Iraq will never be an entire country again.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

We have to recognize that the Sunni's, Shi'ite and Kurds will want their own states.

There is already some geographical division in place. Of course, the negotiations would be protracted and difficult, but if each interest realized they would be receiving their own sovereign state, maybe there would be less bloodshed.

It's hard to imagine there would be more.

The apportionment would need to be enforced, probably by UN troops guarding borders, for a while. But at least each state could elect/select its own government and train their own troops.

And, yes, neighboring countries, such as Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, plus, let's face it, Syria and Iran, would need to be involved in these discussions.

The idea of Iraq looking like an American or European democracy is a delusion. However, at least each group could have some control over their state's destiny, which is possibly the best we could hope for.

Especially, if we want our troops out of there.

I wonder if the WH would give total control of the oil back to the sovereign states.

MKJ

[kenny blankenship]

1. If we break up Iraq

it's a violation of the UN Charter. (falls under fucking with the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation)

You can bet that this is one of the items State Dept. counsel has told the White House just cannot be done and shouldn't be discussed.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. I guess I was thinking of the USSR breaking up. Although that has been

a mixed success.

I was also thinking of Cold War Germany and Korea. Neither situation was ideal, but the agreements around forming those separate states brought an end to the associated wars.

I appreciate your response, since I wasn't aware of the UN Charter prohibiting this action. I guess everyone just shoots at each other until they're all dead. Then the occupier wins all the marbles. MKJ

[K-W]

12. But not if they break themselves up.

We should withdraw our occupation if we want to respect their sovereignty.

[kenny blankenship]

20. That's right, they could break themselves up peaceably &

voluntarily, or perhaps voluntarily place their country through the UN into a trusteeship arrangement with...whomever... is crazy enough to want to be responsible for administering Iraq. And then under trusteeship, a UN sanctioned partition possibly could happen, although the bias against large countries chopping up small countries they've invaded would surely run very high in the UN membership.

[Avalux]

2. She never was a country in the first place -

"Thus in 1920-21 the old map of the Ottoman Empire was transformed into a patchwork of new states in the Middle East with borders that paid scant regard to traditional tribal, ethnic or religious boundaries. The new state of Iraq was created out of three former Ottoman provinces - Basra, Baghdad and Mosul - and handed to the British as a mandate territory. In London, the period that preceded the new state's formation was characterised by internal tensions between the hawks and doves regarding how Iraq would be ruled."

http://www.historyandpolicy.org/archive/pol-paper-print-13.html

You'd think by now, imperialists would figure it out.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

5. Excellent find, I vaguely remember hearing that Iraq's roots were

colonization vs.long standing, regionally recognized boundaries.

Deja vu, all over again. MKJ

[liberalpragmatist]

9. Not totally - the borders were colonial but there were no boundaries

that had been established. The entire area had always fallen under the jurisdiction of a single empire.

Certainly the Europeans could have drawn better boundaries for Iraq. But at some point we have to accept boundaries as they are. Very few boundaries in the world are truly "fair" - but most successful countries have learned to live within them. The idea that there is no "Iraq" is also false - the Kurds aren't really reconciled to the country due to major oppression - but the Shi'ites, for instance, have long been patriotic. Millions of Shi'ites fought for Iraq and very few express an interest in breaking the country up.

Additionally, there are plenty of places throughout the world where people have grown used to artificial boundaries. Look at modern-day South Africa, where there is genuine nationalism among the black majority, even if the boundaries of the state are completely made up. Look too at a place like Iran - fiercely nationalistic, yet its borders were drawn by the British on one side and also feature lots of minority ethnic groups. The natural impulse of people is to protect and love their homeland - wherever that may lie. As long as one can provide people with a decent living and peace, people are generally happy to live in whatever state.

The idea that Iraq can't operate within its boundaries is, therefore, in my opinion, wrong.

[K-W]

13. No you are mistaken.

The British Empire created the boundries, and placed local collaborators in power of vaguely constitutional systems. By this method they could continue to exploit the land through agreements with puppet regimes, but with a local face doing the enforcing.

The US certainly didnt invent this strategy and was more than happy to takeover England's role when it was unable to sustain its control, and the current form of it is the various regimes the US props up and the US war in Iraq to put a US footprint in an area we cannot lose control of if we are to control the world.

[liberalpragmatist]

16. I know - my point is that borders are always flawed

And the solution is rarely to redraw boundaries everywhere. That is a recipe for massive conflict and war. The boundaries the British drew were wrong at the time, but they are a fact now. Iraq could in theory work even with its present boundaries. Now, I realize that given the aftermath of the war, it may not survive in those boundaries. But the idea that those boundaries makes it inherently unworkable is false.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

17. Why do we "have to" accept boundaries?

We,here in this country, fiercely fought the very colonialism that formed Iraq's boundaries, in the not so distant past.

