It's not that there are more differences or less differences. It's the way they viewed the place they lived and their roles with each other. Americans had no religious attachment to the land. It was about money. They had no desire to wage war on one another and slaughter each other to hold onto every inch of it. That isn't saying they were better people, or smarter people, or anything like that. And I'm sorry for using the word dumb. Comparing the existence of three states in the US to the possibility of dividing Iraq into three separate states is weak. Better?
On your first point, the soft partition idea could only happen with the support of Shias and Kurds. We wouldn't be cramming this down their throat. On your second point, true. But the Shias and Kurds are aligned against the Sunnis. In fact, the Sunnis are almost paranoid about it and feel like they will get abused by "majoritarian" rule (the Shia+Kurd supermajority) in Iraq. That is basically why there is a civil war going on. Yes everyone hates the Kurds, but the Shia and Sunni factions hate each other more.
What do you propose we do in Iraq? Stay the course (Bush)? Pullout without a plan (Dems)? Any idea is fraught with pitfalls and dangers. A hard decision has to be made, soon IMO.
Outright partition though will likely lead to a wider regional war. Turkey, and Iran, will invade Kurdistan to prevent their own Kurds from having a safe haven of operation and suppress nationalist tendencies in their Kurdish areas. The Sunni heartland without oil will try to sieze oil rich areas on its borders like Kirkuk and will be supported by the Saudis and other Sunnis. Iran will enter on the side of the Shias. Partition might be inevitable but I don't think we should be the ones advocating it. As dysfunctional as the Iraqis are they are going to have to figure this one out for themselves. Either staying together or partition civil war is already happening and it might just take them fighting it out before they come to a conclusion about what works best.
Threats of sanctions won't work as long as there are veto powers from the permanent members of the UN Security Council. We can't even enforce one in Myanmar, and Iraq holds the 2nd largest proven crude reserves in the world. The energy trade and our domestic economy will play larger roles than is being mentioned in our patience to the progress Iraq is taking. A low ebb could push us to pursue unofficial partition where we just cut support in everything except high priority targets, and let the locals do their thing.
I've never been to Iraq but I am assuming that sunnis and shiites live in the same cities as each other albeit maybe in different neighborhoods Won't this be like trying to split Texas into a hispanic, white, and black state?
Before the invasion, they frequently lived in the same neighborhoods. Today, they are violently being forced into segregated neighborhoods, or pushed out of cities and towns altogether. D&D. Impeach George Bush for Gross Incompetence.
Your point about the difficulty is very relevant and cuts right to the heart of the matter, but imagine that we weren't talking about three ethnic groups who also identified themselves as American and compatable. So what we have is a very difficult task, but imagine that it is also very desirable for the three groups. For a historical context I suggest you look at Republkia Srpska, the Serbs of Bosnia. People won't be preacibly relocated from their homes in order to affect this seperation. Almost ineviatably, the only way to make it happen is ethnic clensing. This is the primary fear that I have with this federalization; that federalization will eventually force seperate states, followed by a period of widespread mass murder for ethnic reasons. Ethnic/racial hatred is one thing. But the very active act of ethnic mass murder is a very effort intensive occupation. People don't just do it for fun. A tangible gain (in this case an increase in land) really needs to be behind it. Beyond Yugoslavia, the same pattern occurred in Israel/Palestine at points when that are has been in flux, as well as parts of India/Pakistan which were up for grabs between Sikhs, Hindu, and Muslims during partition. It has also happened in Africa, for instance Darfur, where Muslims want to remove all the Christians and Animists, and between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. I'm also sure it has happened many other times before that. The more I think about it, the more I think the plan to split the country into segments and divide those segments between Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran might be the best thing. Of course, that will never happen for many reasons that I can think of, but I can't think of any other option that might result in a clean split. Some of this can already be seen in the fight over oil revenues for Kirkuk, which was traditionally Kurdish and Shia. Sadam at some point forcibly moved tons of Kurds out and moved in Sunni Arabs. Now they fight it out over 'whose' land it is and who gets the cash.
