Should Iraq be split up?

**Silver Rusher** · 08-31-2005, 22:02

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** · 08-31-2005, 22:24

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** · 08-31-2005, 22:36

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.

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 09-01-2005, 02:48

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

**drone** · 08-31-2005, 23:05

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 08-31-2005, 23:09

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** · 08-31-2005, 23:28

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** · 09-01-2005, 02:05

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

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"

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 .

**PanzerJaeger** · 09-01-2005, 02:17

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.

**Proletariat** · 09-01-2005, 02:36

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

...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.

**Red Harvest** · 09-01-2005, 02:27

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 .

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.

**Tribesman** · 09-01-2005, 03:02

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 .

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 .