A country that names itself, "UNITED states of America" and yet BREAKS UP COUNTRY AFTER COUNTRY, can only be perfidious. As most of the countries that America has broken are Muslim majority countries, it becomes self evident that America HATES MUSLIMS. Afghanistan broken, Libya broken, Egypt broken, Yemen broken, Syria broken. Jordan, Soddy Arabia, Qatar, UAE, are ruled by natives under American protection; when they stop providing jollies to America they too will be torn limb-to-limb.
1
Identity is 90% of the game when it comes to who will fight for what, especially in corrupt societies and those where political and economic power are divided along sub-national lines. Allegiances in most of the Middle East are not to national states but to tribes, religions, and ethnic groups.
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East. Unfortunately, it appears our State Department and military have not read it. Except for a bit of unity forged by the British-lead revolt against the Ottomans, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East. Unfortunately, it appears our State Department and military have not read it. Except for a bit of unity forged by the British-lead revolt against the Ottomans, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)
1
Before invading countries, read the "literature" of the people you plan to invade. You will have insight on how your mission will unfold. It may give you a reason for restraint (and diplomacy).
With a strong new Kurdish State, there can be order in the artificial post ottoman Iraq...Also Kurdish state becomes a buffer against the new Persian Obama empire otherwise known as the deal with Iran...
And who pray tell should partician Iraq? Certainly not the US. Are we really that insane? Do we really intend to legitimize a relgious based partician which would see people kicked out of their homes on the basis of which sect of Islam they follow? Please, please, please. The US must get out of the MIDDLE EAST.
Our continued presence there has destroyed our collective common sense.
My goodness we would have to commit our soldiers to a hundred years of keeping these warring factions apart and that wouldn't be enough. This Sunni-Shite battle has been going on for centuries! Leave them to their relgious scrables and get the heck out!
Our continued presence there has destroyed our collective common sense.
My goodness we would have to commit our soldiers to a hundred years of keeping these warring factions apart and that wouldn't be enough. This Sunni-Shite battle has been going on for centuries! Leave them to their relgious scrables and get the heck out!
Can we please dispense with the nonsense that, at the very least, the most belligerent and power-hungry faction of the U.S. foreign policy community has ever been interested in seeing Iraq become a democracy? The objective for them has been to see Iraq turn into a compliant, pro-American client state that leaves Israel alone and aligns with U.S. preferences in the region each and every time.
This is what George W. Bush & Co. had in mind when they had U.S. armed forces invade that country 13 years ago. And this is why U.S. intervention in Iraq was doomed from the start in March 2003. It was based on the incredibly arrogant and deeply flawed premise that you can bomb and pummel a country into taking your side every time.
This is what George W. Bush & Co. had in mind when they had U.S. armed forces invade that country 13 years ago. And this is why U.S. intervention in Iraq was doomed from the start in March 2003. It was based on the incredibly arrogant and deeply flawed premise that you can bomb and pummel a country into taking your side every time.
“It became necessary to destroy the Iraq in order to save it,” So the legacy of US intervention in Iraq is the destruction of Iraq.
1
Wrong approach. Turkey should be "gently persuaded" to accept the creation of an independent Kurdistan, which will then encompass parts of Syria and Iraq as well.
The solution is here….. Yugoslavia after Tito can be an excellent example to be followed or even follow Belguim example as a federal state made up of three autonomous regions: the Flemish Region, the French-speaking Walloon Region and the Brussels region.
Iraq is a huge country and the solution is creating an Iraqi Federation.
Iraq´s population consists of 3 mainly minorities; Sunnis ,Shias and Kurds. Why not giving them an autonomy to govern themselves as separate states. Remember when Joe Biden recommended splitting Iraq into three more homogeneous parts? Looks like it just might happen.
Iraq is a huge country and the solution is creating an Iraqi Federation.
Iraq´s population consists of 3 mainly minorities; Sunnis ,Shias and Kurds. Why not giving them an autonomy to govern themselves as separate states. Remember when Joe Biden recommended splitting Iraq into three more homogeneous parts? Looks like it just might happen.
1
Partition or a Federation is the only solution for Iraq.
Kurds should have their own State, the same goes to
Sunnis and Shia as it happened in Yugoslavia.
