Should Iraq be split up?

[Adrian II]

'The US now has to recognize that it overthrew Saddam Hussein to replace him with a pro-Iranian state.'


Peter W. Galbraith, the former US ambassador to Croatia and an advisor to the Iraqi Kurds
During the (civil) war in former Yugoslavia, there came time when outside intervention had reached its limits, parties were pressed to cut their losses and accept a permanent partition of the country, supported by international agreements, instead of fighting on.

I believe the time has come to acknowledge that Iraq, too, will be split one way or the other because the hatred, distrust and religious divisions have become too much to control within one political union. Instead of encouraging a Shiite regime for all of Iraq that will be heavily (and violently) contested by Kurds and Sunnis till the end of time, we should actively encourage a partition.

It would be best if that partition were to be an orderly process with international backing and regional support. Three separate nations – a Kurdish, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab – would be the result. Apart from a careful geographical partition there would have to be a power and wealth sharing agreement between these three states, so that the oil-poor Sunnis get their share of what was originally all of Iraq’s natural wealth.

Who agrees with this re-think, who doesn’t, and why?

[Adrian II]

I agree that a partition among cultural lines might be the best solution to ending this fiasco quickly.You realise of course that this means you get three more or less oppressive regimes. It is not going to be a pretty sight. But then, neither is the present situation. And once things have calmed down, democracy, if strongly promoted and supported from outside, would have a second chance in each of the three nations. I must say the latter consideration weighs very heavily with me. Others may not be so 'spiritual'..

[Dâriûsh]

I would prefer to see Iraq split into three nation states. The Sunnis wont like that either, however. You see, there is oil in the Kurdish areas in the north, and there is oil in the Shia areas in the South, but there is no oil in the Sunni areas in the middle. They will be impoverished.

[Adrian II]

I would prefer to see Iraq split into three nation states. The Sunnis wont like that either, however. You see, there is oil in the Kurdish areas in the north, and there is oil in the Shia areas in the South, but there is no oil in the Sunni areas in the middle. They will be impoverished.I totally agree. That is why I mentioned the need for 'a power and wealth sharing agreement between these three states, so that the oil-poor Sunnis get their share of what was originally all of Iraq’s natural wealth'.

[Red Harvest]

I've felt partitioning would be the outcome since the 1st Gulf War. The Kurdish problem is one, and one that Turkey etc. have helped to create.

I disagree with the assertion of three autocratic regimes. That is a possibility but it could also be three representative regimes or 2 and 1. It all depends on whether or not there is credible opposition. Three small regimes who neutralize each other's power is still better than one big regime run by a despot. None of the three are going to pose much threat on their own.

[drone]

Who agrees with this re-think, who doesn’t, and why?I'm sure the Turks don't agree, I thought an independant Kurdistan was a definite no-no for them. Now if you could get the Sunni Arabs and Kurds to make nice, you could have 2 states, both with oil, one Shia and one Sunni. But I think that Saddam's Sunni Arab tyranny over the Kurds probably eliminates this option.

[Dâriûsh]

I totally agree. That is why I mentioned the need for 'a power and wealth sharing agreement between these three states, so that the oil-poor Sunnis get their share of what was originally all of Iraq’s natural wealth'.

But then you’d have to get the Sunnis to agree on a compromise.

[Red Harvest]

I'm sure the Turks don't agree, I thought an independant Kurdistan was a definite no-no for them. Now if you could get the Sunni Arabs and Kurds to make nice, you could have 2 states, both with oil, one Shia and one Sunni. But I think the Saddam's Sunni Arab tyranny over the Kurds probably eliminates this option.

It's going to be the Sunni's alone withou oil IIRC. I don't have any sympathy for the Turks when it comes to minority populations. They weren't a big help during the invasion. Altogether I don't see their views on this as being helpful to the Kurds, Iraq, or the U.S.

[Silver Rusher]

I think that a Sunni-Shi'ite split would be good as well. There is too much conflict, and it worked for India and Pakistan/Bangladesh.

[Steppe Merc]

Perhaps this would be best. I do agree, that there needs that the wealth needs to somehow be split, but how, I don't know.
And does it matter what Turkey thinks? Why would Kurds having their own state being any worse than then being in Iraq?

[sharrukin]

The kurds might start supporting insurgent or terror groups in Iran and Turkey to unite the Kurdish parts of those countries to the new Kurdish homeland. The Turks might then take action against this new Kurdish homeland. Any partition of this nature will have unintended consequences which we will only discover with time. I am not all that convinced it would be a great idea.

[ah_dut]

I agree that a partition among cultural lines might be the best solution to ending this fiasco quickly.
It will probably end (or at worst reduce) the current fiasco but may well chuck up a whole new truckload of problems, a proverbial Pandora's Box perhaps?

[drone]

I think that a Sunni-Shi'ite split would be good as well. There is too much conflict, and it worked for India and Pakistan/Bangladesh.
Umm, I think you might want to use a different example here. IIRC, the original partition of India resulted in the deaths of around 5 million people. The death toll from the Pakistani/Bangladesh split is unknown, estimated between 30,000 and 3 million. And now there are 2 hostile nuclear powers trying to stare each other down...

Partition, especially if people are to be displaced/moved, would be very ugly.

[Duke Malcolm]

The British-occuped south should become Her Majesty's territory of Basra, and a Briton should be appointed as Governor thereof. The rest can split up.

[L'Impresario]

Apart from a careful geographical partition there would have to be a power and wealth sharing agreement between these three states, so that the oil-poor Sunnis get their share of what was originally all of Iraq’s natural wealth

Actually the notion of distributing the oil profits has been agreed upon quite recently, during the constitution talks as well. Theoretically it seems fair, but I think it won't be realised in the end. Why? There are plenty reasons. Attempting highly advanced decentralised procedures that involve opposing groups forced to cooperate mostly due to external elements, and trying to base that on a previously overwhelmingly centralised state, while lacking basic infrastructure (and that should be the case for quite a while)...hmm sounds tough. Most emerging economies I know of can't perform such a feat without losing huge amounts to corruption, outdated practices and structural deficits. And Iraq is hardly a unified and functional state as we speak.

The overall idea of a split is an extremely complex issue, that will probably make the "successor states" protectorates to larger powers. The suitors are easy to imagine.
The Kurdish state would have the prospects of being a very good ally to the USA, though at the heavy cost of other strategical partnerships.

