I Suggest A Three Part Partition Of Iraq To End The Bloodshed!

I give this prowar media hysteria a couple of more days before additional attacks drive the news cycle to the REAL situation over there.

No credible numbers are yet available but, the outcome is and has been (at least since Sistani demanded "one man, one vote" be the rule) a foregone conclusion. It just solidifies the very political situation that has the Sunnis fighting. The fighting will intensify.

I saw a little reported fact yesterday on the ABC Evening News. There were 260 insurgent attacks the day after the polling. That is the largest number of single day attacks yet seen in the war.

I think a three part partition of the country is the best way to reduce the violence. Give the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds each autonomy. Additionally work a deal to split the oil profits as the oil is restricted to the north and south. That would give them a common goal to work for while reducing tensions resulting from the Shiite domination of the whole "country".

What do you think? Am I missing something here? Why do 'we' insist on "protecting the Territorial sovereignty" of a country that was established by the Brits for their empirial goals? As far as I can tell it is the source of most of this conflict.

The best way to guarantee minority rights in Iraq is to make each group a majority within its OWN country.

Distressed American
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

Turkey has been very vocal about their opposition to any kind of independent or even semi-autonomous Kurdish region in the north of Iraq. They have their own large Kurdish population, and are very fearful that a partition of Iraq that gives Iraqi Kurds an area to govern will trigger a civil war in Turkey. The Turkish Kurds have fueled this fear with talk of joining their kindred in northern Iraq to form a completely independent country (Kurdistan, no doubt). Turkey is our friend on most things most of the time, but I don't think they would stand still for this. They'd probably have tanks sitting in Kirkuk before the ink was dry on the partitioning documents.

Also, the southern partition in the new Iraq would probably quickly become nothing more than an unofficial province of Iran.

For what it's worth, I think things would work better with Iraq chopped up as you suggest. As you say, this breaking up of the current Iraq is no more artificial than how it was constructed by the Brits.

However, what's to keep the Kurds from demanding autonomy now or in the future? I'm not sure it is not a foregone conclusion at some point anyway.

Its not like Bush thinks he owes them anything. They hosed his plan to go in from the north in the first place. But, good point all the same.

Is there any way that we could just make the stand and dare the Turks to do something without it being catastrophic?

Sooner or later the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq are probably going to push for their own country, regardless of what happens in Iraq in the near future. Turkey is probably just trying to put that disaster off as long as possible.

It's also true Turkey hosed the U.S. plans to go in from the north at the start of the war, but I'm not sure how much long term damage that did to U.S./Turkish relations. The war and occupation would probably not have gone any differently either way. Plus, it wasn't like Turkey was pro-Saddam or anti-war. I think they were probably OK with war (they usually are), they were just also anti-Kurd. Somehow they saw an invasion of Iraq from the north as a good thing for the Kurds, so they stopped it.

I don't think we'd put ourselves and Turkey in a dispute that was likely to end up being resolved with tanks and planes. We are both still NATO, after all. At least I hope we'd never do that. Unlike Iraq, the Turks have a very tough and very real military.

until WE got there.

You are an imperialist. Thinking you can just change borders to suit your desires.

This is an Iraqi issue that they can solve if the invaders get out and allow them to.

Man, I hate this American arrogance!

chip off Basra in the south, and Kurdish areas in the north.
It's a cobbled together country anyway. Might as well divide it up as Yuogoslavia did when left to itself.

Most balkans historians and experts now believe that it was wrong of the western powers to support the breaking up of Yugoslavia. There actually was far more unity to the country that has been written in the subsequent revisionist history - the many ethnic groups were largely intertwined and while there were tensions, the majority got along fine.

Certainly there were outstanding problems, but even with Milosevic in power in Serbia and the Croat despot leader (can't remember his name) it wasn't necessary to split the country up. However, Western powers decided to support Croatia's call for independence which led to a breakup of the country - Bosnia actually opposed Croatia going b/c the Bosnians didn't want to leave but had no option once Croatia left unless they wanted to be completely dominated by the Serbians.

That's why some academics and historians have even suggested Yugoslavia as a model for Iraq - Yugoslavia wasn't destined to fail, it failed b/c people didn't make an effort to keep it together and the result was massive bloodshed.