Kurds should have their own State, the same goes to
Sunnis and Shia as it happened in Yugoslavia.
2
I say, appoint Ted Cruz our Ambassador. with Cheneys as his deputies.
Let's recall that India once contained Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. A place is not a county just because the English draw a line around it and call it a county.
The same is true of Afghanistan. It's really Pashtunistan, Hazarastan, Nuristan, South Tagikistan, East Uzbekistan and a lot more.
Maybe partition is best for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
The same is true of Afghanistan. It's really Pashtunistan, Hazarastan, Nuristan, South Tagikistan, East Uzbekistan and a lot more.
Maybe partition is best for both Iraq and Afghanistan.
1
Right after Bush/Cheney destroyed stability I pointed out on public radio that THERE IS NO IRAQ! It's the fabrication of colonialism. I noted, you can look that up at IPR Archive, that the only hope was maybe for a Kurdish state, a Sunni country, and a Shia state. I got laughed at. Callers were critical. I got hate mail. It was so obvious.
1
Snide comments aside – and I've made my share here – establishing a Kurdish homeland requires "land." Since all available land in that area is already claimed by Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, establishing a Kurdish homeland requires one of two things: (1) one or more of those countries voluntarily gives up some land so the Kurds can have a homeland; or (2) one or more of those countries is forced to give up some land so the Kurds can have a homeland.
#1 isn't going to happen. That leaves #2, which begs this question: Who, exactly, is going to do the forcing? And which country or countries is that "who" going to force? I notice all of the pro-partitition comments either use passive-voice verbs (for example: "Iraq should be partitioned..."), or use a vague "we" with some active-voice verb.
Be specific: WHO should force WHICH COUNTRIES to give up WHAT TERRITORY for a Kurdish homeland? And if the "who" is the United States, should we draft American boys and girls to do that, or can we count on volunteers? If volunteers, will you or your children be signing up?
#1 isn't going to happen. That leaves #2, which begs this question: Who, exactly, is going to do the forcing? And which country or countries is that "who" going to force? I notice all of the pro-partitition comments either use passive-voice verbs (for example: "Iraq should be partitioned..."), or use a vague "we" with some active-voice verb.
Be specific: WHO should force WHICH COUNTRIES to give up WHAT TERRITORY for a Kurdish homeland? And if the "who" is the United States, should we draft American boys and girls to do that, or can we count on volunteers? If volunteers, will you or your children be signing up?
1
For starters, the US is the largest donor of foreign aid to Turkey and Iraq. Between Syria, Iraq and Turkey we are sending nearly 800 billion US dollars each year. That aid could "dry up" if they don't cooperate. There are other incentives/dis-intensives: NATO participation or lack thereof; protection from Iran encroachment; embargoes or failure to sign trade deals; assistance with their massive egress/influx of refugees, etc.) As far as Syria is concerned, that is more difficult. Until Bashir is removed, not much can happen. That would take careful and considerate negotiations with the Russians, but there again, they may "see the light" if we can hurt them financially as they have a considerably more fragile economy (particularly with oil prices dropping) than the US. This stuff (as with most conflict resolution) comes down to cold hard cash.
No boots on the ground, that's for sure.
No boots on the ground, that's for sure.
Biden was right from the get go when he proposed dividing Iraq into three parts. We should have imposed the division when we were in control after conquering Iraq, rather than promoting the PC fiction that we had liberated it.
Cyprus has been divided for over forty years and has been peaceful.
Dividing Iraq would have entailed some conflict between the entities (hopefully not as bloody as the India-Pakistan split) but we would be have been out of it and the Sunni entity would have precluded the rise of ISIS.
Cyprus has been divided for over forty years and has been peaceful.
Dividing Iraq would have entailed some conflict between the entities (hopefully not as bloody as the India-Pakistan split) but we would be have been out of it and the Sunni entity would have precluded the rise of ISIS.
The real problem in Iraq is that we Americans think that we can make any thing happen. We can even straighten out the dog's tail and make a venomous snake give up biting. Well, I have news for us Americans. WE CAN NOT.
The poison of hatred amongst the Iraqis is sectarian, religion based compounded by the attrocities of Sadam Hussain and who ever was in power before him who brutalized the people. And, ALL of them did.