Actually, from 1992 to 2003, the Kurds had essentially created their own boundaries in Northern Iraq, thanks to our no fly zone.

Perhaps Iraq will become one country, although by our very actions we have fractured the fragile state of the established boundaries.

Perhaps it will be a North Korea/South Korea. Or maybe it will more resemble the breaking away of countries from the old USSR.

Or, maybe, if we fully withdraw, it will eventually come together, like Vietnam. (Although Laos and Cambodia paid high prices for our exit, as well).

Your description of an ethnically diverse population living happily together in peace and prosperity could describe Bosnia-Herzegovina circa 80's/early 90's.

Apparently, it was ripe for utter dissolution, when the Serbs began their systematic extermination of the Muslims.

I would just offer, one Iraq, one Democracy, is not going happen at this time.

Would you suggest the troops stay indefinitely? What are seeing that gives you any indication that there will be a pseudo White House in Baghdad, with citizens routinely voting on tax levies and water board commissioners?

In solving this utter quagmire, I would offer that a "we have to accept" any kind of absolute around how some sort of peace can be achieved and our troops can leave, is folly.

MKJ

edited to add: after I posted this, I read your response to my response and agreed with every word you posted.

So, between your responses as well as others, I agree that an arbitrary sort of partitioning could be more catastrophic than keeping this country's current borders intact.

If it was to happen, it would require lots of monitoring and rock solid agreements among all.

I admit, I'm desperately trying to think of previous solutions to spiraling conflicts, even those solutions that were admittedly imperfect and primarily designed to stop the death and destruction. MKJ

[liberalpragmatist]

18. And I would argue that Yugoslavia didn't have to break up

Most historians, and many former Yugoslavians themselves, have said that the different ethnic groups largely lived in harmony. Poor leadership on behalf of both the Serbs and the Croats contributed to the dissolution of the country, but it was also encouraged by the international community. I also think that had Yugoslavia been a democratic federation, it would have survived. The idea of a balkan federation was actually a very sound one - the people in that area were highly mixed and had a lot in common, especially language. Divided, they were small and economically insecure (like they are today) - together, they formed one of the Europe's largest states. The authoritarian system, however, prevented legitimate grievances from being corrected, causing a radicalization.

And I call for accepting boundaries partly because I have an intrinsic distrust of nationalism. If boundaries leave a state economically viable than I would leave them in place and construct a constitutional regime that permits each group in that society to live in peace. For centuries, different ethnic groups have lived, usually in peace and harmony. As many historians have written, nationalism is the cause of virtualy all the world's wars over the past 2 centuries - before then, wars definitely still occured, but they were less about nationalism and more about the aspirations of individual kings and rulers.

I accept the idea of self-determination within a state. But I think independence has to be granted only under extraordinary circumstances. More important to me is that everyone has an economic well-being, and basic freedoms. If those can be provided without an independent state - and often, it can be - then I tend to oppose independence.

Now, about Iraq as it currently stands: I think we do need to pull out. For a long time I was of the opinion that while the war was wrong to begin with, having blown the place up we had an obligation to fix it up and give it a stable future. However, the rebuilding has been a thorough fuck-up and at this point there is nothing more we can do. So I believe we should pull out. But I don't think we should arbitrarily partition the country. We should leave it as it is and allow the people of Iraq to decide how they should construct their future. IF the different peoples of Iraq settle upon some kind of division, then that's acceptable, but arbitrarily partitioning the country before we leave is morally wrong and strategically idiotic.

As for Yugoslavia, here's a good article that explains sort of what I'm talking about, from Le Monde Diplomatique:

http://mondediplo.com/1998/11/14yugo1

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

19. I'll admit, it was a little disingenuous of me to bring up Yugoslavia,

since the circumstances and catalysts of that horrific conflict were beyond the citizens' control.

I do wonder about the Northern Iraq Kurds, at this point. They essentially established their own state over the years before the Iraq invasion.

They have a hostile neighbor in Turkey and ,now, no longer have the benefit of US protection.

Perhaps I am partial to the thought of an independent Kurdish state because they were so successful in creating their own sovereign, democratic based community during that time.

Now, they are the primary suspects in terrorist actions in Turkey and Iraq.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on, at least, adhering to the boundaries that were established over the last 10 or 11 years, in relation to the Kurds. MKJ

[liberalpragmatist]

21. The Kurds are an interesting lot

I definitely think they should have been given a state after WWI. In an ideal world, we would sit down Iran, Turkey, Iraq, and Syria and carve out a new Kurdistan.

But that is not going to happen. Not even a slight chance. It is impossible.