The Kurds have already made it clear that this it that THEY want. I bet if we polled the Sunnis on it they would support it as well. That's two out of three!

As to me being an imperialist, that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You CLEARLY do not know me! Check out my website to see where I stand on neoimperialist expansion.
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican.main.htm

I'm just looking for the best way to get us out and end the killing. I have fought this war from day one. Is that imperialist???

Until you know who you are talking about, I suggest you keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

Instead of messing around with borders, governments, elections, etc. etc. let us just get the fuck out of Iraq, pay for reconstruction, pay reparations for those we've killed, and let the Iraqi people sort it out for themselves.

Any partition, any government that we set up is going to be seen as illegal, immoral, and illegit by the Iraqi people, and will be torn down as soon as we leave, no matter when we leave. And the method of that destruction will probably be violent. Rather than messing things up more, and thus insuring a greater amount of violence when we leave, let us just go, NOW!

We should get the hell out! But, we should also try to minimize the damage that Bush and his Junta have imposed on these people. I want to find a compromise that limits the bloodshed. Is there something wrong with that? The Kurds WANT this, The Sunnis very likely would if given the option. 2 of the 3 major ethnic groups would likely support such a move. Is that not self-determination?

Does "let the Iraqi people sort it out for themselves" somehow sow less seeds of future warfare? How do you predict that would work exactly? What would things look like 10 or 20 years down the line as you see it? Give me some details.

Any political construct that we put in place would condidered illegal and illegit by the Iraqi people, and would be torn down violently as soon as we leave.

Western powers have tried to partition the Middle East before, and that is what led to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, an area that was part of Iraq until it was partitioned off by the British.

If we lop off a section for the Kurds, it will be attacked by the Turks to protect their own strategic interest. That attack would be joined by the remain Sunni and Shi-ite sections of Iraq to regain their historical territory. If a section of Iraq was lopped off for the Sunnis or Shi-ites, it would be attacked by the remainder, again in order to regain lost territory. That attack would probably be joined by Iran, who would either be helping the Shi-ites to defend themselves, or to attack the Sunnis.

If we leave it intact, if we let the Iraqi people decide, then a consensus and compromise would be reached, and a lot less blood would be shed. You only have to look as far as Vietnam in order to see this principle at work. When we opted to try and preserve a divided Vietnam, millions were killed, and our objectives couldn't be met. When we left, the nationalist majority took control in a relatively bloodless takeover(less than 10,000 killed) and Vietnam is a stable, peaceful country today.

Trying to impose our will simply insure that massive bloodshed will continue, no matter how just or benevolent we are.

It is as an artificial construct to begin with. We just held elections for folks to further codify Bush administration policies as an Iraqi constitution. It guarantees further conflict until one side is defeated militarily. My option leaves an opening for peace.

I'm not sure I share your pessimistic view of the situation. I think if all three groups met and decided on a partition and we were firm with Turkey, the violence you describe could be avoided.

I'm sure that if we keep doing what we are doing (stay the course and all that)the violence will CERTAINLY continue. A partition at least has the CHANCE of working.

Despite all the talk to the contrary.

The populations are not cleanly divided. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad, Kirkuk is split three ways between Kurds, Turkomen, and Arabs. There are millions of Sunni Arabs in majority Shiite areas and millions of Shiites in majority Sunni areas.

Every historical example of trying to partition two ethnic groups that have been intertwined has failed miserably and resulted in more conflict, more bloodshed, and the inability of those groups to resolve their differences. Instead of having to live with each other and seek consensus, the two populations become embittered by the ensuing refugee crisis and border disputes and what you have left are two (or in Iraq's case, 3) rival states that have territorial designs and never-ending historical enmity for each other.

Just check out how well it worked out for Ireland, Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan, or even Greece/Turkey (although, granted, Greece and Turkey were two countries that it would have been impossible to keep them united - in the other cases that's not necessarily true and a consensus could have been achieved had there not been partitions).

www.juancole.com - he's talked about this and how bad an idea this would be.

The Shias will never permit a partition of their country, and they will smash by force, if need be, any efforts by the Kurds to form a separate state (assuming the Turks don't do it first!).

If nothing else, the criminal American occupation of Iraq has united Iraqis more than ever!