The BEST SOLUTION is a LOOSE COFEDRACY OR BREAK UP OF IRAQ IN THREE COUNTRIES - SUNNI, SHIA AND KURDS. OR, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE IRAQI PROBLEM A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW.
The poison of hatred amongst the Iraqis is sectarian, religion based compounded by the attrocities of Sadam Hussain and who ever was in power before him who brutalized the people. And, ALL of them did.
The BEST SOLUTION is a LOOSE COFEDRACY OR BREAK UP OF IRAQ IN THREE COUNTRIES - SUNNI, SHIA AND KURDS. OR, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE IRAQI PROBLEM A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW.
1
Appearance of ISIS-DAISh in political of Middle East was suddenly but currently struggle of International coalition very narrowed the territory of inlaw state. Thanks IS Brak in fact destroyed on Kurdistan & base Arabian Irak.
In Syria Bashar Assad promised to Kurds people almost in depending for support own regime in Damask. The kurds in Syria located on NE borderland along Turkish border & here IS was изгнана.
Now we have a terrible event air strike on civil hospital in Alleppo. Indep.j.said that it was government aviation. But we must to note that according NYT maps on Syria distance between kurd’s town Cabana & Aleppo under control IS, it’s 100-150 miles.
At this time US official thought that kurds in SE of turkey siiport struggle kurds in Siria, have противоречия with Ankara as well as contact with Russia. So, in fact, political party in Turk. Kurdistan (PKK) the main enemy of Ankara & official Washington ann,it as main assistant of IS.
In Syria Bashar Assad promised to Kurds people almost in depending for support own regime in Damask. The kurds in Syria located on NE borderland along Turkish border & here IS was изгнана.
Now we have a terrible event air strike on civil hospital in Alleppo. Indep.j.said that it was government aviation. But we must to note that according NYT maps on Syria distance between kurd’s town Cabana & Aleppo under control IS, it’s 100-150 miles.
At this time US official thought that kurds in SE of turkey siiport struggle kurds in Siria, have противоречия with Ankara as well as contact with Russia. So, in fact, political party in Turk. Kurdistan (PKK) the main enemy of Ankara & official Washington ann,it as main assistant of IS.
Of course the country should be split up.
That way instead of killing each other in the same country.
They can all kill each other across the border in other countries.
That way instead of killing each other in the same country.
They can all kill each other across the border in other countries.
Under the constant internal strife among different political factions and daily terrorist attack, partition along ethnic lines is a more plausible solution toward a more peaceful existence. It also allows people to live and move on with their life. The participation of Sunni minority in the political process will further tone down the religious fever of ISIS. Division of Cyprus and partition of India after World War II are lessons learned from the recent past.
Over fifteen years later Joe Biden's idea is proven right.
The dream team of Obama/Biden/Carter are a complete disgrace to the the USA and the world. They continue to allow their friend Erdogan to commit genocide against the Kurds. They continue to insist that the Kurds can not have their own country. They continue to use the Kurds in Iraq and Syria to fight ISIS. The Kurds are our only friends in the area, and yet we treat them like dirt. Can hardly wait for the day, if it ever comes, that we have some politicians with even a bit of commonsense. Of course Iraq, Syria (and Turkey and Iran) should be partitioned. In fact they should all be penalized for their continued genocide against the Kurds (and other minorities). And yet Obama/Biden/Carter and Erdogan are friends. What a joke.
2
It would seem that all of the middle east should be partitioned from itself. But that to didn't' work over the last 2000+ years. Or at least since 300 AD when Islam took over.
The only time this region is stable is when it's run by a despicable dictator or Imam. And then the west is horrified and wants to 'help.' Perhaps it is oil, as many claim, that causes the west to interfer. Or perhaps it is history, like when the Muslims took over huge parts of Europe and Africa and insisted on tax money or conversion or death, that makes us leary of the intent of this region. But one thing for sure - Islam creates a lot of hate and death in it's path, at least as interpreted by the human representatives that claim to be the leaders of Islam. Could we arrest the Imam's and clerics that speak hatred and dominance and female subjugation under the supposed laws they interpret from Muhhamed and then see what happens in the region?
Probably not. But I believe we must surround the borders and let them fight it out; sick of pretending they want peace. Peace only comes to them once Sunni or Shiite rule the world.
