical and cultural boundaries.

Do the cultural boundaries in Iraq make for a clean physical split?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,434]

>Do the cultural boundaries in Iraq make for a clean physical split?

The Kurdish boundary has taken care of itself. (At least until Turkey starts worrying about _their_ Kurdistan.) The Sunni/Shi'a boundary is going to be messy; it goes through the most populated parts of Iraq.

[matthewcline 0]

Lots of Iraqi's (I don't know about the most comment) want a 3 way split.

Only Saddam supporters happened to be steadfast on holding a unified Iraq.

But this is only from talking to maybe 50 + or - folks in each reagion and having them say "We want.." a lot.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[SpeedRacer 1]

everytime they interview Iraqis on the BBC website, and nearly all the Iraqi bloggers I've read say they don't want Iraq to be split up.

But I haven't personally talked to Iraqis on the ground though.

I'm just wondering why the anti-split-up crowd seems to dominate the Iraqi blogosphere & the people who get interviewed by the news media.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Airgump 1]

the only problem of a kurd state is that the rest of the country is wanting the cash that the mineral rich kurds have.

[billvon 2,434]

>the only problem of a kurd state is that the rest of the
>country is wanting the cash that the mineral rich kurds have.

And the Kurds will want the oil that the rest of the country has. I sense an opportunity for some trade here!

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

except for many of the Kurds, most Iraqis do NOT want Iraq to be split up.

The Sunnis would be the most outspoken against it, as their region do not have any oil to pump...

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

...(At least until Turkey starts worrying about _their_ Kurdistan.)...

That will happen. And, it won't be pretty.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 2,434]

>That will happen. And, it won't be pretty.

That may be true. I very much hope that we are out of there by then.

[StreetScooby 5]

Quote

And the Kurds will want the oil that the rest of the country has. I sense an opportunity for some trade here!

Bill, keep your day job...

We are all engines of karma

[Michele 1]

Quote

Are you saying the US has not turned out to be a viable entity?

Yes, we turned out to be a damned wonderful entity, but it took two tries. The first failed miserably. The second time, involving the Constitutional Congress, actually created the system we have now. Took some doing, that did, with lots of compromises, effort, work, and trial and error - and we still ended up with a civil war about 70 years after that took effect. Once that was done, and the issues relatively settled, we were able to become the incredible nation we are today.

So no, I'm not saying we didn't turn out to be a viable entity; I'm saying it took several tries, and a horrific war to become what we are today. If you weren't aware of the confederacy, I'd suggest you do some more research on the origins of this country's Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Quote

Partition is a pretty drastic measure, but could work. It's definitely what ought to be done in Sudan. The atrocities in Darfur make Iraq look like recess on the playground. And in Sudan there are very nicely corresponding geographical and cultural boundaries.

Dunno about partition in Iraq (and even less about partition of Sudan and Darfur). I'd think that history - again, in the form of the US Civil War - might bring some lessons to the table that might not need to be repeated elsewhere.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[StreetScooby 5]

Aren't most of the borders in the Middle East "arbitrary" lines imposed after the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War I?

We are all engines of karma

[matthewcline 0]

Yeah, it was the "West and Europe" that screwed this up.

Turkey and Syria have been afraid of the Kurds for 50+ years.

When I got to Northern Iraq 4 years ago all the things Billvon posted already existed.

Syrian Guards would complain to me monthly that we hadn't "put the Kurds in their place" (unless they where Kurdish and then they would ask if we would help to expand Kurdistan, they already believed they where INDEPENDENT or Iraq).

Well if we mighty conquerers had not divided an already divided region we might not have to deal with this now. The tribes did not have the organization of religious sect and government until we forced it on them.

And by "WE" I am including ALL of Europe and the US who tried to form states.

Stop thinking recent history this issue goes back over 2000 years, and will not go away till humanity does.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[nathaniel 0]

Don't forget about the Turks. They've been pretty unambiguous about how they feel about an independent Kurdish state.