The reason we hear Americans in the government and the media talk about partition is because they want to keep the oil rich parts of Iraq under American control. Don't fall for that imperialist bullshit!

a truly scholarly observation !! that's exactly what trying to legitimize an Iraqi government with ill-advised elections has accomplished ... the elections will make the situation worse, not better ...

the only place i MAY disagree with you is your foregone conclusion that Iraq must be partitioned ... you may be right ...

but the process i think must first go through "regional negotiations" supported by the international community ... the outcome may be as you suggest ... but there are other possibilities for a negotiated alliance ... i wouldn't rule those out without giving the process a chance to work ...

fwiw, here was my post commenting on the Iraqi elections:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3034372

and here's an excerpt from that post:

HOWEVER, the REAL PROBLEM has nothing to do with whether Iraqis want to be free and want the right to vote ... of course they do ... that's never been an issue and yesterday didn't reveal any new information whatsoever ... the real problem in Iraq is finding a solution to regional conflict ...

the Sunnis did not participate in yesterday's vote ... for example, Robert Fisk, chief Middle East correspondent for the London Independent, speaking today on Democracy Now said: "In Samarra for example, streets were reportedly deserted and fewer than 1,400 ballots were cast by a population of 200,000" ... showing long lines of pro-democracy Shia does not change that reality ... the solution to peace and democracy in Iraq is regional negotiations in an internationally supported framework ...

think about it this way ... before the elections, candidates were invisible ... there were no public debates, no candidate appearances, no democracy taking place ... then we had an election with long lines in some areas ... what has really changed ??? if candidates were afraid to be known and afraid to appear before the vote, do you think they will be less fearful now??? no progress, absolutely none, has been made towards resolving the central conflict ...

However, I think doing so would reduce rather than inflame tensions between the three groups and I think there is a good chance that it will be the end result of a bloody civil war anyway.

Let me be clear where I stand. We should never have gone. I have been fighting it since before we went. I will keep fighting it as long as we are there. I'm just trying to think outside of the Bush imposed box for other possible solutions that would be better than what is being imposed right now.

you and I are on the same team ...

Just took an opportunity on your reply to clarify for all those that think we are imperialist pigs!

Drawing lines on somebody else's map is an old Imperialist practice. It usually causes more problems than it solves.

between the groups themselves, without US just drawing lines? If there was a process to accomplish such negotiations?

Why do we assume that they want to stay together under the same roof. The fighting would tend to argue against that. That seems like the imperialist strategy to me. Hail Britannia!

And not while their country is currently illegally occupied by an invading power.

i doubt the "groups" could work this out on their own ... but you're absolutely right that there will be no real progress while the U.S. military occupies Iraq ...

the U.S. has to leave ... wanting to "help" does not mean by continuing the occupation that you actually are helping ... in fact, the U.S. is doing nothing but providing a distraction from the needed process of negotiations ...

with the U.S. gone, all Iraqi factions, supported by the international community, should be given a place at the table ... you make peace by negotiating the terms and conditions for peace; not by getting people to stand in line and vote ... remember, the "achilles heel of democracy" has always been the "tyranny of the majority" ... voting did absolutely nothing to help define a framework for shared power ... absolutely nothing ... it looks pretty on TV but it does not address the central problem in Iraq ...

How would you approach it? How do you think it would work out.

As much as I want to get the hell out ASAP, I do not think just jumping on planes and hoping it will sort itself out is that practical. Shouldn't we be looking for a way to minimize the violence as well as a way to get out?

the U.S. has to admit that it will never be able to stop the "insurgency" ... bush has to acknowledge that the U.S. is the problem, not the solution ...

the Sunnis and other Kurdish groups will never recognize any process, any process, while the American military continues to occupy their country ... they do not, and will not ever, trust the U.S. to define any process for negotiations ... the recent elections made the situation even worse ... now the U.S. is trying to say that a legitimate government exists because "democratic elections" were held ... that is NOT the message Sunnis and other minority factions want to hear ...

instead of moving towards an international negotiating framework, bush is trying to impose a unilateral puppet solution ... it can never succeed ...

the map would be first to admit we cannot succeed ... yeah, that will happen !!! then, BEFORE we withdraw troops, we defer to the U.N to start building a negotiating framework ... this need not take more than a month or two ... then, with a clear understanding that the U.S. will play NO ROLE WHATSOEVER, the U.S. announces a very clear timetable for withdrawal ... this should not extend beyond roughly 6 months ...

