Should we partition Iraq?

Kurdish leaders planning to establish independent state. (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/13495329.htm)

Summary: The Kurds have wanted an independent Kurdistan for a very long time, and as soon as the Americans leave Iraq, they're going to establish it. They're also going to claim the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, which the Sunnis want to hold on to.

It is a near certainty that there will be some form of autonomous Kurdish state. If we (the Americans) continue with our current plan, there will be a civil war over Kirkuk. This will likely spread to the Sunni-dominated provinces as well, as they don't want to be an oppressed minority in a country they used to rule.

So while we have the troops on the ground in the region, and the fighting hasn't really started yet, let's consider the reality of the situation. The nation of Iraq was established by the British after World War I, ignoring tribal boundaries. Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world that doesn't have it's own country, and they've been subject to brutal persecution in Iraq and Turkey. They are as determined to have their own country as the Israelis, and will fight just as hard. The Sunnis will reject a democracy in which they're a minority, and the insurgency will continue unabated after they realize they've lost the latest election.

Iraq is very unlikely to be preserved as a united nation. Let's recognize this and begin negotiations to form separate countries relatively peacefully.

[tolbiny]

Yes- this problem was caused by the British when they used force to set false boundries.
Will using force to redraw those boundries now work? It was the british partition of india that has helped lead to the problems with India and Pakistan (helped, obviously divisions between Hindu and Muslim populations were a major cause).

[Exsubmariner]

The British have always, as a matter of policy, done things this way. The principle is that basically, the more you set the stage for the conquered to be at each others throats, the more likey you are able to exploit the situation indefinately. It's proven effective many times. Look at Isreal. Before the Zionists got control of Palistine, it was the British who gave land grants to the Yemenese so they would go and live there. Before that, hardly anyone lived in Palestine.

Anyway, to the matter at hand, I do think that failure to allow the Kurds, Sunnies and Shia to split into separate independent states peacefully would be a mistake. It's going to happen one way or the other. Might as well kill as few people as possible. I don't think the Sunni's will go along, though, because as a minority, they are going to get the short end of the deal, and this after being the special privileged group under Saddam. Any way you cut it, there may be civil war.

The more I study this, the more I think it was poorly thought out from the beginning.

[ QUOTE ]
It was the british partition of india that has helped lead to the problems with India and Pakistan (helped, obviously divisions between Hindu and Muslim populations were a major cause).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, that partition didn't go well. The lines were drawn hurriedly by the British rulers without much input from the residents. Millions of people moved from Pakistan to India or vice versa, and millions died in subsequent rioting. One cause of these problems might be that the partition occurred after withdrawal of British authority, and the newly formed governments couldn't keep order.

The more I hear about this situation, the more it seems that Iraq will split up. If we begin negotiations with local leaders now, we may be able to avoid the kind of violence and subsequent war that happened in India. We can negotiate borders with local input (Kirkuk and possibly Baghdad may have to be given special status, with US or UN protection). We can let people move to whichever country they want to live in before the situation degenerates into total anarchy after the US leaves. It's obviously not optimal, but it's certainly better than civil war.

[BluffTHIS!]

We have pledged to our important ally Turkey, that we will not support the creation of an independent Kurdistan because it would exacerbate tensions in their Kurdish region. And the Sunnis and Shi'a won't go for partition either, because they both want the resources of all Iraq and the Sunnis want to impose their will on all the other factions as do some of the Shi'a.

Turkey's not that great a friend to us. The denied us transit rights to get to Iraq before the war. The population keeps electing Islamist governments, and if it weren't for the army's repeated coups, they'd be about as anti-Western as everyone else in the region.

Anyway, why do you care all of a sudden about what other countries think about us?

[BluffTHIS!]

Turkey is a much better ally than you are making out despite their not being able to help as much as we would like sometimes for domestic political reasons. And I care about what our true allies think, as opposed to false ones like France. Turkey since its modern founding has always limited religious influence in its government, and if the army is the mechanism by which that balance is achieved, then that is their business. And they are a much better Islamic ally than Saudi Arabia which has more mixed motives and hidden agendas, and which doesn't need the US as a friend as much as Turkey does. And if I had to go into combat with non-US military units, then after the British and Australians, the Turks would be my choice because they are fearless (the North Koreans/Chinese hated them during the Korean War).

[ QUOTE ]
Iraq is very unlikely to be preserved as a united nation. Let's recognize this and begin negotiations to form separate countries relatively peacefully.

[/ QUOTE ] Form seperate countries relatively peacefuly? I think not. As you say, if the country is partitioned, there will be some serious disputes as to who gets what. The kurds will need kirkuk, but there is no way the sunnishia will cede it to them. also, if you propose three entities, how the craap do you split the rest of the country. the shia will push their newfound advantage, and the sunni will not get shortchanged and take it sitting down. I don't think the kurds are as adament about getting there own country as youmake them out to be. as long as they are givin relative autonomy within their region i think they will be appeased. their employment issues can be addressed by assuring them a large portion of the oil related jobs in the greater kirkuk area.

