was pretty excoriated for it. He actually is an expert. (and he just announced he won't be running again for his VT Senate seat; he'll be concentrating of foreign affairs)

<Snip>

Even if Biden and Gelb were hesitant to use the word "partition," others were not. Peter Galbraith, writing in 2007, put it simply: "Let’s face it: partition is a better outcome than a Sunni-Shiite civil war." Galbraith, a longtime U.S. diplomat, had long advocated an even further devolution of power than federalization. Asked about recent events, he was unequivocal. "It's the end of Iraq," Galbraith, now a state senator in Vermont, said. "It is the breakup of Iraq along the lines of three communities. It isn't just that ISIS came into the Sunni areas with a small number of really dedicated fighters who were able to defeat a much larger and demoralized Iraqi army, it is that the population is increasingly hostile to the Iraqi army, seeing it as Shiite army."

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/06/13/people-have-talked-about-iraq-breaking-up-for-years-now-it-may-actually-happen/

It looks like it's now falling apart into at least three separate countries. In 2007 and 2008 when Biden offered his approach, he was heavily attacked from the right by guys like Dan Senor. John McCain said that Biden's plan was totally unrealistic. Now Iraq's break-up seems more and more to be an inevitable reality. How many American soldiers have died since Biden laid out his plan?

is unrealistic.

In fact, as I recall, most 'mainstream' thinkers rejected his position at the time.

but it will be difficult. each nation will want a fair share of the oil and access to the gulf.

and who determines what is fair?

and violence.

than the status quo.

and I think ending the non stop slaughter of the people is a rather appealing benefit as well.

.. these sects are never going to get along, period.

This is more typical neo-imperialistic bullshit. Western powers fucked up earlier and carved these countries into awkward shapes and now the same countries want to go back and re-carve it due to either guilt or a desire to correct past sins?

Maybe it's just better to let these people fight each other. They have unresolved conflicts going back a few centuries integral to their religion and tribe (and over the last half century they have even more to add to that!). That's how they have lived. That's how they may continue to live. To most of them religion comes first, family comes second, tribe comes third. The nation state really falls far down the identity hierarchy. That's why a strong man held it together. At least that strong man was secular.

Besides where are the borders for the new states? Who owns the oil wells and other resources? Do they have a referendum on this? How is that held? Do we hold more bogus elections over there?

Biden is held up as a paragon of foreign policy intelligence for some reason. I suppose compared to Hillary, he does seem brilliant (after all, she never learned any lessons after Iraq it seems and supported arming rebels in Syria), but I recall by the end of the "debate" prior to invading Iraq, Biden said "just go in already" (or words to a similar extent) - and he too voted FOR the resolution.

in large part what we started, which can only lead to an untold number of deaths; tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands.

The alternative is to promote negotiations between the disaffected parties and maybe bring some form of peace to that devastated nation, but make no mistake about it, this will be up to the people of Iraq to come to terms with such an agreement. We would just facilitate negotiations.

Furthermore it makes no difference to me which political leader supports this idea or not, the only thing in my mind that matters is the pros and cons, merits and demerits of the issue.

Would negotiation and division be better than continuous fighting and bloodshed?

It was clear to me you were not promoting 'neo-imperialistic bull shit.'

I'm just incredibly cynical about this idea that the US, or any country for that matter, can get them to sit down in any fashion and hammer out an agreement.

We're not going to be facilitating any negotiations in good faith. We certainly haven't in the rest of the Middle East (namely Israeli/Palestinian conflicts). We'll be looked at (understandably) with deep suspicion and distrust.

The reality is we have absolutely nothing good to offer them. I don't believe all this talk of partitioning is done with malice - it's intended as a solution (and besides I don't see the country surviving as one entity anyways). But it just seems naive. Sometimes people don't learn the value of peace until they have half destroyed each other.

I never said it would be easy but it seems to me, considering our history there, we should at least try.

but I think there is a huge leadership vacuum within the groups. Secular leadership seem to be especially lacking and the previous administration made the brilliant decision of dismantling all of it (effectively destroying their civil society and structure as well).

I also hate the idea of creating client states for Saudi Arabia and Iran but that's happening now with different groups as it is - with violent consequences.

This just seems like a hopeless case - and like with Syria - I really doubt we have any positive role to play.

to offer or present the division as an option.

I believe we can play a positive role if you actually place the best interests of the Iraqi people front and center, the will of the people.

If stay focused on that, I believe we can do good.

Is THIS Democratic Underground?

Wasn't the same "religion comes first with these people" line used in generations past against Catholics, Jews and other religions?

I'd guess what they need is for westerners to stop trying to tell them how to run their country.

of that nation.

If it doesn't work they can always go back to killing one another.

do you believe that could bring about peace?

I don't think the microstate idea worked out too well in 1919. It hasn't seemed to work too well for the last 25 years either.

I'm okay with that.

The major point being their destiny would be in their hands.

Shiite Iraq merges with Iran.

Sunni Iraq merges with Syria.

Turkey cracks down on Turkish Kurds wanting to merge with Kurdish Iraq.