Thus, what are the true goals? Independence in and in of itself is not really the true goals. The true goals for the international communtiy and the Kurds should be protection of basic freedoms, human rights, cultural autonomy, political freedom. This can be established through political autonomy in various states. Additionally, it should be noted that anthropologists who have studied the Kurds have said that even before WWI, the Kurds were influenced by their neighbors - Turkish Kurds had clear differences with Iraqi Kurds and similiarties with fellow Turks, for instance - so the grouping, while far from ideal, is not entirely artificial.

In Iraq, the present boundaries should be expanded South to include Krudish areas that were not incorporated by the Kurds in the past 10-11 years. This will be inexact - any boundary drawing is. But if it is within the context of a Federal Iraq, and non-Kurds' rights are respected, it should be done. Kirkuk, however, should be a separate entity. Both Baghdad and Kirkuk should be their own autonomous provinces within a federal Iraq. The Kurds and the rest of the Iraqis will have to form some sort of arrangement over the sharing of oil revenues.

[Igel]

4. I rather doubt that the Sunnis would vote to form their

own state.

Little or no oil under the Sunni Arab territory, unless we count the area controlled by Kirkuk as Sunni Arab.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

7. If we were to pull out completely (hypothetically) they would be in

precarious position. Perhaps, negotiations could focus on their safety and sovereignty. I could see their resistance though, if their neighbor had economic prosperity and a history of adversarial dynamics with them as a poorer state.

Which group would benefit most from oil in their territory? MKJ

[liberalpragmatist]

6. It may well happen but it's a tragedy that it has to

The idea that a 3-way split will be easy is ridiculous. Frankly, partitioning countries along ethnic lines is one of the biggest causes of conflict throughout the past century. It's a solutiont that's ALWAYS mooted when two or more communities can't get along. The problem is that ethnic lines are never clean. Populations are ALWAYS mixed. There are large minorities even in areas where the other community is the majority. Every single time a country has been partitioned along ethnic lines what results is not peace but ethnic cleansing, more war, and ultimately the conflicts last longer.

Don't believe me? The list of countries where such partitions have taken place is long: Israel/Palestine, Ireland, India/Pakistan, Cyprus, Greece/Turkey, Germany/Czechoslovakia/Poland (post-WWI), Russia/Ukraine (today), Yugoslavia, even Algeria would count.

Of course, some of these were necessary - certainly the division of the German Empire post-WWI, as well as the split between Greece and Turkey and of course the French had to leave Algeria. But many were not. In many of these cases, partition only lengthened the conflict and made things more severe. Communities were now separate countries without shared institutions or shared lives and they had little incentive to cooperate. In countries were divisions have been recognized and dealt with within the context of power-sharing or constitutionalism, countries ended up being stronger. Examples include India proper (where various secessionist movements in the Southern states were successfully dissuaded), Southern Ireland (where the remaining Irish protestants are successfully integrated into the Irish mainstream), Belgium, Switzerland, the United States (arguably), and many other examples.

Iraq would in no way be a clean split. The "border" between the Kurds and the Sunnis does not exist. It's a highly mixed area in between. Who would get Kirkuk? For that matter, who would get Baghdad where there are a million Kurds and where there exists a HUGE Shi'ite population? What about the millions of Sunnis in the South?

I also take issue with your characterization that the idea of the country looking like an American or European democracy is ludicrous. I don't think at this point we will be able to install one and I think these were fallacious gronds to launch a war. But Iraq isn't inherently unable to have democracy. I'm a true believer that any society can have democracy. Obviously, it'll have to be tailored to their own specifications, with their own types of federal safeguards, their own decision regarding the use of religion in the state, and their own electoral decisions. But be careful of saying something like "'such-and-such' country cannot have Western-style democracy" - that's a favorite slogan of dictators througout the world, who insist, as the Chinese do, that "Western-style Democracy" wouldn't work in their countries.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

10. I never said it would be easy. However, I disagree that attacking and

occupying a country, with killing thousands of their citizens, will create any scenario that will allow Iraq to emulate our current system.

I would also offer that our government today has so corrupted the ideals of democracy that it is inherently impossible to imagine that it is at all capable of transporting "democracy" anywhere.

Add to that the fact, as stated by a previous poster, that the current borders of Iraq were formed just over 100 years ago, based on colonialism, and we are looking at fixing a wrong, not breaking up a country.

When you say "their own decision of religion in the state", it immediately takes democracy off the table, since the absolute fundamental basis of a democracy is the complete separation of church and state.

We are not colonists, even though we seem to playing that role in Iraq. Negotiations will be long, excruciating and certainly won't provide neo fascist, flag waving battle scenarios to the current occupants of the WH.

What it might provide is an opportunity for a population that has been oppressed for over 100 years to realize their own state(s).