[Tribesman]

The Kurdish state would have the prospects of being a very good ally to the USA, though at the heavy cost of other strategical partnerships.
How so ???? One of the main Kurdish parties is an Iranian backed "terrorist" organisation ~D ~D ~D
Until the recent ceasefire agreement between the two main parties they spent as much time killing each other as they did fighting for "independance" .
Plus you have the various other Kurdish grouping both within the Iraqi borders and outside of them , fighting amongst themselves and neighbouring governments , what the hell makes anyone believe that an "independant" Kurdistan would be either peaceful or a "good ally" ~:confused:

So to examine 3 seperate states in Iraq ;
Kurdistan , bordering Turkey , Syria , Iran (each with significant Kurdish populations and the problems that may entail) and ArabSunnistan (may be a bit of bad feeling there for some strange reason) .
ArabSunnistan , bordering Kurdistan(already mentioned) , Syria(Ba'athist , so they may be friends) , Jordan , Saudi(home to exremist militants) Iran (that should be fun) and new Greater Iran (Shiastan) a few more problems there don't you think .
Greater Iran , bordering Iran(oh no the axis of evil) Kuwait (don't they still claim that that is really their land and oil anyway), Saudi and ArabSunnistan(here we go again)

So instead of a nice pleasant little civil war in one country you have the very real prospect of a regionwide conflict involving 9 countries with ever shifting alliances . Just think of Lebanon....but bigger .. and with lots of impact on oil flow .

So in my opinion splittiing the country would cause a lot more harm than good , but of course anyone with half a brain would have thought about the aftermath before they invaded . ~:cheers:

[PanzerJaeger]

No. The situation in Iraq is not nearly unstable enough to seriously consider that kind of solution. To split Iraq up would be to bow to the wishes of the jihadists and admit the fact that Iraqis are not civilized enough to live in a multicultural society - which I dont think is the truth. The people driving this insurgency are good at getting media attention, but they arent as numerous as they'd have us think.

We need to focus on military and rebuilding strategies.

[Red Harvest]

So in my opinion splittiing the country would cause a lot more harm than good , but of course anyone with half a brain would have thought about the aftermath before they invaded . ~:cheers:

Are you talking about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?

You see the problem was that the place was already unstable. While Iraq was held together by a dictator, he was a destabilizing influence, as was the Shah in Iran. Anytime a strongman falls, it tends to result in some chaos and conflict and quite often fractures..

In 1990 we had to get Saddam out of Kuwait and neutralize his ability to hit the Saudi's. Problem was there was no way to really restore his autocratic stability, unless we wanted to maintain a heavily armed presense forever. The other part is that when he died there was still the likelihood of the country fracturing.

Iraq was arleady broken, because the only pin holding it together was Saddam. I believed 15 years ago, and I believe today that it is unlikely to survive as a state, for the very same reasons I did then. We (the world) were kidding ourselves and making a strategic blunder by not finishing the job back in 1990. That's why Bush I failed to support the rebellion in Iraq.

The Kurdish problem hasn't been caused by the U.S. it has been caused by their neighbors. Make 'em independent and let their neighbors suffer the consequences.

[Proletariat]

...and admit the fact that Iraqis are not civilized enough to live in a multicultural society - which I dont think is the truth.

I for one am an Iraqi War supporter who has lost just about all faith in the Iraqi's living together with each other.

We have fallen for the oldest trick in the book, that both the British and Saddam learned, that these guys just can't live together peacefully. There's alot of people on this planet that simply don't like certain other people, and these guys hate each other with a depth that's not really fathomable to us.

Humanist thought simply exists very sporadically outside of the Western world. If they hadn't won the Natural Resource Lottery these guys wouldn't be a factor in a modern world.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

No, Iraq is one nation. They need to learn how to live together. No need to go redefining boarders.

[Tribesman]

Are you talking about Saddam's invasion of Kuwait?
What , you mean when Saddam thought it would be simpler to get rid of Kuwait rather than paying them back the money they had given him to help finance the worlds proxy war with the Ayatollah ? ~;)

The Kurdish problem hasn't been caused by the U.S. it has been caused by their neighbors. Make 'em independent and let their neighbors suffer the consequences.
Ahhh , that would explain why Turkey was just a little bit wary about supporting this madness then . ~:cheers:
Iran would seem to be the only major winner out of this .
That would also probably explain why it had its agents feeding the American governmnet lies by the bucketfull (which they were only to happy to lap up) .
Iranian based Shia groups dominate the new Iraqi "parliament" , Iranian backed Kurds, very well armed I might add , have the edge in the Kurdish assembly , Iranian based clerics are going to be drawing up the new laws for Iraq (with sharia law superceding any other law) The US has become isolated internationally and divided internally over a very unpopular and expensive war and had its politicians credibility sent to an all time low .
It has tied down the major power that could threaten it in an appalling mess that it cannot get out of and has also had that power eliminate its two regional enemies . Add to that the fact that Iranian backed groups are on the ascendancy politically in Palestine and the Leb (Egypt as well if they ever had free elections and released the opposition from jail) and they now have a free hand to develop their own nuclear program and no one can really stop them .
So whether Iraq is split or stays united there does seem to be only one winner out of all of this ...the theocracy of Iran .

Oh and all that oil they are sitting on has had its price go through the roof .

[English assassin]

To split Iraq up would be to bow to the wishes of the jihadists and admit the fact that Iraqis are not civilized enough to live in a multicultural society

I'm not sure the British are civilised enough to live in a multicultural society, never mind the Iraqis. (Usually at this point my wife would remind me, lets see, how does it go, "We Persians were living in cities when your ancestors were still painting their arses blue", yes, thank you dear.)

Tribesmans points are excellent, for my part I feel the intractable issue of Kurdistan is enough to scupper the idea. The Turks (NATO member, EU supplicant and with a genuiely effective military) will never accept andindependent Kurdish state on their borders, what with all the naughty ideas it will give the Kurds within Turkey.

Besides which I am not too sure how serious the issue of interethnic tension in Iraq is, as opposed to the presence of US troops acting as a magnet for Wahaddi madmen from all around the region. The Sunnis have been on the pigs back for years, now they are going to be a minority, deal with it. Admittedly it IS rather stupid to go into a country and proclaim democracy without asking yourself who the newly enfranchised voters will support, but "rather stupid" and "American foreign policy" have gone together for years. (Phillipines, South America, Vietnam, Israel, etc etc) (This is not an anti-american remark. I wish the USA did have a sensible foreign policy, it would make the world a better place.)

IMHO the only option now is for the US to resign itself to "peacekeeping" in Iraq for the long haul. You broke it, you own it, that's the rule. That also means preventing the shias joining Iran and I couldn't care less if that is antidemocratic. IIRC the British undertook a similar sort of exercise in Egypt in 1882, announcing we were only there for a short while to support the native leaders and would leave as soon as possible.

40 years later we gave them partial independence and we only really left after WWII. These are the sorts of timescales Amercia needs to think of for real nation building. This empire-lite crap she is up to now is dangerous.

[Adrian II]

This empire-lite crap she is up to now is dangerous.True, but when devising scenarios, you have to deal with all sorts of imponderables. This is one of them. It is highly unlikely that American public is prepared to stay in Iraq for the long haul. It is highly unlikely that Turkey will suffer a Kurdish state gladly. It is highly unlikely that Iran will not influence or downright smother a Southern Shiite Iraqi rump state.

However, if the U.S. stands up to Turkey on the Kurdish issue (by guaranteeing Iraqi Kurdistan's territorial integrity) and the EU makes it clear that effective Turkish membership is out of the question if they invade Iraqi Kurdistan, one might be able to pull this one off.

As for the Sunnis, they are obviously not prepared to deal with their demise if that means a Shiite domination of the country and no more oil benefits.