What could go wrong?

Re: scenario 3

1. We have some pull with the Turks.

2. If he Kurds have their own independent nation, some Turkish Kurds may also migrate to their new home.

3. Turkey may eventually negotiate and allow some areas to merge with Kurdish Iraq to diffuse their situation.

Xx

We can facilitate negotiations between the parties, that part is up to us, the people of Iraq must decide their own course.

Division and peace is just one option, they can keep fighting if that's what they prefer.

I am not convinced....I think the oil is going to be a big problem....as it always is....Plus ISIS reportedly has several hundred million dollars in cash now too....even more complicated.

Three such different groups that believe in religious rule are not likely to live together without fiction. I also read that the Kurds just took control of a large oil field so they would more than likely welcome their own statehood. It may sound terrible but maybe this country would welcome this change?

the Ottoman Empire, who lost in the war. Without regard to which peoples lived where.

There does not seem to be an identity as Iraqis holding the place together.

Iraq's filled with various militias that clash at different times. Some of those clashes are along the sectarian lines you mentioned, others aren't. On top of that the mixed areas will remain mixed and violent (like Northern Ireland), and many groups are against any partitioning, (also, the US doesn't really have any say in the matter).

which is a big driver of the current conflict, I suspect.

bad. Let's look at this realistically - Obama comes out and says Iraq should be partitioned, the Iraqi government shoots it down, and we're left with the same situation but with many more people pissed at us. If that's the alternative, then we're better off doing what we're doing now.

a proposition.

There seems to be no common ground between the Sunnis and Shiite and if they would be happier having their own separate nations, let them decide.

moondust up thread, proposed allowing them to have a referendum on the issue.

Especially since in the end, you'd be asking the dominant faction that's been unwilling to share to give up a sizable portion of the country.

"Let them come to an agreement about splitting up the country" is theoretically a fine idea, just like "let them come to an agreement about sharing power" or "let them come to an agreement about disarming militants and becoming a full-fledged democracy." If "they" could come to an agreement, "they" wouldn't be shooting each other. A proposal to break up the country coming from the US doesn't seem to do anything to make the different factions agree, which is something we've been working on for years. It doesn't solve the underlying issues anymore than arguing that there should be 2 Palestinian states instead of one solves the Israeli/Palestinian impasse.

hatred of each others' view of religion, sharing power within such a forced group would be far more difficult than each going their own way and being in charge of their own destinies.

Israel/Palestine would be far better off with two states as well, but U.S. emotional connections to their holy sites and the Old Testament decrease the chances of that occurring.

History has shown that some governments have decided to give up territory or independence to rebels.

In this case I believe it's just a question of how long the civil war will drag out before it happens.

How many years later are we discussing something that should have been discussed way back at least when we knew Iraq had no chance of democracy. Sunni now have no one representing them like they did when Saddam was in office.

But when it's profit who cares.

I heard Richard Engel report on MSNBC a couple days ago that, basically, Baghdad used to have some fairly mixed neighborhoods but since the war and ethnic violence the area east of the Tigris river has become virtually all Shiite and west of the Tigris virtually all Sunni, and the U.S. embassy is situated kind of between the two.

Maybe somebody could conduct a poll or referendum asking the Iraqis what they think they should do.

Are two entirely different things. Saudi Arabia won't accept any larger Shia influence; Turkey won't tolerate a Kurdistan; the Iraqi Sunni don't want to lose the oil they're sitting on; the US just wants all the oil wells pumping nonstop and really doesn't care who gets hurt, what gets broken, or how much it costs.

with Western Iraq, The Kurds would like their own nation and access to the Gulf.

The U.S. does want the oil wells to keep pumping non-stop and peace would virtually give assurance of that.

This would pull Iran and the U.S. closer together and it might give more impetus for the Taliban to negotiate peace in Afghanistan.

is should the U.S. broach them with this option and offer to facilitate negotiations.

I believe it could be beneficial to all parties, but of course it's up the people of Iraq to determine for themselves.

The U.S. isn't engaged in an ages old theocratic civil war.

WTH is the United States to answer the question about what shape IRAQ, a SOVEREIGN NATION, ought take?

what republicans are most worried about!

Nothing worse than forcing groups to be together who don't want it.

Joe Biden was right. Iraq has been a make-believe country ever since it's inception.

All the countries in the Mideast are sick and tired of our meddling. Some have asked for help and regretted it later. It is time for us to concentrate on our country, which is splitting itself more and more. Let China take the role of mediator for instance or another country, but not the West and most certainly not the USA.

they prefer to have someone else mediate, I don't have a problem with that.

putting the idea to a referendum.

No one here is talking about being "king" or ordering the Iraqis what do, they will determine that for themselves, but I believe you're smart enough to know that.

If you actually read the thread, you would know, we even mentioned having a referendum in Iraq to determine whether the Iraqis want to divide in to three separate nations.

Negotiations among the Iraqis will determine what if any borders there will be should they vote to divide.

This is just a proposition to end a civil war based on ancient hatreds that seems to have no end in sight.

administering oil revenue. That might work.