The only time this region is stable is when it's run by a despicable dictator or Imam. And then the west is horrified and wants to 'help.' Perhaps it is oil, as many claim, that causes the west to interfer. Or perhaps it is history, like when the Muslims took over huge parts of Europe and Africa and insisted on tax money or conversion or death, that makes us leary of the intent of this region. But one thing for sure - Islam creates a lot of hate and death in it's path, at least as interpreted by the human representatives that claim to be the leaders of Islam. Could we arrest the Imam's and clerics that speak hatred and dominance and female subjugation under the supposed laws they interpret from Muhhamed and then see what happens in the region?
Probably not. But I believe we must surround the borders and let them fight it out; sick of pretending they want peace. Peace only comes to them once Sunni or Shiite rule the world.
All I have to say is "duh!" When Hussein was ousted most of the world was calling for the UN to step in and help the Iraqi people determine their self-determination (I believe that VP Biden, Senator then, agreed). That would most likely have meant three states. The Kurds are in the north-that will create angst to Turkey as it has Kurds within its borders who want independence as well. Shiite and Sunni are more difficult to separate, but its pretty clear that they won't live together, so they have to hash it out. It could be a Federal state with autonomous regions-but it's for the Iraqi's to decide and it needs help from an unbiased (or as unbiased as we can get) entity, such as the UN. This is a civil war going on in the Middle East among Muslims and the boarders that colonialist Europeans drew really don't mean anything. Nothing resolves until there are clear Shiite and Sunni dominated countries (either a single country each, or alliances of countries). Look back at Europe during reformation for an analogy-Catholic states v. Protestant states. In the Middle East there is no pretention of separation of church and state.
1
Of course. U.S. policy should be to undo the colonialist absurdities of the Sykes-Picot agreement. It should assist a transition to states defined by coherent interests, whether these be predominantly religious, cultural, economic, whatever. We should promote, perhaps under UN auspices, negotiations among all the Middle East stakeholders. If part of that process involves, as it probably inevitably will, internecine warfare, especially to establish "facts on the ground," so be it. Better to have it over and done with than to continue intra- and inter-state hostilities which express only frustration and offer no hope of some better state of affairs.
2
tim, I would like to be on your side. Tell me how you do to forget that these wars are fuelled by religions or sects of and that each religion has a godly duty to extend anywhere they can.
2
Iraq doesn't enjoy the true American exceptionalism: a live-and-let-live respect for different ethnicities and religions. Horrible historical events impede this even in America, but less so. Iraq needs to disassemble or find some group to oppress that everyone hates. Unfortunately for them, they ran out the historical providers of that service in the late 40's and early 50's.
The notion of Iraq as a nation has always been a fraud. It was cobbled together after the First World War from some old provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The people no longer consider themselves a part of a single nation and it is doubtful if they ever did.
We Americans have time and time again demonstrated our total ignorance of the entire area, yet we have tried to reorder it according to our wishes. It is time for an end to this hubris and time for us to get out of there.
We Americans have time and time again demonstrated our total ignorance of the entire area, yet we have tried to reorder it according to our wishes. It is time for an end to this hubris and time for us to get out of there.
3
Kurds are unique. They have their own language, culture, and history and track record of battlefield success and budding democracy, including opportunity for women. Don't lump the Kurds with the Arabs or Sunni-Shiite factions. America's game plan should always have been to cultivate Kurdistan. It still should be, with money, diplomacy, and air cover. An independent Kurdistan in the former Iraqi province would be a good start. They can do their own strategizing and fighting to add the Syrian, Iranian, and Turkish quarters. It could take a while longer. Israel can continue to help.
This is a good opportunity America should not miss.
This is a good opportunity America should not miss.
4
Agree, but US needs to find a way to placate Turkey, which is vehemently opposed.That's a tricky proposition.
Those who claim that partition wouldn't end the internecine violence should consider where such partition has been successful in ending most of the armed conflict. The most recent occurred with the breakup of former Yugoslavia. The process wasn't pretty, but the establishment of new states, with considerable international effort, has brought some relief to the region.