[jj_frap]

The British were assholes...

That selfish prick Winston Churchill stifled democracy in Iran because Iranians voted for politicians who wanted to let them control their own oil, essentially ensuring that extremism would flourish over democracy in predominantly Muslim nations.

[censored], Mossadegh was a social democrat, a nationalist, and a secularist. If we would have kept letting Muslims elect politicians like that, we'd have peace in the Middle East.

[ QUOTE ]
Turkey's not that great a friend to us. The denied us transit rights to get to Iraq before the war. The population keeps electing Islamist governments, and if it weren't for the army's repeated coups, they'd be about as anti-Western as everyone else in the region.

Anyway, why do you care all of a sudden about what other countries think about us?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is interesting about Turkey is that the government and parliment wanted to let us use their land as a staging ground. The problem was that over 90 percent of turkish citizens were vehemently opposed to the idea. Letting the army use it would have been political suicide.

I like the cut of your jib, jj, stay around for awhile?

[ QUOTE ]
Mossadegh was a social democrat, a nationalist, and a secularist. If we would have kept letting Muslims elect politicians like that, we'd have peace in the Middle East.



[/ QUOTE ] True dat. we truly did create the current hostile political landscape in iran.

[ACPlayer]

Who the heck are WE to decide what should happen in Iraq?

Get out NOW and let them sort it out.

Incidentally, Kurdistan is a potentially dangerous solution for the middle east as the one pro forma western oriented country their (turkey) runs the risk of its own civil war if that were to happen.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

What is clear is that if you look upon it geographically the Sunnis directly and indirectly lived from the oil in the north and south (Sunnis made up the vast majority of the oilfunded bureaucracy). If you cut away the north and south the middle state does not have much chance of success and will probably be a constant source of dissatisfied Sunnis wanting to revenge/attack Kurds, Sjias, Americans and others.

Maybe 3 states but to guarantee the Sunnis a share of the oil revenues would be a good solution?

BTW, the turks will go berserk if the Kurds gets it own state. It is not unlikely that they will attack it for security reasons without asking the US for permission even if it looks like a senseless thing to do.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Before the Zionists got control of Palestine ... the British ... gave land grants to the Yemenese so they would go and live there. Before that, hardly anyone lived in Palestine.

[/ QUOTE ] Wow. What a howler.

Let's just say you made a bad joke and it crashed. And move on.

[ QUOTE ]
The more I study this, the more I think it was poorly thought out from the beginning.

[/ QUOTE ] I guess you are referring to the whole Iraq snafu. Well, better late than never, for ya.

[Cyrus]

The frontiers of Kurdistan go into Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey. The latter country would go to war if any part of its soil was threatened, or someone tried to splinter it away. If the United States forces upon Turkey an autonomous Kurdistan region, Turkey would turn politically against the United States. link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4328285.stm)

Neither the United States nor Turkey want this to happen, so it will most probably not happen. (Already the American military is assisting Turkish troops and black bag operatives in South Eastern Turkey to hunt down and exterminate "extremists", i.e. Kursdish separatists such as ex-PKK men.)

On the other hand, the American interest coincides with the Iraqi Kurds' interests, who are currently the most loyal allies the U.S. ever had in the whole of Middle East, after the Israelis. The U.S. wants the northern region's oil to remain under the control of the Kurds, more than anyone else there.

Other considerations:

The oil in southern Iraq is mostly in areas where Shias are living. (Same goes too, naturally, for Iran..) Besides everything else, why would anyone in the U.S. would want to encourage a scenario whereby the most precious commodity in the world falls into the hands of the more anti-American and extreme kind of Islam?

But I would be very curious to see how someone like Tony "The Poodle" Blair would react if the prospect for partitioning Iraq is floated by Washington! The British imperialist tactic of creating totally artificial borders in colonised countries or ex-colonies is the cause behind most of the troubles in the Middle East. Partitioning a country along strictly ethnic/religious lines, i.e. in a rather "logical" manner, has always been abhorred by Whitehall.

[Exsubmariner]

Well Cyrus, seems I heard that in a blurb somewhere during a documentary about the period of the British Mandate. But, alas, I can't find any documentation. The closest I could come was this page (http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm) with a link to this one (http://www.mideastweb.org/mcmahon.htm) .

I agree, though. The information I put out is flawed in some way and I'll be happy to say it was a failed bad joke and go on.

Thanks for challenging it. It was interesting reading this morning trying to look it up.

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
The British imperialist tactic of creating totally artificial borders in colonised countries or ex-colonies is the cause behind most of the troubles in the Middle East.

[/ QUOTE ]

Africa, too.