This solution will actually increase the liklihood of this very scenario since the borders will be more mallaeable. I think we're better off just creating three separate states and defining the borders now, and ensure that any country invading these new states will face the wrath of our airforce.
An outcome of 3 different states might be inevitable. What you seem to miss is the pathway there is extremely important. If the U.S. just instituted a 3 state solution by decree RIGHT NOW, it would fail miserably and would stain us much like the catastrophic decision to invade. If the Shias and Kurds don't agree to partition, it's a non-starter, which is currently the case. Nudging them that direction by throwing the soft-partition idea out there, maybe creating the feeling of inevitbility, getting their feedback/input and finally their agreement is the only way to implement that solution. Agreements on borders and oil revenues must be made by the Iraqis themselves (at least by the Shias and Kurds). BTW, the reason I leave the Sunnis out is they would probably never agree to any partition or the terms they demand for it would be outlandish.
I agree. Besides, unless Turkey attacked US bases in "autonomous Kurdistan," there is no way in hell we're going to assault Turkey. Absolutely NO WAY. It would be an act of madness even Bush wouldn't consider. D&D. Impeach SOMEBODY!!!
I think really there's only two choices. If you want to withdrawal u.s. troops as soon as possible, you create three countries, get things started, and get out. But this idea of redistributing the populations and trying to create a state balancing these three groups is going to just create more mess and keep us there longer. So that's fine, but it's not going to bring about a swift withdrawal at all - but isn't that what everyone wants?
I wouldn't bet the farm on it. A direct assault on US forces, of course not. A confrontation that could become dangerous? Not an impossibility. D&D. Impeach GOP Presidents, Whoever They Are.
but don't you think that this "soft partition" will have the same result? I see the same thing happening....except by not fully cutting the country apart, when nations start to secede, there's a much higher chance of civil war.
I don't think we have to force partition. If we cut and run, the al Qaeda/insurgency movement will do its darndest to cause sectarian violence to the point where national pride for the state of Iraq is an afterthought. The cynical part in me thinks if we were to actively promote partition, the Iraqis would protest and claim that they have the aformentioned pride in their country and can take care of their own affairs. Iraqis are beginning to realize the consequence of an early and complete American departure. The more they make our servicemen's lives easier, the less likely they'll need to use those arms all sides have been not so secretly stockpiling.
Partition won't work. I think you guys are forgetting about Baghdad. There is no way in hell the Sunnis or the Shi'ites will 'forfeit' Baghdad to the other. Moreover, Iraqis (especially Sunnis and Shi'ites) still largely self-identify as Iraqis; this ill-informed notion that Shi'ite Arabs in Iraq identify with Iran just because it's largely Shi'ite is just that: ill-informed. Shi'ite Arabs in Iraq see themselves as Iraqi, just about as much as Sunnis self-identify as Iraqis. Let's not fool ourselves: the ONLY ethnic minority in Iraq that would be interested in having their own independent state are the Kurds. Both the Shi'ites and Sunnis (roughly 80% or more of the country) are adamant about keeping Iraq together, with Baghdad as its historical capital.
Why would they be risking confrontation with the U.S. if they just bombard Kurdish militia strongholds in northern Iraq, much like the Iranians have been doing ? We might protest it, but Turkey has nothing to worry about short of an all-out invasion of northern Iraq (ironically enough, if it does happen, Iran will likely participate militarily in alliance with Turkey; they're 'bedfellows' of sorts when it comes to the Kurdish separatist problem).
I beleive this to be true as well I mean . . Iranians [and friend of mine stated he prefers Persian] don't consider themselves Arabs They don't even speak Arabic [primarily]. . they speak Farci While they both maybe Shi ite - they are quite different culturally unless i am mistaken which I could be. . or just il-informed Rocket River