Because there have been less successful efforts, such as with South Sudan, doesn't mean that all partition efforts will fail. The three principal states of the fertile crescent, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, were created by Britain and France to satisfy political and economic interests. Since then, these states, especially Syria and Iraq, have had unstable governments, most arising from one tribally dominated military coup after another. The governments that survived the longest proved to be the most oppressive and brutal.
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that a change is in order.
Because there have been less successful efforts, such as with South Sudan, doesn't mean that all partition efforts will fail. The three principal states of the fertile crescent, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, were created by Britain and France to satisfy political and economic interests. Since then, these states, especially Syria and Iraq, have had unstable governments, most arising from one tribally dominated military coup after another. The governments that survived the longest proved to be the most oppressive and brutal.
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that a change is in order.
5
it seems to me that the rulers in power throughout the region have found it to their advantage to fan sectarian flames to keep people divided as opposed to truly working for a united country, makes keeping hold of power easier. I think it is too easy to point to ancient history and say various factions can't share a single country. But they can't if there continue favoritism by faction.
How ironic and fitting that Vice President Biden arrived in Iraq yesterday in an Air Force C-17 named for Strom Thurmond, of all people. Did any of the Iraqi leadership notice? Here is the Vice President trying to get these dysfunctional and delusional political actors to embrace some semblance of reality shortly after disembarking from an aircraft named for a racist, white supremacist who inflicted unimaginable harm to our country while trying to preserve Jim Crow of the 19th century. What the Iraqis have going on now is hardly the same as what Thurmond tried to perpetuate, but it sure makes for a bracing parallel.
2
If the US, under the administration of George W. Bush, had not invaded and destroyed Iraq under false pretense, the US would not have continued pouring lives and treasures into the quagmire if Iraq. Partitioning Iraq under the current conditions and forced on the Iraqis by the US not only is an admission at long last that the invasion of Iraq was colossally tragic mistake and one of the greatest failure US foreign policies but also a recipe for continued disaster and unforeseen consequences. How can it be guaranteed that the newly created Sunni, Shia and Kurdish Iraqi states would not continue fighting each other without the insertion of a massive US military force as peacekeepers? Forcibly relocating millions of Iraqis will most likely starting another round of sectarian killing. Partitioning Iraq will also create a precedence and encourage other partitioning movements in other Arab states that will surely create violent suppression.
There is no good solution for Iraq's violence and governance dysfunction. Calling for the partition of Iraq is a desperate and ignorant move akin to letting the elephant breaking the china shop, or what remains of it, again. The least bad solution is letting the Iraqis to determine their own future and, given enough time and without outside interference, they will sort it out themselves.
There is no good solution for Iraq's violence and governance dysfunction. Calling for the partition of Iraq is a desperate and ignorant move akin to letting the elephant breaking the china shop, or what remains of it, again. The least bad solution is letting the Iraqis to determine their own future and, given enough time and without outside interference, they will sort it out themselves.
5
Every country in the world is "artificial". Most Western states had the advantage that they had centuries to build a national identity. Iraq was formed more recently, so the ties are less strong. But even so breaking them will cause major damage.
In my opinion language is the only issue can provide any excuse for a partition. A partition based on religion is a legitimation of distinguishing people on the basis of religion. As such it legalizes intolerance and tends to worsen the situation.
Shiites were discriminated under Saddam and now Sunnites are, so it is claimed. But that is a dangerous generalization. Just like any dictator Saddam had his favorites and his dislikes, but that distinction didn't always follow sectarian lines. Since 2003 Sunnites are discriminated, but to a considerable extent they have only themselves to blame with their support for terrorism. Once that terrorism is over one can expect trust to return - although slowly.
In fact some discrimination is a quite normal human condition that can change rapidly. It may be good to remember that in the 1960s is was still a big deal that the Catholic Kennedy became president. Now that distinction has disappeared.
What we can do? We can help it beat the divisive ISIS. We can help convince Iran that an unstable Iraq is not in its interest. We can vigorously resist Saudi attempts to incite Iraqi Sunnites. And on a lower level we can show inclusive behavior ourselves.
In my opinion language is the only issue can provide any excuse for a partition. A partition based on religion is a legitimation of distinguishing people on the basis of religion. As such it legalizes intolerance and tends to worsen the situation.