In fact, the very act of attacking and occupying a country that has not attacked us is contrary to the Constitution and democracy's tenets themselves.

Our interest is to stop our troops from being killed needlessly, Iraqi citizens to be killed needlessly and allow the population, in whatever manner necessary, to truly make their own decisions.

That's it, no more, no less.

It must hurt you, as a true believer in Democracy, to see what's been done to our civil rights at home and what's been done, in its name to the innocent civilians of Iraq. MKJ

[liberalpragmatist]

15. Well, a couple things

Firstly, I agree that given what has happened now means that it's highly unlikely democracy will take place. We may well have a civil war over which faction controls the country - the moderate Shi'ite religious establishment, the secularists, and the Sunnis, methinks, may coalesce against Sadrists and radical Shi'ite theocrats. Meanwhile, the Kurds may use the opportunity to try and break away amidst the chaos.

Secondly, my point about the role of religion in state: generally, separation of church and state is a key aspect of democracy. But the degree to which this exists depends largely on the state. Israel allows for a great deal of influence of the Jewish institutions. In France, the idea of "separation of Church and State" is very hardline so that the state shall completely separate itself from any hint of religion. In India, secularism means government neutrality towards all faiths and beliefs and involves the government in settling disputes between religious groups.

In Iraq and many other Islamic countries I could see a workable system where, for instance, regulated religious schools receive state funding in addition to the regular schools and where the constitution allows for LAWS to be written in line with the Quran as long as enumerated rights like freedom to organize, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, civic and economic equality for women - are respected. The difference would be that Quranic law would not be mandated, nor set by the constitution - instead it COULD be enacted, but it could also be repealed, like any law.

I agree at this point we have to try and allow and the Iraqi people to make their own decisions. But all I am saying is that, while it may be inevitable, partitioning Iraq is probably the WORST idea because it would cause FAR MORE trouble and conflict than making the various groups come to some kind of understanding.

I agree that Bush's folly has basically undermined a unitary Iraq greatly. If Saddam had simply been isolated, then when his regime fell (which it very well might have some day), it's likely that in the ensuing struggle for power, some moderate Ba'athist military leader would have seized power. If the international community then promised recognition only if he agreed to give up power and allow a democratic transfer of power, something could have been negotiated. The Shi'ites could have accepted interim rule by such a general until elections could be held to write a constitution. The Kurds, outside the control of the Iraqi government, would have been in a position to negotiate a re-entry into Iraq on favorable terms. Iraq could have been preserved and a democratic nation could have emerged. To those neocons who doubt this I point out that almost all the successful transitions to democracy have occurred when it is led by the people of the country, not by outside powers.

[Frederik]

8. They don't

Many Kurds would want a separate state which encompasses the Kurdish areas in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Syria. But Sunni and Shiite Arabs generally do not want to partition Iraq. People on the right-wing of Israeli politics, however, have been wanting to partition Iraq and other Arab countries into their "ethnic and religious components" for a long time.

This solution was recently proposed by David Philip, former White House advisor, now in the American Foreign Policy Council: to divide Iraq into six "regions". The AFPC is funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, which also sponsored the PNAC. I suspect that the Israeli plan of "Balkanization" of Iraq, into "artificially constructed fiefdoms ruled by leaders completely dissacociated from the population", in the words of Oded Yinon of the Israeli Foreign Affairs Ministry, has also been the neo-conservatives' long-term plan for Iraq. Small fiefdoms are easier to push around, after all. But I do not think the Iraqi Arabs are ever going to accept that.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

11. That's scary and what really scares me is that I thought that would

be a reasonable solution at this point.

Would this be part of the attempt, overtly lately, to marginalize the UN?

It seemed if the UN took over the whole process, there would be at least a sliver of chance that all voices would be heard, and checks and balances put in place by the international community to protect these fledgling states from being the victims of the predatory intentions of economically and militarily stronger nations.

MKJ

[Frederik]

14. I think it would serve a couple of purposes

The Israelis obviously don't want a strong neighbor that could threaten them. It's a small country, and they would like to have the upper hand in the Middle East.

The Pentagon/PNAC hawks want American hegemony, and most of all they want to avoid a strong Iraq that is aligned with Iran. That would be the worst possible outcome from their point of view, worse than keeping Saddam in power would have been. So three or more small, weak states that would be suspicious of or hostile to one another would be perfect. Divide and rule.

I don't know what the UN could do at this stage, frankly. Perhaps organize a conference between all the relevant parties, including al-Sadr and the Sunni clerics that are influential with the insurgents, in which the US and Britain would not participate. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iran could be mediators, if needed. With the aim of ensuring proper representation for all parties in the government, and setting a timetable for withdrawal of foreign forces. That's the best idea I can come up with.