at that point, ALL INTERESTED PARTIES are offered a seat at the negotiating table ... the U.S. begins to draw down its troops until the expiration date ... in the meantime, the hope is that progress in negotiations can lead to a cessation of violence ... this is not a guaranteed solution ... civil war in Iraq remains a very real possibility whether the U.S. stays or leaves ...

if a government that satisfies the interests of all major factions can be formed, we're in business ... if not, at least an endless occupation with no hope for progress has been ended ... we really are stuck between Iraq and a hard place ... there are no perfect solutions ... there are no guarantees ... the only guarantee you can get is that if we keep doing more of the same, we'll get more of the same ... things are getting worse in Iraq, not better ... and that's true no matter how many people stand in line to vote ...

I could not agree more that WE are the biggest problem. We MUST get out ASAP.

We agree that the elections likely just make things worse since it is a Bush imposed exercise.

We agree that some sort of negotiated settlement is the way to go. UN sponsorship sounds ideal to me.

I think you are right that the Sunnis will resist any deal we put out.

I totally disagree about the Kurds though. They have been more cooperative than any of the three groups. The want an independent state more than either of the other two. I admit, that stills leave the Turkey issue. But, I really do not think this is as big a threat as Bush Co. would have us believe. Is another NATO country going to invade Iraq? I really doubt they want to get dragged into this mess.

The question then becomes what to negotiate. Would you be open to a partition plan that came out of such negotiations or are you insistent on some sort of joint rule that works for all three groups?

my goal is to find a way to a negotiated peace ... that's the only objective ... if it leads to a partitioned state, so be it ... i actually think they may be a tough way to go ... then, you have the problem of dividing up the oil and dividing up who gets jobs ... i think a one state solution is better ... but no, i don't insist on that at all ...

i have no other agenda ...

btw, regarding the Kurds, and i don't really know enough about this, my understanding is that there are many different Kurdish factions in the north ... i just read an article that I believe talked about certain Syrian groups and a variety of Kurdish groups in the north that did not participate at all in the electins ...

anyway, my more important point is that any group that wants to participate in negotiations, no matter how small they might be, should have a right to do so ...

of government they WOULD PREFER as a first step in this thing. Maybe they really do not want a western style democracy. I think that if we were talking self determination that would have been a logical start.

You are right about the oil. It will probably be the hardest detail to work out. But if you could get it done, it would be good for all.

I am also not insistent that we somehow partition the country against the wishes of the groups. If they want to stay together, that is fine with me as well. It just does not seem to me like they do at this point. As noted 260 attacks in the day after the election alone.

There has to be some practical limit to "any group no matter how small". There would be a lot of takers. Big table. I do agree that in principle there should be maximum participation.

I think we see eye to eye. Give them a choice on the issue (which they have not had). Admit we have to get the hell out to make any progress. Be as inclusive as possible in negotiations.

...for Germany, Palestine, India/Pakistan/Kashmere...
You'll have land claims left right and centre... more terrorism...

other?

and wouldn't the shia state join with iran? and the kurds would piss off turkey royally. and possibly get into a border war...

Sounds like Rove Talk to me. I doubt that Turkey or Iran would want to get dragged into the mess we have going on over there.

As it stands the three groups are at war with each other. Most of the violence results from Sunni fears that they will be politically marginalized. The Kurds have similar concerns. Giving them autonomy immediately removes that motivation. Making a deal to split the oil profits could be a very effective lever for encouraging the three to work together.

That was his plan.

Don't you think it may just be time to consider other options?

interest but it could well allow the area to recover to the point of once again having some semblence of infrastructure and economic opportunity for the Iraqi people in the short to medium term.

invaders.

go back and refigure with that variable in the mix.

We ignore one or the other at our own risk. They are not mutually exclusive. We should work to correct both.

Unless you were just agreeing with me? I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. It is unclear but it appeared from your post that perhaps you felt I did.

I think a negotiated partition settlement would greatly reduce the level of violence and allow for politicians (and not just us) to start talking about withdrawal. As long as we are there we will be siding with someone. That inherently screws us as it breeds both sectarian violence AND violence against our troops. There are several good posts above that really do address both sides.