Shiites were discriminated under Saddam and now Sunnites are, so it is claimed. But that is a dangerous generalization. Just like any dictator Saddam had his favorites and his dislikes, but that distinction didn't always follow sectarian lines. Since 2003 Sunnites are discriminated, but to a considerable extent they have only themselves to blame with their support for terrorism. Once that terrorism is over one can expect trust to return - although slowly.
In fact some discrimination is a quite normal human condition that can change rapidly. It may be good to remember that in the 1960s is was still a big deal that the Catholic Kennedy became president. Now that distinction has disappeared.
What we can do? We can help it beat the divisive ISIS. We can help convince Iran that an unstable Iraq is not in its interest. We can vigorously resist Saudi attempts to incite Iraqi Sunnites. And on a lower level we can show inclusive behavior ourselves.
4
But, you forgot to take into account - Tribal loyalties. There are over 150 tribes in Iraq. Just like Afghanistan or many parts of Africa - in the absence of a strong, reasonable government and/or cultural traditions- people look to their tribes for guidance, assurance, and protection. It just so happens that many of these tribes also split along religious lines. Keeping together people who have a cultural history of detesting one another for centuries -is no way to create stability or peace.
3
Rivers, mountain ranges, deserts, and lakes are not artificial, and these are what often serve as natural national boundaries. Centuries old tribal regions and sectarian affiliations also serve as logical boundaries. In the case of the Middle East and Irag in particular, these boundaries were radically redrawn by the Sykes-Picot agrrement after WWI. Restructuring Iraq along more sensible and traditional sectors won't solve all the problems there, but it's a step in the right direction.
2
"We can help it beat the divisive ISIS."
If we really wanted to destroy ISIS all it would take is an agreement with Russia for each to use a few tactical nuclear weapons against them. However, this will probably have to wait for President Trump as our president president seems to be incapable of even saying the words "radical Islamic terrorist".
If we really wanted to destroy ISIS all it would take is an agreement with Russia for each to use a few tactical nuclear weapons against them. However, this will probably have to wait for President Trump as our president president seems to be incapable of even saying the words "radical Islamic terrorist".
1
There appears little chance of having a united IRAQ. But why should there be?
This is an invented country, like others in this area (and Africa etc), divided up By Britain and France---straight lines on a map, rather than borders defined by ethnicity, religion or history.
IRAQ is not alone in requiring new borders. Syria, Lebanon and others.
It might also be helpful if Israel were forced to define the limits of its territorial ambitions as well. Rather than just illegally annex and settle territory, with the West apparently indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians.
This is an invented country, like others in this area (and Africa etc), divided up By Britain and France---straight lines on a map, rather than borders defined by ethnicity, religion or history.
IRAQ is not alone in requiring new borders. Syria, Lebanon and others.
It might also be helpful if Israel were forced to define the limits of its territorial ambitions as well. Rather than just illegally annex and settle territory, with the West apparently indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians.
3
As Disraeli one said, truth and common sense travel slowly, but eventually they reach everyone. Iraq never was anything but a misconceived imperialistic spawned deformed geo-political monstrosity. Ditto for Syria. The sooner all the energies that have been wasted on doomed efforts to maintain these failed states end are channeled into breaking them up, the better.
4
Iraq has no sense of nation to supersede the tribal allegiances of its various sects. The poor distribution of public good that the artificial Baghdad government manages with corruption and favoritism generates resentment and revenge seeking and the vacuum left in the Sunni Arab regions which led to the ISIS takeover can not be replaced and sustained with Baghdad's dysfunction. For the United States' to hang its hat on a unified Iraq as a precursor to pacifying the region is a historically wasteful expenditure of our blood and treasure. Withdrawal form Iraq will allow the inevitable partition to happen. Economic support to the only functioning political union and pacifying element in the region, the Kurdish, is the best we can do because ISIS can only be overtaken sustainably by the politically viable.
2
"Iraq has no sense of nation to supersede the tribal allegiances of its various sects."
Very well stated.
Very well stated.
As any fool can plainly see the Kurds are not going to help put Humpty Dumpty together again.
Shiastan, Sunnistan, Kurdistan. A big cemetery, soon to be desecrated, for the Christians and other minorities is how it will play out.
