America ponders cutting Iraq in three

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2393750,00.html

AN independent commission set up by Congress with the approval of President George W Bush may recommend carving up Iraq into three highly autonomous regions, according to well informed sources.
The Iraq Study Group, co-chaired by James Baker, the former US secretary of state, is preparing to report after next month’s congressional elections amid signs that sectarian violence and attacks on coalition forces are spiralling out of control. The conflict is claiming the lives of 100 civilians a day and bombings have reached record levels.

The Baker commission has grown increasingly interested in the idea of splitting the Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish regions of Iraq as the only alternative to what Baker calls “cutting and running” or “staying the course”.

“The Kurds already effectively have their own area,” said a source close to the group. “The federalisation of Iraq is going to take place one way or another. The challenge for the Iraqis is how to work that through.”

gone mad.

eom

I don't see how this can work.

Blow `em up tnen carve `em up. Wonder what Bush and his supporters would think if another government did this to our country?

may do?

The Kurds have been pushing for an Independent State for years. I predict that they will declare that within a few months.

What will Turkey do about it?

Hell, I don't know.

can take credit.

Of course, there are many huge problems with this...

1. Turkey will not stand for a Kurdish state, as it will mean the partition of Turkey...

2. The Shia will likely be a client state, if not outright join Iran.

3. The Sunnis will be left with very little in terms of real resources.

4. The oil is not distributed very well, not to mention that pipelines would have to cross the other areas to
reach global markets. This is a huge problem.

5. Iraq will not be the "counterbalance" to Iran that it has been, leaving the Arab gulf states feeling
very nervous.

6. Saddam, following in the footsteps of Stalin, tried to homogenize his country by forceably moving
people around, which has lead to the "ethic cleansing" that is happening now and would get worse under
a partition solution.

7. Baghdad will be a hard place to partition, but it is the main "market place" and central hub
of Iraqi life. Whoever occupies it (or the majority of it) will hold a huge advantage over the
others (though the Kurds may be OK with this).

Still, partition may be the "solution"...

strict control of movement between the zones, could have been part of a temporary military solution.

As for permanent partition, I don't understand why Turkey should get a veto over what happens to Iraq. Is the existence of a Kurdish state anywhere in the world somehow offensive to the delicate sensibilities of Turks?

I mean, seeing as we were allegedly bringing them freedom and democracy....

is dividing things. People, countries.......whatever, that's his forte. Mr. "uniter, not a divider" has been a complete failure in everything he's ever tried. No reason to stop now. Stay the course! :puke:

I remember reading in the run-up to the Iraq war that a key strategy (and a reason booosh so desperately wanted to invade from Turkey) was to make sure the Kurds ended up with control of Kirkuk and the large oil deposits in that area. It was reported at the time that the CIA was even funding Zarquawi...whose camp was inside the Kurish territory...and creating more problems for Saddam than he was for the Kurds...and that if there was an invasion it was to ensure the Kurds got a lion's share of the oil fields where existing ties with large oil corporates had existed for years.

Instability is what is keeping oil prices high and dividing the country guarantees that the strife will continue and the oil in the Shiite sections will say in the ground and the big oil companies will be happy with their control of the oil fields of the north.

we get out of the way and let the Iraqi's cut their own cake.