And the Shiites will not be prepared to suffer the American presence for much longer either. The famed 'long haul' would imply that the U.S. would be facing a Shiite guerilla as well as the present Sunni guerilla. Count your blessings.

[Adrian II]

So whether Iraq is split or stays united there does seem to be only one winner out of all of this ...the theocracy of Iran.We are familiar with your view that we are all going to hell in a handcart, Mr President, but that doesn't mean we have to do the pushing ourselves. One could try and be a bit more constructive on this one.

[English assassin]

So, we are agreed we wouldn't start from here?

Your comments on Kurdistan might work, if we added a covert understanding that Turkey had a free hand in dealing with Kurdish seperatists within her borders. Which would be nasty.

I fail to see what the Sunnis can do, to be honest. If the issue had to be put to a short undeclared civil war before they accept they are now low monkey, well, they had their good years under saddam, now they can have some bad.

The Shia issue is the most important strategically, because of the oil. (Oops. "Its not about Oil its about Freedom", sorry, I was forgetting). I just don't see a way of preventing a greater Iran once Iraq is partitioned. And, notwithstanding my partisanship of Iran (which is waning slightly in view of the elections and the nuclear programme), the price of continued occupation is worth paying to prevent that.


It is highly unlikely that American public is prepared to stay in Iraq for the long haul.

Yes, and its easy for me to say this when its not the British taking (many) casualties, but they need to grow up then, don't they? They don't have a "with one mighty bound, they were free" option here. They can't walk about the world getting hot whenever they think of all their aircraft carriers, and expect to be able to invade a country, destroy what few civic institutions it had, and naff off home after six months for tea and medals leaving a grateful population behind. Even Germany was much harder work than that and they had only been under a dictatorship for 13 years or so, and had previously has very highly developed institutions.

I dare say you've read "American empire" by Niall Ferguson, but he is very good on all this.

[L'Impresario]

How so ???? One of the main Kurdish parties is an Iranian backed "terrorist" organisation
Until the recent ceasefire agreement between the two main parties they spent as much time killing each other as they did fighting for "independance" .
Plus you have the various other Kurdish grouping both within the Iraqi borders and outside of them , fighting amongst themselves and neighbouring governments , what the hell makes anyone believe that an "independant" Kurdistan would be either peaceful or a "good ally"
It's pretty simple actually. There has been no Kurdistan till today, the prospects of having an independant "homeland" is too important for those people. The Kurds in general can be designated as the most secular group of the 3 (there are extremists ofcourse in the north but they aren't to be confused with Shia ones, Kurds have quite a different goal). They are already viewed by Sunnis and Shias as collaborators of the US in creating a more clearly divided Iraq. I don't think that a regional alliance of sorts with Iran would serve any obvious purpose at all. About internal fighting in Kurdistan and the various factions involved in it, the various Shia and and Türkmen minorities should not be overloooked, as they 'd most certainly oppose any one-sided actions regarding the future of northern Iraq.
But overall it's true that the Kurds have proven so far to be the most reliable partners of the US in Iraq. I can't understand though how "peaceful" equals to "good ally" at this point, but I wouldn't also characterise Kurds as warlike and eager to cause problems with every neighbouring country. In Turkey specifically there have been some steps in a positive direction, notably PM Erdoğan's visit to the unstable east provinces a couple of weeks ago, and the subsequent promises he made, like amnesty to some 5000 rebel fighters and a new approach on development issues. On the other hand, a free Kurdistan could stir things up badly in that area, but I don't see this likely to happen anytime soon, unless some big unexpected event happens - like always heh


Iranian based Shia groups dominate the new Iraqi "parliament" , Iranian backed Kurds, very well armed I might add , have the edge in the Kurdish assembly , Iranian based clerics are going to be drawing up the new laws for Iraq (with sharia law superceding any other law)

Ermm that could happen in a not-so-improbable scenario, but in the draft constitution "Islam" appears as the primary source of legislation, with the principles of democracy and human rights carrying about the same weight, all ofcourse in theory. The constitutional court won't be a sharia one btw, but we shall see what happens in the future.

[bmolsson]

Should it be split up ? No. Not good for the security in the area.

Will it be split up? Yes, and it will be even more messy in the area.....

[Tribesman]

One could try and be a bit more constructive on this one.
Hey Adrian , I was being constructive , I was building a nuclear armed greater Iran rising to dominate a far wider area .
Not really what was intended by the removal of Saddam , but when you construct something it generally helps if you have very detailed plans showing every aspect of the building and the phases in which it will progress . It is sometimes a good idea to get an artist to draw up an impression of the finished article aswell so you can show people that despite the current mess it will eventually look wonderfull .
Unfortunately this time the plans were badly put together or missing entirely , and while the artists impression shows a shining tower of freedom rising above the Tigris and Euphrates where people will happily live in their wonderful new construct , the reality is a series of rather shabby bungaloes built on dodgy foundations , that are suffering subsidance before they are even roofed .

[Steppe Merc]

Wouldn't it be lesser Iran? (Just pointing out).

Perhaps splitting it up would be very bad. Yes, perhaps the different peoples aren't that happy together, but if we split them up, they'd still not like each other, and everyone else would be more likely to get involved.

[Del Arroyo]

I think it makes alot more sense for Iraq to be split up. Regardless of the sentiments of the majorities of each ethnic group, the only way to control the extremists on all sides at this point is going to be a very heavy-handed centralized government.

But if you split it three ways, much less tyranny would be necessary.

You can spend all day coming up with possible problems caused by a paritioned Iraq, but what is the alternative?

It seems to me that by trying to hold Iraq together, we are merely uniting the extremists in all camps to oust the central government, who will then turn on eachother in a civil war which will result in partition. In other words, we are probably only delaying the inevitable and causing alot more bloodshed for them and embarrassment for us.

I don't know if we are capable of creating a strong enough central government to get a hold on things.

DA

[Brenus]

Great idea, like that the Kurds will dream again about a united Kurdistan (sure the Turks, the Iranians, the Syrian and I don’t remember who else will be happy with it) and the Shiites will united with Iran. Good step forwards stability in the region. ~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

Great idea, like that the Kurds will dream again about a united Kurdistan (sure the Turks, the Iranians, the Syrian and I don’t remember who else will be happy with it) and the Shiites will united with Iran. Good step forwards stability in the region. ~:cheers:

And that would differ from the last several decades in what way exactly?

Self determination should prevail.

[Don Corleone]

You forgot your [sarcasm] tags Brenus. Many people will think you're serious.

I don't think "The Turks won't like it" is a good reason for denying sovereignty to the Kurds. That being said, I'm pretty torn. There's good and bad examples for unification or partition around the globe. At the end of the day, blame for the entire Rwandan genocide can be laid at the feet of forcing two peoples to live together under one banner. Then again, the Korean war was caused by partitioning.

One thing I do know... any decision imposed on the people from the outside is not going to be accepted. It's got to be a decision they make for themselves, no matter how much or how little we like it.

