This is my view, not taken from a column. It's also not what I'm hoping for, or am putting out as a referendum on the Bush administration. I'd like to be clear on that. I keep looking at the situation, and can't see this Iraqi Conflict ending without the country splitting into 3 or 4 nations. In a nutshell: We currently have 3 major groups in Iraq (Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurdish), with the Shiite-Sunni violence being the most severe. The Sunnis represent the group most empowered in the Saddam era, the Shiites the population majority, and the Kurds an ethnic minority. The way it seems to me is, we're trying to force Bloods, Crips, and M-13s to live in a single apartment complex. Upsetting an observation as it is, it could be that the only way that could work was under a brutal dictatorship. The idea that the population will accept an egalitarian rule is looking more and more like a joke with each passing day. What I believe will happen, no matter what, is a split into Kurdistan, A Sunni-led Iraq, and a Shi'a nation that may or may not fall under Iranian rule. The re-establishment of a sovereign Kurdistan has been almost expected for some time, and a major reason why Turkey would not support the US coalition in 2003 (they fear their own Southeast Kurdish population {~1/5th of the Turkish population} would seek to split off and join a new Kurdistan). At least two major oil fields would be claimed (Kirkuk, Mosul), with one (Mosul) that would be a source of contention. As seen in the above map, there is seemingly such a demographic segregation within Iraq that a fracture would not have to be "messy" - however, oilfields would certainly lead to bloody border disputes. Iran is predominately Shiite, and would strengthen that Iraqi fraction (possibly even annexing it). The Sunni side would likely make a strong play for the Basra Oil fields. Thoughts? Evan
I don't know how sad it is, in general. I do know that the majority of Shia definitely don't want to be part of Iran. The Babylonians and Persians have only rarely gotten along in the history of the world. Some of Iraq's problems go back to poorly thought-out divisions in British colonial rule. If three countries can survive where one can't, I'd be for it.
That's really nice of you to say. I try to pick and choose when to post here as much as possible, as the line between discussing and senseless fighting about "heavy" news can be razor thin. Evan
I'm assuming long-term Shia dominance, which will devolve from civil war now into one-sided ethnic suppression. I don't know if minority ethnics in any particular region (Shia citizens in a Sunni region, vice-versa) would feel comfortable about a partition. Also, are we talking about three eventually sovereign nations, which means three separate armies between Iran and Saudi Arabia? Have prominent Shia and Sunni reps actually asked for partition?
separate countries would just seem to create more longterm hostilities over land and resources. i dont know how much pride iraqis have in being iraqi, but i think it may be more than some estimate. Nor, do i really know how much animosity they sunnis/kurds/shiia have with one another. I know there is some animosity, but im also skeptical about how much. I think that the current tensions are more a product of outsiders wanting to create a schism, rather than the wish of the 'typical' iraqi person
i could see annexation by saudi, iran, and turkey... though the US is not likely to let that happen with the number of soldiers we've lost, amount of money we've spent over there.
i could see iranian forces invading, followed by a saudi counter invasion... but like i said, i don't think it's likely. there would be too much political backlash worldwide if these countries militarily interfered.
A few issues. The first is the Turkish statement that they will not allow an indepentant country of Kurdistan. Is this posturing, or a real threat? In any case, it is obvious that the Turks, our long time NATO partners, are very fearful that a Kurdistan would cause internal problems. Secondly, what do you do about the Sunni populations who were placed by Saddam in Kurdistan and near Basra? Part of the problem in Yugoslavia is that Serbs, for instance, decided that a population of Bosnian Serbs gave them just cause to redraw borders with Bosnia or worse to engage in ethnic clensing in Bosnia to make mixed areas of Bosnia completely Serbian. Before buying into a multi-state solution, one should study the demise of Yugoslavia fairly carefuly. The final point is that it will create a situation vaguly reminicent of Eastern Europe in the interwar period. After WWI, the allies seperated all of the ethnic constitents of Austria-Hungary into their own, small countries (part of Poland, parts of Romania, parts of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Austria but left the German states (Bavaria, Prussia, the various Saxonies, both Mecklenburgs, Hesse, both Rueß lines, Oldenburg, Wurtenburg, etc.) intact as a large entity. This enabled large post-Weimar Germany to swallow or co-opt the parts Austria-Hungary in many seperate bites, instead of taking the whole thing down in one bite which would have been much more difficult. In the 'multiple states' scenario, you create an imbalance between Iran and her three smaller neighbors. Should the mullahs decide to gobble one or more pieces, they would not be stopped without 'Gulf War III'. Good luck selling that one to the American people. I guess an independent Kurdistan might not be such a bad thing for many of the American hawks. The US could draft an agreement with Kurdistan to station troops and set up listening posts on Iran, control the flow of Mosul oil, etc. and the hawks wouldn't have to deal with trying to justify troops getting killed in large volume. In other words, they could achieve many of their likely goals for the war on a smaller scale, but with much less downside.
good analysis. i agree that this would basically cause iraq to become a pre WW1 eastern europe. i think one major flaw of our invasion besides troop numbers, was to totally dismantle the existing government. in WW2 japan we left hirohito in power but gave the japanese people a new constitution. perhaps if we had followed this a bit more closely we wouldn't be worried about breaking the country up in to three separate pieces. i don't know that we should have left saddam in power, but had he abdicated and allowed a different party member to take control perhaps it would have turned out differently. so which did you vote for?
I'm guessing you will either end up with 2 states, Iraq and Kurdistan, or one state with a federal structure. The Sunni heartland isn't enough value to be a single state and they would demand Baghdad as their capital which wouldn't go over well with the Shiites. Kurdistan is the most organized part and could survive as independent so I imagine it might split but would probably stay tethered to Irag in some sort of federation. The rest of Iraq will remain Shiite dominated.
You could increase the workability of chopping up Iraq if you instituted some sort of revenue sharing for the oil, that way the Sunnis don't get pissed off by getting locked out of the oil wealth and demand some of the oil fields.
I have a feeling that Iraq will be rife with terrorism even after the bulk of the American military leaves. The spoils are too huge for the extremists not to ignore. Whoever controls Iraq has the power and influence to build a WMD capable military and disrupt the global market. Terror issues could create openings for another state to intervene in order to "protect" their brothers. Cohesiveness and security is not in Iraq, so it's very hard to see it as one solid state for now. Heck, all three possibilities could happen at one time or another. The best outcome for us is a Shia dominated majority that counters Persian and Saudi/Wahabbist influence in the Middle East.