Let the last scorpion in the bottle die by repeatedly stinging itself to death.
Stop sending our children there to be maimed for less than nothing.
Shiastan, Sunnistan, Kurdistan. A big cemetery, soon to be desecrated, for the Christians and other minorities is how it will play out.
Let the last scorpion in the bottle die by repeatedly stinging itself to death.
Stop sending our children there to be maimed for less than nothing.
1
I wrote a letter to the editor of NYT in November of 06 arguing that Iraq was an artificial country and we should just let it dissolve into its natural ethnic/religious pieces. I compared Iraq to Yugoslavia which broke up after Tito and a brutal civil war, but now seemed a better place. So I guess I was with Biden then, but the letter was never published. But I hold no grudge and still read the NYT daily.
2
The choice is illustrated by hundreds of thousands of fresh tombs: either a murderous absolute dictator, or 3 separate states. With the hindsight we have, no sane argument can be made for a stable, peaceful, quasi-democratic artificial-boundaries entity called Iraq.
2
The Western Powers are delusional in their secular beliefs that an accord can be reached among the Islamic religious sects.
Peace in the ME just ain't gonna happen as long as the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds believe by killing off the other two groups of infidels, they are following the will of Allah...and they will faithfully continue to believe in that until the day Allah Himself appears on Earth to lead them, hand-in-hand, in reconciliation.
Until that day comes to pass, however, separation and segregation are the region's best, if not only, viable hope and possible chance at achieving a cessation to the incessant armed conflicts...
Peace in the ME just ain't gonna happen as long as the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds believe by killing off the other two groups of infidels, they are following the will of Allah...and they will faithfully continue to believe in that until the day Allah Himself appears on Earth to lead them, hand-in-hand, in reconciliation.
Until that day comes to pass, however, separation and segregation are the region's best, if not only, viable hope and possible chance at achieving a cessation to the incessant armed conflicts...
3
Gee, how unusual... Isn't that just what Laurence offered them when they fought for the British in WW-1 to throw the Turks and Germans out of Iraq? Then came the British after the war was won and forgot that promise and here we are trying to clean up that mess by finally admitting that should have happened in the 1920's... :(...
1
The shiites and Sunnis are already in a 10 year war for territory to form their own countries. I envision one Sunni country dominated by Saudi Arabia and another Shiite country dominated by Iran. They would responsible for peace in their own countries. Same for the Kurds. Why not try it? Nothing else has worked.
2
The British colonizers in the 1920's totally ignored the tribal boundaries and smashed together three historic enemies to form a country with artificial boundaries called Iraq. In the 1880's, Durrand formed the artificial demarcation between Pakistan and Afghanistan to split the Pashtun population. Splitting Iraq into Kurdistan, Sunniland and Shiitia may be the best hope for peace.
3
It sounds reasonable until the splitting of resources is added to the equation. I don't see a solution to this horrible festering wound that is the the Middle East. It hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. I doubt it will ever change unless they get read to their religious believes and start to think rationally.
"Splitting Iraq into Kurdistan, Sunniland and Shiitia may be the best hope for peace."
Why not give the Shite part of Iraq to Shite Iran in exchange for Iran giving the Kurdish part of Iran to Kurdistan?
Why not give the Shite part of Iraq to Shite Iran in exchange for Iran giving the Kurdish part of Iran to Kurdistan?
1
This so-called country has nowhere to go but down. I expect to see continuing chaos in this country and region for decades to come. This Pandora's box cannot be closed or the damage undone until another strongman ala Sadam is created. These religious people are incapable of rational thought and compromise. Remind you of anyone?
2
After 63 plus years of US interfering with the people of the middle east, 150 years of British rule and our own government over throwing the Iranian government, to call for the splitting up those countries by the west it is time to get out of their way.
It is also time for those in the middle east to accept the facts that Jews were there as long they have.
It is also time for those in the middle east to accept the facts that Jews were there as long they have.
1
How 'bout we pull out and leave the people of Iraq (and Syria too, while we are at it) to split their country in whatever manner they choose. Haven't we (and the Europeans) caused enough damage to the Middle East over the years in trying to shape its politics, its politicians and its borders to our liking?