[Adrian II]

Hey Adrian, I was being constructive, I was building a nuclear armed greater Iran rising to dominate a far wider area.I know you are far from being the moron some members (pretend to) think you are, and your views often make more sense to me the more I ponder them. Maybe sometimes you bury them too deep under a layer of cynicism and people think you just make fun of them. In that regard I guess I am just one of the guys, and not always quite ready for the full, blinding flash of your enlightenment, Mr President.

Yes, a 'stable' Iran -- in the sense of a nation that feels safe, in control of its destiny and less torn by internal strife and external threats -- would be a great advantage. And yes, Iran would probably dominate an Iraqi Shiite state in the South. But after a partition of Iraq, at least they wouldn't dominate all of that country.

[Brenus]

If you want to have an idea of what will be the effect of a partition of Iraq, I suggest studying the Treaty of Sevres. :book:
The last of the treaties that ended World War I. Negotiated between the Allied powers and the Ottoman Empire, it was finalized August 1920 but never ratified by the Turkish government. The treaty reduced the size of Turkey by making concessions to the Greeks, Kurds, and Armenians, as well as ending Turkish control of Arab lands. Its terms were rejected by the newly created nationalist government and the treaty was never ratified. It was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. :book:

I remember reading books like the “Kurdistan or Death”. It is a real right for the Kurds to be reunified. But, it is also a great factor of destabilisation. I worked in Iraqi Kurdistan after Desert storm Operation and Provide Comfort, so I really sympathise with the Kurds. However, the idea to build a country on religious disagreements (Shiites and Sunnites) instead to develop Citizenship starts to frighten me. What about the Chaldeo-Christian (one of my drivers was from this origin), what about the development of democracy. What about the Arab of the Marshes, what about the minorities, the right of women in this religious-division of the world? ~:confused:
I was sarcastic, but the implosion of Iraq will end with an explosion of the neighbours.
Just a little reminder: Turkey (not Arab) has a military treaty with Israel (reason why Syria can’t move).If a suspicion of an independent Kurdistan rises they won’t just watch (See Treaty of Sevres). Iran having Kurds in her territory will in one hand fight against them, but will try to take the Shiite part of Iraq (and Persians). I am not sure that the Sunnite neighbours (Arabs) will accept the fact so easily…
It will be a start of a potential mega-war…

[Adrian II]

(..) what about the development of democracy?That is what worries me most of all. Democracy is the only solution to most of the issues you mention, but it will not have a chance in the present situation because it is deteriorating by the day. The very effort to install a strong new Iraqi state is weakening the unification of the country because that state will be Shiite in outlook and personnel.

And to counter your example of Sèvres and its aftermath, which happened long ago, I could point to the more recent example of the former Yugoslavia where peace and incipient democracy could be restored only after a partition was accepted by all parties.

You are right that the neighbours will have a hard time accepting those three new Iraqi states. But do not forget that the United States is militarily capable of keeping them all at bay and making them sit on their greedy hands for as long as it takes to make that partition work out.

[Brenus]

You touch a sensible point in mentioning Former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, I am less optimistic than you on the subject. We (meaning the Western Countries) just endorsed the Ethnic Cleansing. It isn’t a development of democracy; it is just what the Ultra-nationalist from all camps wanted… I am not sure that the developments are accepted… Well, honestly, I don’t see any reasons why the refugees should accept the lost of their homes… And Brcko and Mostar status are still unresolved…

[ichi]

Yes, the Kurds should get their own independent state, the Sunnis should get the desert and the US should get the Shiite south. Make it the 51st state and call it Oilvania, but don't let the Iranians get the oil

ichi :bow:

[Adrian II]

You touch a sensible point in mentioning Former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, I am less optimistic than you on the subject. We (meaning the Western Countries) just endorsed the Ethnic Cleansing. It isn’t a development of democracy; it is just what the Ultra-nationalist from all camps wanted… I am not sure that the developments are accepted… Well, honestly, I don’t see any reasons why the refugees should accept the lost of their homes… And Brcko and Mostar status are still unresolved…You are quite correct and I am not naive about the prospects for democracy in the former Yugoslavia, but I do know that peace is a better condition for democracy to develop than war. And it is the development of democracy that will decide about the future chances of refugees returning, damages being paid, wounds healed.

[Tribesman]

Yes, a 'stable' Iran -- in the sense of a nation that feels safe, in control of its destiny and less torn by internal strife and external threats -- would be a great advantage. And yes, Iran would probably dominate an Iraqi Shiite state in the South. But after a partition of Iraq, at least they wouldn't dominate all of that country.
External threats .
Well Iran is complaining that the MEK based in what would become ArabSunnistan are continuing to conduct "terrorist" actions in Iran (ironic isn't it Iran complaining about terrorists ~D ) . would they be justified in invading to root out the terrorist threat ?
Also what about Isreali backed Kurds , how well would that go down ? It is entirely understandable (though the Americans have complained about it) , it serves to counter the Iranian backed Kurds and also gives Syria a bit of an internal and exrenal problem to deal with .
BTW did you find out any more about the troubles and troop movements in the Kurdish areas of Iran ?

I know you are far from being the moron some members (pretend to) think you are
Sorry Adrian , you are wrong there , I am an idiot , everyone is an idiot , but at least I know I am , some people live in denial . ~;)
Humans eh ? damn fools the lot of them ~:cheers:

[Adrian II]

BTW did you find out any more about the troubles and troop movements in the Kurdish areas of Iran ?I asked my colleague and couldn't point me to anything worthwhile on the Web, sorry. He did say though that as a general overview the Galbraith piece (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150) on Iraq in the New York Review of Books was very good.
I am an idiotAren't we a.. I mean, can I quote you on that, Mr President?
~:cheers:

[Red Harvest]

That is what worries me most of all. Democracy is the only solution to most of the issues you mention, but it will not have a chance in the present situation because it is deteriorating by the day. The very effort to install a strong new Iraqi state is weakening the unification of the country because that state will be Shiite in outlook and personnel.

And to counter your example of Sèvres and its aftermath, which happened long ago, I could point to the more recent example of the former Yugoslavia where peace and incipient democracy could be restored only after a partition was accepted by all parties.

You are right that the neighbours will have a hard time accepting those three new Iraqi states. But do not forget that the United States is militarily capable of keeping them all at bay and making them sit on their greedy hands for as long as it takes to make that partition work out.

Agreed. The parties will have to *want* to come back together to form a state. It was being artificially bound together before. It might have held, but events over the past 26 years or so have caused a lot of damage that might have to heal through separation. Once one group exerts a lot of power directly over the others, and commits enough atrocities, "peace" can only be enforced through violent suppression of dissent. Example: Turkey. That might work after enough decades, but it doesn't make it right. We stopped that in Yugoslavia.

[Tribesman]

Interesting piece Adrian , Agha Payani says it all without saying it doesn't he ~D ~D ~D

[Adrian II]

Interesting piece Adrian , Agha Payani says it all without saying it doesn't he ~D ~D ~DThe unstated is now understood by everyone.

[Aenlic]

I think AdrianII is correct. Democracy is the only sure way to fix the various problems; but it is also increasingly unlikely to actually occur.

