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'.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?