I was reading it that way. Many posts have suggested just that. That the only problem is our presence over there and that withdrawal would be some quick fix. Sorry to red in.

I was sure you would be blasted for even suggesting that partitioning Iraq might be a good thing. What happened? There were a couple of weak attempts to flame you, but that was all. How boringly tame.

I was just looking for option other than the failed options tried by this administration. Take heart though, They did call me an imperialist.

Juan Cole has written extensively on this.

Partition would be the absolute worst idea. Can you spell "refugee crisis?" It would lead to enormous bloodshed. And where do you draw the boundaries? A number of provinces are mixed. Baghdad is mixed. Millions of Kurds live in Sunni Arab areas, millions of Sunnis live in Shiite areas - it's impossible.

And historically, every instance where a country was partitioned to avoid ethnic conflict has led to even GREATER unrest and enmity. Nobody doubts that if Ireland were never partitioned, the whole Catholic/Protestant conflict would have resolved itself by now.

India and Pakistan? Most historians (although many Pakistanis will disagree) today agree that Pakistan should never have been created because partitioning India into India and Pakistan over religious differences caused the largest ethnic cleansing in human history, with tens of millions of Hindus and Muslims having to abruptly switch sides. It was meant to avoid bloodshed but it caused even more and led to two new nations that hated each others guts rather than allowing them to resolve their differences. Plus, it played a big part in wrecking the economies of many regions within both India and Pakistan - in much of Pakistan the business community and elite were Hindus and in much of N. India, the crux of the economy was the large Muslim minority - in the population exchange that took place, millions of middle-class families were thrown into poverty and the two countries have never recovered.

Partition is absolutely the worst idea ever for Iraq. Do not partition it.

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/downsides-of-partitioning-iraq-some.html

Tuesday, January 04, 2005
Downsides of Partitioning Iraq

Some readers asked me why I was so against partitioning Iraq.

It is because it would cause a great deal of trouble to us all, not least Iraqis. Iraq is not divided neatly into three ethnic enclaves. It is all mixed up. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad, a million Sunnis in the Shiite deep south, and lots of mixed provinces (Ta'mim, Ninevah, Diyalah, Babil, Baghdad, etc.). There is a lot of intermarriage among various Iraqi groups. Look at President Ghazi Yawir. He is from the Sunni Arab branch of the Shamar tribe. But some Shamar are Shiites. One of his wives is Nasrin Barwari, a Kurdish cabinet minister. What would partition do to the Yawirs?

Then, how do you split up the resources? If the Sunni Arabs don't get Kirkuk, then they will be poorer than Jordan. Don't you think they will fight for it? The Kurds would fight to the last man for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk if it was a matter of determining in which country it ended up.

If the Kurds got Kirkuk and the Sunni Arabs became a poor cousin to Jordan, the Sunni Arabs would almost certainly turn to al-Qaeda in large numbers. Some Iraqi guerrillas are already talking about hitting back at the US mainland. And, Fallujah is not that far from Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden wants to hit, as well, especially at the oil. Fallujah Salafis would hook up with those in Jordan and Gaza to establish a radical Sunni arc that would destabilize the entire region.

Divorced from the Sunnis, the Shiites of the south would no longer have any counterweight to religious currents like al-Dawa, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Sadrists. The rump Shiite state would be rich, with the Rumayla and other fields, and might well declare a Shiite Islamic republic. It is being coupled with the Sunnis that mainly keeps them from going down that road. A Shiite South Iraq might make a claim on Shiite Eastern Arabia in Saudi Arabia, or stir up trouble there. The Eastern Province can pump as much as 11% of the world's petroleum.

So Americans would like this scenario why?

However, my goal would involve splitting the oil profits to alleviate much of the issues he raises.

The ethnic mix is somewhat complicated. However, if a partition could be agreed upon that made each group the majority in its own region I do not see that breaking up families and creating a refugee crisis. I do not find it that argument believable.

Pluralism is great is you have it however, I'm not sure the "Iraqi people" really want it. It's pretty hard to shove down someone's throat. Look at the south during the civil rights movement.

Again I'd like to stress that I am not suggesting WE just go in and draw lines on a map. I do think that is the way to go about it. I do think it should be offered to the groups over there as an option. Is giving them an option on this so bad?