I don't believe that the Turkish government will stand for an independent Kurdistan. If it did happen, the result could be outright war in Anatolia. That could have profound effects on NATO, and implications in Cyprus as well.

I don't think the Sunnis will stand for a partition either; because it leaves them with nothing in the way of resources.

I don't think the Kurds will ultimately settle for anything less than a Kurdistan, which doesn't bode well for the above point about Turkey.

I don't think the Shiites or the Kurds will ever allow the Sunni minority even a portion of their former power in the affairs of Iraq. The de-Ba'athification is just a precursor to the de-Sunnification of Iraq.

Iran is unlikely to keep its hands off the matter, nor will Syria. Most people tend to forget that Syria and Iraq were run by splinter groups which have roots in same Ba'ath party.

What a huge honking mess. It seems that the world must continue to pay for the imperialist ambitions of Great Britain and France after WWI, and the ridiculous lines they conspired to draw upon maps of the world after that war, for quite a while longer. And if we ever manage to win free of the problems of those; we can look forward to many more years winning free of the problems resulting from the US and Soviet imperialist ambitions after WWII.

Maybe some problems simply have no solution. What a horrifying thought.

[Del Arroyo]

Maybe some problems simply have no solution. What a horrifying thought.

Actually, I think this problem may actually have a solution. Consider it thusly--

Currently we are trying to make all Iraqis live together under a democracy. This is not working due to a variety of problems, none of which can be solved through brute military force.

If we split the Iraqi state up along logical lines, the Sunnis will be mad because they get shafted, Turkey will be mad because of an autonomous Kurdistan, and others may be perturbed as well-- but we will have transformed the problem into something we can handle. It doesn't matter how "mad" Turkey or the Sunnis get-- the threat of state-on-state agression is a problem we CAN handle with brute military force. As brute military force is a commodity we have plenty of, it would therefore be logical to trade our current, less tractable threats for more threats like these.

As far as Iran dominating Shiastan and other political concerns-- well that's just the price of progress. It's not like the political ramifications of our current path are particularly pretty, either.

DA

P.S.: For those of you concerned with democracy and civil rights, these goals would be much easier to achieve thrice in three governable, heterogeneous states than once in an amalgous monster that probably requires a brutal dicatatorship to be controlled.

[Aenlic]

You know, that's a very good argument, Del Arroyo. You're right. At some point one has to question if the consequences of avoiding other consequences are worse than the alternative.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Should Iraq be split up?

Isnt it already? ~D

[Brenus]

“It seems that the world must continue to pay for the imperialist ambitions of Great Britain and France after WWI, and the ridiculous lines they conspired to draw upon maps of the world after that war,”: Why the countries concerned by the drawing didn’t renegotiate the borders once independent? Why the fact to draw a line in a desert area is so unacceptable? By the way, in the Middle East, it was negotiated: Before, all was part of the Ottoman Empire

[Aenlic]

Why the countries concerned by the drawing didn’t renegotiate the borders once independent? Why the fact to draw a line in a desert area is so unacceptable? By the way, in the Middle East, it was negotiated: Before, all was part of the Ottoman Empire

The wishes of the residents of the Middle East meant absolutely nothing to the British and French after WWI. For more info read up on the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Two works which are the basis for many of the problem the Middle East is experiencing today.

[Horatius]

I will break every argument against partition from this thread.

1. "We will just see three dictatorships instead of one"

Well the Kurds have enjoyed a democracy since the Persch Merga threw Saddam out with support from the no fly zone in 1991. The Kurds have a democracy, and they are actively taking steps to turn their quasi state into an internationally accepted nation independent of any other nation. The Shiites have shown a disturbing amount of Theocratic feelings, and the Sunnis have been the backbone of every dictatorship in Iraq. So it will be two dictatorships.

2. "It will leave Sunnis with nothing"

The Sunnis have land, just like Israel did. Israel started out as a desert but the zionist movement and later the nation of Israel turned it fertile. The Sunnis are not doomed if their land has no oil. Israel has no oil and look at how well it has done with the desert.

3. "The United States can't go in and just split up the nation of Iraq and eleminate the Iraqi People"

Iraq is an artificial entity created by Britain to reward Prince Feisel for his service in World War One to the crown. The Shiites and Kurds never accepted Iraq, so why force them to submit to a wish from the no longer existing British Colonial Office? Trying to force Shiites and Kurds not to sucede is just forcing an imperialist agenda of dead men on them.

4. "Turkey will not accept Kurdistan"

Arabs don't recognize the State of Israel, and even Egypt teaches that Israel is the mirror image of Hitler so just what is your point?

5. "The Iraqis are civilized enough to live with each other"

Americans and Mexicans are civilized enough to live with each other. Merge them? France and Spain should merge to because they are civilized?

6. (Suggested by tribesmen) "The Kurds are pro-Iranian, Iranian backed, and their pro-Persian stance would ruin the US influence"

I believe Arabs give me enough anti-Kurdistan strawmen so I don't need one from you. The Kurds are pro-Israeli, and anti-Persian because Iran heavily opressess the Kurds living there. The original Kurdish rebellion failed because Iran betrayed it and forced refused to let Israel continue to send supplies and men to the Kurds threw Iran. The Kurds have Israeli support not Persian, and they are certainly not Persian backed. Just ask any Kurd who lives in Eastern Kurdistan.

7. "Splitting up Iraq would be bad for security in the area"

Again the Arabs provide enough straw men I don't need another. So just who is it bad for in terms of "security"? The Persians have increased security with Iraq split up, the Kurds get a lot of security, the Sunnis become secured from Kurds or Shiites wanting to take revenge, Israel becomes more secure thanks to having Kurdistan as an ally, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are a lot more secure because their Iraqi Enemy dedicated to conquering them is gone, Syria was not in danger from Iraq before and is not going to be in danger either, the Turks have nothing to fear from an independent Kurdistan. So tell me just who becomes less secure?

The only way to make a democratic Iraq is to split up Iraq and let the Kurds make Israel one of two instead of one of one democracies in the region.

[Tribesman]

believe Arabs give me enough anti-Kurdistan strawmen so I don't need one from you.
Strawman ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
The Kurds have Israeli support not Persian,
Really , and where did you invent that little gem from Horatius ?
You talk as if there is one Kurdish entity , look at the history of the numerous movements and the many splits and factions (just recently , but if you want you can go all the way back to the Ottoman Empire) , visit the websites of the various groups , you will find that there are groups backed by just about everyone in the region(even in the past by Saddam) .
The fact remains that one of the two major parties , the one with the larger stockpile of weaponry and the largest militia , is Iranian backed and has been for decades . :book:
Yes Israel is backing one group (despite American objections) to counter Iran and Syria , but Syria is also backing Kurdish groups .....go figure that one for stability in the region .
The original Kurdish rebellion failed because Iran betrayed it and forced refused to let Israel continue to send supplies and men to the Kurds threw Iran.
Which original rebellion , the one where the British killed them , the one where the Turks killed them , the one where the Iraqis killed them ....the Syrians , the Russians , the Iranians , which rebellion are you on about ?

