Should Iraq be split up?

[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 Most emerging economies I know of can't perform such a feat without losing huge amounts to corruption, outdated practices and structural deficits.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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.....