Could be interesting. Turkey declares war on Kurdistan. Then, while Turkey is engaged in former Iraq, Greece and the Republic of Cyprus recapture the Turkish half of Cyprus.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[billvon 2,434]

>Could be interesting. Turkey declares war on Kurdistan.

Interesting indeed. If Kurdistan is still officially part of Iraq at that point - do we defend them?

[Michele 1]

Quote

Aren't most of the borders in the Middle East "arbitrary" lines imposed after the Ottoman Empire was defeated in World War I?

Yes, the decline (and subsequent dissolution of) the Ottoman empire was the reason the ME was basically carved up and handed out to the indigenous people. Don't forget, though, that the Ottoman Empire was in existence from 1300-1924ish...and by the time WW1 was over, the Empire was well and truly done for. The decline is often thought of as the period between 1700-mid 1800s. Here is some interesting reading about the Ottoman Empire from Wikipedia (but be cautioned that I don't know if all the facts contained therein are true...upon the briefest glance, it seems to be).

As all political issues, this is a dicey, difficult one to address. Because even though the OT Empire was in existence, it was already loosing traction by the 1900s, and the indigenous people were tribal and already "staking claims" to places, seeing the forest for the trees. Because of that, in the post WW1 era and in the redistribution of the ME was not terribly accurate (in following the historically "original" lands) but rather were given to those with some sort of claim, stake, or tribal power to the land. That's the primary issue we are dealing with now, too...

Don't know the solution; I can promise that much redistribution now will lead only to major fighting, so partition isn't quite the answer to Iraq. Hopefully, any sort of bicameral, tri-branched government will work effectively enough so as to be able to get all people at least partly satisfied that representation and wealth is properly distributed, and that the rest can come over time and with effort from the constitutional government.

It's definitely a very interesting time...and a tough, tough problem to solve.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[dorbie 0]

The real issue for Turkey is that Kurdistan overlaps Iraq and Turkey, Turkey is concerned that their autonomous neighbor will embolden the Kurds they've been happily screwing longer than anyone can remember.

It's not clear that they'd attack the Iraqi half or kurdistan, but they may.

Their weasel U-turn immediately prior to invasion may yet come back to haunt them because I'm sure the US would have been less inclined to encourage so much Kurdish autonomy had the hardware in the North been allowed to roll over the border.

I don't think Turkey has the capacity or stomach to get into a protracted mess with the Kurds in Iraq, especially when it'd make things worse domestically. If a crisis comes it may well be from Kurdish resurgance in Turkish-Kurdistan.

[nathaniel 0]

I don't think Bushie would let Turkey operate an overlapping invasion. Would it be good or bad for their EU aspirations? Bad, I'd guess...I thought mistreatment of Kurds was one of the things keeping Turkey out of the EU. Besides that whole skin tone and religion thing. On the other hand, they could win brownie points with the EU by standing up to the US.

I can see Bushie allowing them to operate more aggressively, or perhaps partitioning a slice or two off as a buffer zone.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

...(At least until Turkey starts worrying about _their_ Kurdistan.)...

That will happen. And, it won't be pretty.

That would spill into Iran, Azerbaijan and Armenia too. However, I don't believe the Kurds in the north will attempt any real succession.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

Interesting, but a bit infeasible. One of the reasons Baghdad is such a turd is that urban guerrila warfare so easy to execute & difficult to counter. Not sure if what you're suggesting would ever become a reality. Baghdad doesn't have the geographic luxury that Singapore does to become its own independent city-state, I believe. I don't think doubling the # of troops in the city would bring about peace within it.

I think that nation-states require a few things to be successful - common language, natural geographic borders/boundaries, common culture, and common economy. The presence of those qualities is part of the reason the Kurdish section of Iraq is somewhat under control by the local government. The Turks don't like it, but perhaps it would be best for the people inhabiting that region if they DID have their own government.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

That would spill into Iran

Which could be very convenient.

I don't think the executive branch is smart enough to pull something like that off, tho.

More likely the other way around imo, US & Iran pick a fight, Kurdistan secedes while they're all distracted.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?