Israel was sending men and supplies through Iran ??? ~:confused:

the Turks have nothing to fear from an independent Kurdistan.
~D ~D ~D Ever heard of the PKK have you ?

[Horatius]

believe Arabs give me enough anti-Kurdistan strawmen so I don't need one from you.
Strawman ~D ~D ~D ~D ~D
The Kurds have Israeli support not Persian,
Really , and where did you invent that little gem from Horatius ?
You talk as if there is one Kurdish entity , look at the history of the numerous movements and the many splits and factions (just recently , but if you want you can go all the way back to the Ottoman Empire) , visit the websites of the various groups , you will find that there are groups backed by just about everyone in the region(even in the past by Saddam) .
The fact remains that one of the two major parties , the one with the larger stockpile of weaponry and the largest militia , is Iranian backed and has been for decades . :book:
Yes Israel is backing one group (despite American objections) to counter Iran and Syria , but Syria is also backing Kurdish groups .....go figure that one for stability in the region .
The original Kurdish rebellion failed because Iran betrayed it and forced refused to let Israel continue to send supplies and men to the Kurds threw Iran.
Which original rebellion , the one where the British killed them , the one where the Turks killed them , the one where the Iraqis killed them ....the Syrians , the Russians , the Iranians , which rebellion are you on about ?

Israel was sending men and supplies through Iran ??? ~:confused:

the Turks have nothing to fear from an independent Kurdistan.
~D ~D ~D Ever heard of the PKK have you ?


The PKK is part of Northern Kurdistan. Kurdistan as you said is not just one entity, and the PKK would not gain too much from an independent Kurdistan. You realise that the Kurds would not be a very strong super power capable of helping their brothers and sisters in Turkey right? In independent Kurdistan would not threaten the Turks, and army the Kurds could muster would be hopelessly outdone by the Turkish Army, and along with any Airforce.

By original rebellion I was reffering to the original rebellion by the Persch Merga in Iraq. The Persch merga was supplied and trained by Israel, and many of it's formations were lead by Israeli Officers during the 60s and 70s.

The current elected president of Kurdistan Barzani is the son of Mullah Mustafa Barzani, the man who recieved massive Israeli Support. The fact that the Kurds chose him as a president knowing the family history shows who's backing most Kurds are seeking.

During the reign of the Shah of Iran the Israelis sent supplies and men through Iran to the Persch Merga.

The most powerful of the Kurdish Groups have always been and still are the ones with Israeli backing. They are the ones that fought Saddam Hussein to a stand still, and they are also the ones who provided intelligence to the Israelis on Saddam Hussein's nuclear facility.

You are also forgetting what the Kurdish mainstream population feels. Most Kurds admire Israel as a modle of what they can accomplish, feel an Alliance with Israel is natural and proper, but more importantly they want liberation from the nations they live under including Iran.

Incase you didn't notice because of the media's lack of attention there is a massive protest movement demanding independence now in Iran, which so far has been peaceful despite the brutality of the Persian Military against them.

Southern Kurdistan is not likely to become an Ally of Iran, it is a democracy and most people there would prefer Israel since Israel is not oppressing their brothers and sisters, although they are willing to swallow their pride and accept Persian help when it is convenient.

[Tribesman]

The PKK is part of Northern Kurdistan.
The workers party is a terrorist organisation against Turkey who are also operating out of Northern Iraq (though they have declared a 1 month ceasefire at the moment)"Northern Kurdistan" as you put it , is part of Turkey though I suppose you could incude parts of Armenia , Azerbaijan and Iraninto "Northern Kurdistan" .

the PKK would not gain too much from an independent Kurdistan.
And you think that would stop them from trying ?

By original rebellion I was reffering to the original rebellion by the Persch Merga in Iraq.
Ah that is clearer now , so many original rebellions to keep track of you see .

The most powerful of the Kurdish Groups have always been and still are the ones with Israeli backing. They are the ones that fought Saddam Hussein to a stand still,
Are you sure about that ? I thought the Iranian backed militia outnumbered them 2-1 and their known arms stocks outnumbered them by about 4-1 .

Incase you didn't notice because of the media's lack of attention
I had noticed and mentioned it several times on this forum , yet even Adrian who works in the media has been unable to find any information out there apart from that released by the Iranian governmnet press and the usual Kurdish outlets .

[bmolsson]

If I remember correctly PKK is on the terrorist organisation list. Yes ?

[Brenus]

“The wishes of the residents of the Middle East meant absolutely nothing to the British and French after WWI. For more info read up on the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration. Two works which are the basis for many of the problem the Middle East is experiencing today.”
You still don’t answer the question. I know it is a tricky one. Why no negotiations to redraw the borders after the independence? Why all the countries concerned accepted the so-called colonial borders? ~:confused:
Can you really give me one example when populations were consulted for the drawing of borders? ~D
“If I remember correctly PKK is on the terrorist organisation list.” As the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) before it became the Army/Police from Kosovo, and a lot of other successful Terrorist organisations (Haganah, FFI, US insurgents etc). Just question of timing and winning, no need to worry. ~:cool:

[Kagemusha]

I have been addressing this thing so many times that im starting to repeat myself.If we create Kurdistan we will correct what should have been corrected long time ago.PKK fights because they want a independent state and they will stop fighting when they get it.If that will piss of Turkey then it will.The independancy of Poland,Finland,Lithunia,Latvia and Estonia also pissed of Russia at that time 1918 but was still right.Only way those countries in Middle East will free them selves of past colonialism,is to re-draw their borders so there will be Nation States.

[Tribesman]

I have been addressing this thing so many times that im starting to repeat myself.
Well maybe you are missing the point
PKK fights because they want a independent state and they will stop fighting when they get it.If that will piss of Turkey then it will
But the PKK ,although they are partly operating out of Iraq are not an Iraqi group, that means they are international terrorists according to the State Dept. (which is why they are still on the list) .
While they are fighting for an independant Kurdish state they are still opposed by the PUK and KDP which are Iraqi groups )though those groups also have factions in Iran ,Turkey ,Syria and strangely enough the Leb (even though none of the vast Kurdish territorial claims from the Persian Gulf to the Med have ever included any Lebanese territory) .
If there is an independant Kurdish state within the present borders of Iraq (though that itself will be full of problems )what does that mean for those indepenance groups outside of Iraq , or more specifically those groups that seek independance outside of the present borders , especialy those grops whose claims lie outside the borders yet operate from within those borders .
Do you see the problem ?
Furthermore , the Israeli/Turkish relationship . On a wider scale what will happen to the relationship between these two states in the event of a independant Kurdistan in Iraq contining elements that are hostile (with good reason) to Turkey . Will that relationship survive ? I doubt it .

So .....will partition bring stability....not bloody likely.
Will partition bring forth further conflict (conventional and unconventional) throughout a wide region ...most definately .

So I am sorry to turn back to the Presidents Rose speech but can anyone see another aspect of that speech that has turned out to be Bull ? "In a free Iraq Blah blah blah"
A free Kurdistan in Iraq would either involve massive population transfers , which would lead to attempts to reclaim the lands that they had to leave . Or grabbing other land which would lead to population transfers ,which would lead to attempts to....... :help: wheels on a bus .

