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
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]

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 .

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 .
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