Sorry to appear so negative , but what other reality is there to the situation .

Try saying "situation" with a Belfast accent ~D ~D ~D (sorry , local joke)and you may see a smaller scale of the problems that will inevitably arrive .

Horatius ; the "original rebellion" you refer to provides a prime example of what may follow , a group is backed by a regime in their struggle , the regime sells them down the river (Algiers treaty) they turn against the regime with new allies , the regime falls but then the new regime turns on them , so they fight against the new regime and end up allying them selves with the regime that they were originally fighting against when they were backed by the old regime . ~:handball:
As I said earlier , the Leb , but on a bigger scale and with oil .

[Kagemusha]

Tribesman you are right that independent Kurdistan wouldnt bring stability in the area in the short term.But why are we always talking about stability.Did creation of Israel bring stability into that area?No.But it was right thing to do.If Kurdistan would be independent they would have legimite claim on Kurdish areas in Eastern Turkey and Northern Iran because those areas are inhabited by Kurds.

[Horatius]

The PKK is part of Northern Kurdistan.
The workers party is a terrorist organisation against Turkey who are also operating out of Northern Iraq (though they have declared a 1 month ceasefire at the moment)"Northern Kurdistan" as you put it , is part of Turkey though I suppose you could incude parts of Armenia , Azerbaijan and Iraninto "Northern Kurdistan" .

the PKK would not gain too much from an independent Kurdistan.
And you think that would stop them from trying ?

By original rebellion I was reffering to the original rebellion by the Persch Merga in Iraq.
Ah that is clearer now , so many original rebellions to keep track of you see .

The most powerful of the Kurdish Groups have always been and still are the ones with Israeli backing. They are the ones that fought Saddam Hussein to a stand still,
Are you sure about that ? I thought the Iranian backed militia outnumbered them 2-1 and their known arms stocks outnumbered them by about 4-1 .

Incase you didn't notice because of the media's lack of attention
I had noticed and mentioned it several times on this forum , yet even Adrian who works in the media has been unable to find any information out there apart from that released by the Iranian governmnet press and the usual Kurdish outlets .

I know that Northern Kurdistan means part of Turkey.

The PKK will try to benefit from any Kurdish State, but Kurds are not idiots, a new Kurdish State will not be the regional idiot that gets into a war with Turkey, and so will not help the PKK.

The numbers on papaer are very misleading. I mentioned that the majority of the Kurds are pro-Israeli and anti-Persian. That is a very important thing to factor in when factoring in which Militia is more powerful. The Persians are seen by the Kurds in Southern Kurdistan/Northern Iraq simply as another opressor of their brothers and sisters, while Israel is seen as a great power made by another minority group that could identify with their struggle. If there was a conflict over being an Ally of Israel or Iran a lot of the pro-Persian Militiamen would change sides. The Persians garunteed that they would have little influence in any Kurdish State by electing Ahmadinejad, the murderer of Qasimlou (He literally was one of the shooters that killed him). As well as factoring in popularity you should also factor in quality to quantity. The Israeli Backed Militias had better training, have higher quality arms, and for the most part have more fighting experience.

The Israeli Backed Militia is the one that did most of the action against Saddam during all of the rebellions, and they are the ones that siezed Mosul and Kirkuk during the recent Invasion of Iraq. Part of the reason they are smaller is it is much easier for the Persians to send arms to their favorites, then for the Israelis who need to send them in secret across hostile territory, which is also why as you mentioned the ones backed by Iran have more equiptment. But once again quality vs quantity, most soldiers would prefer a Galil Assault Rifle to the AK 47.

On paper the Persian Backed Militia has a lead, but in reality it isn't as experienced, well trained, it's equiptment is numerous but not as good, and most importantly the pro-Israeli side has public support. On paper the Persians may look like they have the edge, but the reality on the ground is very different. The realm of trade and industrial cooperation is a playing field were Iran has virtually nothing compared to Israel, for example there are negotiations going on right now about the creation of an oil pipeline from Kirkuk that will be built by Israel.

It is good to see that you noticed what is going on in Eastern Kurdistan/Iran, but the government saying "No I will not let you see it" is absoloutly no excuse for the media to ignore it. Imagine if Ariel Sharon were to say "Reporters are no longer welcome in Israel you can accept what I tell you is happening", the media would make a very big deal out of just that, and their probably would be several UN resolutions, and reporters around the world would sing the Ariel Sharon is a facist song.

I'm sorry if you took offence at me calling your points strawmen Tribesmen.

[Tribesman]

I'm sorry if you took offence at me calling your points strawmen Tribesmen.
Never take a fence , it upsets the farmers , fences are there to serve a purpose ~;)

The PKK will try to benefit from any Kurdish State, but Kurds are not idiots, a new Kurdish State will not be the regional idiot that gets into a war with Turkey, and so will not help the PKK.
The problem there is is the long history of fractionating of the various movements that is evident throughout the past 100 year of the independance movements .
The Kurds are the largest "Stateless" minority in the Middle East , they have been shat on by just about everyone going and are splintered into many different grouping with very different agendas . There is a myriad of ever shifting alliances which make the alliances during the Lebanese civil war look like long term stable relationships .
While I would like to be optimistic about a free independant Kurdistan (God knows they deserve it) I cannot see it in the short or reasonably long term being a viable prospect . Or of it being a stable state that is not full of civil and external conflict .

[Horatius]

I'm sorry if you took offence at me calling your points strawmen Tribesmen.
Never take a fence , it upsets the farmers , fences are there to serve a purpose ~;)

The PKK will try to benefit from any Kurdish State, but Kurds are not idiots, a new Kurdish State will not be the regional idiot that gets into a war with Turkey, and so will not help the PKK.
The problem there is is the long history of fractionating of the various movements that is evident throughout the past 100 year of the independance movements .
The Kurds are the largest "Stateless" minority in the Middle East , they have been shat on by just about everyone going and are splintered into many different grouping with very different agendas . There is a myriad of ever shifting alliances which make the alliances during the Lebanese civil war look like long term stable relationships .
While I would like to be optimistic about a free independant Kurdistan (God knows they deserve it) I cannot see it in the short or reasonably long term being a viable prospect . Or of it being a stable state that is not full of civil and external conflict .

You are right movements have been known to split up, but when they turn from national movements into political parties they are much less likely to do that.

The thing to remember is that they are not idiots, and would not risk a long term war with Turkey by helping the PKK. They may try to use political pressure against Turkey to give more rights, or freedom to the Kurdish Minority, but they would not risk an all out war by helping the PKK.

[Tribesman]

they would not risk an all out war by helping the PKK.
I do not see the prospect of them helping the Workers Party at all , not in the short term anyway , their agendas are very different , in fact I see them fighting them not helping them .
As for risking all out war , they have done it before , both in Iraq and in neighbouring countries , the risk is nothing new and is something they have risked before .
My main concern is that the present alliance/ceasefire between the PUK and KDP will be short lived , neither group has disarmed and show no intentions of ever giving up the armed struggle , I believe that it is only a matter of time before they go to war with each other again .

But maybe I am just being too cynical .

[Horatius]

I don't see the civil war of the early 90s erupting again.

The reason for not disarming is that the Arabs are still right next door and if they try another Anfal we will be totally defenseless if we put down our arms. That is a reasonable stand, and they would be fools to not have large forces guarding their people against another genocide.

However if a Nation is created there will be a National Army, and that army is going to provide the needed security, and the militiamen will probably join it instead of staying militia.

With an army around for security the excuse for not disarming will die, and the KDP and PUK will both lose their popularity if they don't disarm.

There is obviously some risk since nobody knows how the Kurdish Leaders will act or if their cease fire will survive the emergency, but all things considered I think it is more then worth the risk, and that the Kurds in Northern Iraq will not go into another civil war, instead I think they will battle over voters.

[Tribesman]

However if a Nation is created there will be a National Army, and that army is going to provide the needed security, and the militiamen will probably join it instead of staying militia.
There is a nation , it is called Iraq , it has a national army , some of the militia have been integrated into it . Both the Iraqi and American governments have reported murders , beatings , kidnappings , looting and intimidation by these ex-militia in the Army and Police , as has the UN .
Though of course it is not a purely Kurdish phenomenon , as they have reported the same with the Shia militias incorporated into the security services .
don't see the civil war of the early 90s erupting again.
Yes and they probably said that in the 90s about the 80s and in the 80s about the 70s and.....

[Horatius]

However if a Nation is created there will be a National Army, and that army is going to provide the needed security, and the militiamen will probably join it instead of staying militia.
There is a nation , it is called Iraq , it has a national army , some of the militia have been integrated into it . Both the Iraqi and American governments have reported murders , beatings , kidnappings , looting and intimidation by these ex-militia in the Army and Police , as has the UN .
Though of course it is not a purely Kurdish phenomenon , as they have reported the same with the Shia militias incorporated into the security services .
don't see the civil war of the early 90s erupting again.
Yes and they probably said that in the 90s about the 80s and in the 80s about the 70s and.....

I obviously was reffering to an independent Kurdistan in most of the parts of Iraq they claim.

Since most Kurds want independence they feel nothing but contempt for the Iraqi Army, even the militiamen who joined the Iraqi army (Which is probably why they have not been behaving while in the Iraqi Army). There is also the major factor that it was the Iraqi Army that gassed, bombed, shot, and burned them and sold attractive Kurdish Girls to Arab Harems around the Gulf and Egypt in the first place.

The people that the Kurds want protection from are the Iraqis, and the Iraqi Army, so the fact that it is around means nothing to them, and being part of Iraq to them is occupation.

If Kurdistan is established, and a Kurdish Army is created then the militias will cease to exist. In Israel once the IDF was established, the Haganah and town militias ceased to exist in Israel, the same will happen if the Iraqi Kurds achieve their independence.

One thing to remember is this.

When you fail what do you do?

Blame your rival.

If the Kurds in Iraq are victorious the KDP and PUK won't have anything major to blame on each other, and in the eyes of the massess which they would need to appease the struggle is over.

[Tribesman]

I obviously was reffering to an independent Kurdistan in most of the parts of Iraq they claim.
Yes , but that does raise the question about an Independant State having most of what they claim in Iraq , what about the bits that they claim that they don't get ? what about the bits that they do get that someone else claims ?
What about the bits that they claim , that are outside of Iraq (though the territorial claims have shrunk considerably since those proposed in 45/46) .

There is also the major factor that it was the Iraqi Army that gassed, bombed, shot, and burned them and sold attractive Kurdish Girls to Arab Harems around the Gulf and Egypt in the first place.
True , though that last part is exactly the crap that Saddam was spouting about Kuwait isn't it , and you must consider that as far as the gassing went , it was when the Kurds of the particular area were fighting on the side of Iran in an international conflict against Iraq(not that that in any way justifies the atrocity ) , while at the same time other Kurds were fighting in alliance with Saddam against other Kurds or Iran, and others still were fighting independantly against Iran .
I am generally in favour of an Independant State , but unless that State can be created on a wider scale with inclusion of all the other Kurdish independance movements in neighbouring States and all of the territory they can rightfully claim as their own then it is just a recipe for further conflict and regional instability .

[Horatius]

I obviously was reffering to an independent Kurdistan in most of the parts of Iraq they claim.
Yes , but that does raise the question about an Independant State having most of what they claim in Iraq , what about the bits that they claim that they don't get ? what about the bits that they do get that someone else claims ?
What about the bits that they claim , that are outside of Iraq (though the territorial claims have shrunk considerably since those proposed in 45/46) .

There is also the major factor that it was the Iraqi Army that gassed, bombed, shot, and burned them and sold attractive Kurdish Girls to Arab Harems around the Gulf and Egypt in the first place.
True , though that last part is exactly the crap that Saddam was spouting about Kuwait isn't it , and you must consider that as far as the gassing went , it was when the Kurds of the particular area were fighting on the side of Iran in an international conflict against Iraq(not that that in any way justifies the atrocity ) , while at the same time other Kurds were fighting in alliance with Saddam against other Kurds or Iran, and others still were fighting independantly against Iran .
I am generally in favour of an Independant State , but unless that State can be created on a wider scale with inclusion of all the other Kurdish independance movements in neighbouring States and all of the territory they can rightfully claim as their own then it is just a recipe for further conflict and regional instability .

The Kurds have shown that they are open to negotiation and would probably surrender the few parts of Iraq they have a claim to that they wouldn't get, the way the jews surrendered all of modern Jordan, Gaza Strip, and are in the process of negotiating how much of the West Bank to surrender. The parts of a future Kurdish State that Assyrians claim can go to an Assyrian state that would be a Kurdish Protectorate as a negotiation, the parts of a future Kurdish state the Arabs claim go to the Kurds because the Kurds are in a much better position morally, and strategically having Israel for an Ally would be helpful in convincing the Arabs that they would lose an armed conflict.

The gassing was done when the Kurds rose up in rebellion, but the sex slavery bombings and the other atrocities of the Anfal campaign was not.

A Kurdish State in Northern Iraq would be a big force for stability, it would be a second democracy, it would be an ally of Israel, it would give encouragement to reform minded persians, and it would help end the hostilities in Turkey since only a Kurdish State would be able to get the trust of the Kurds there and get them to stand down.

There will have to be an area of Kurdistan that gains independence first, and the part in Iraq is the best area to chose especially since Iraq is proving to be a fantom country like Yugoslavia.

The thing about all or nothing is that most Kurds would be willing to settle for a slightly smaller part of their land in order to get most of their land back.

We are not talking about the Palestinians, we are talking about as you keep reminding us a splintered and ununited movement.

It would be best to have Kurdistan split up into 4 seperate states because that way we would be able to have Kurdistan out of what they claim in Iraq, then move on and get self determination for Kurds occupied by Syria, then Iran, and then Turkey would probably negotiate in order to keep some of the land.