4
I admire the NYT's attention to historic detail in this article. However, you omit one key modern event--The United States' illegal invasion of Iraq in 2002 which toppled a stable, secular, albeit authoritarian, regime.
We talk about the Iraq invasion as a waste of our lives and resources, not a violation of our purported values and principles. And yet we lecture the world on human rights?
Let's acknowledge the central facts before we muse out loud how we want to carve up Iraq.
We talk about the Iraq invasion as a waste of our lives and resources, not a violation of our purported values and principles. And yet we lecture the world on human rights?
Let's acknowledge the central facts before we muse out loud how we want to carve up Iraq.
3
Considered against the background of the post-Saddam political chaos and sectarian violence, the three-part division of Iraq along the Sunni, Shitte, and Kurdish ethnic lines seems theoretically sound but practically not feasible on two counts. First, in the absence of an independent international arbiter, and a mutually agreed framework of division, if the idea is pushed ahead by some external powers, it might result into further violence and conflict. Secondly, it might lead to more such demands of partitions elsewhere setting in motion a chain reaction posing a threat to the unity and integrity of the existing sovereign states.
1
what they did to Iraq, Syria and Libya and tried and still trying to do to Egypt too
1
Once again the paper of record obfuscates the already complex by confusing religion with ethnicity and with language.
Most of the Kurds of Northern Iraq are themselves Sunni Muslims. They also typically speak at least one dialect of Arabic. The primary Arab-speakers of Iraq divide up into Sunni Muslim sects, Shiite Muslim sects and various Christian sects.
I use the term Arab-speaker deliberately. That Iraqis speak one, two or more of the many mutually unintelligible dialects of Arabic no more makes them 'Arabs' than speaking a variant of English makes New Yorkers or Glaswegians 'English'.
Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, is a long atrophied vestigial remnant of the Arab-speaking empire created by the invading armies of Mohammed of Mecca and Medina. Mohammed's hordes colonised the Arabian Peninsula and much of Berber-speaking North Africa, just as the Roman legions had colonised much of Celtic-, Greek-, and Phienican-speaking Europe, and, later, the English-speaking merchant-missionary-invaders were to colonise much of the world.
The mistake in 2016 that all English-speaking journalists and almost all commentators continue to make is to confuse being Arab-speaking with being 'an Arab', to confuse a vague, historically uninformed pride in being in some way a descendant of Mohammed's empire builders with belonging in 2016 to a distinct, united Araby.
Most of the Kurds of Northern Iraq are themselves Sunni Muslims. They also typically speak at least one dialect of Arabic. The primary Arab-speakers of Iraq divide up into Sunni Muslim sects, Shiite Muslim sects and various Christian sects.
I use the term Arab-speaker deliberately. That Iraqis speak one, two or more of the many mutually unintelligible dialects of Arabic no more makes them 'Arabs' than speaking a variant of English makes New Yorkers or Glaswegians 'English'.
Mesopotamia, now called Iraq, is a long atrophied vestigial remnant of the Arab-speaking empire created by the invading armies of Mohammed of Mecca and Medina. Mohammed's hordes colonised the Arabian Peninsula and much of Berber-speaking North Africa, just as the Roman legions had colonised much of Celtic-, Greek-, and Phienican-speaking Europe, and, later, the English-speaking merchant-missionary-invaders were to colonise much of the world.
The mistake in 2016 that all English-speaking journalists and almost all commentators continue to make is to confuse being Arab-speaking with being 'an Arab', to confuse a vague, historically uninformed pride in being in some way a descendant of Mohammed's empire builders with belonging in 2016 to a distinct, united Araby.
4
Isn't it always a convenient solution to divide African, Asian, and Hispanic countries? Should we be surprised that there are "calls" to break-up Iraq? The question is, who is calling for the break-up? Secessionist movements are fueled by multinational corporations to keep the prices of some of the world's most sought after resources at rock bottom prices. Consistently rock-bottom prices can only be achieved and sustained through perpetual war and sustained chaos. So, another round of applause to the seven energy companies who keep the planet in socio-economic, ecological, and cultural quagmire.
Welcome to Balkanization of Iraq; the design by the chief architect is to divide Iraq in three zones based on ethnic/ sectarian denominations. Middle east/North africa on the larger canvass would have similar divisions. British and French architecture of Middle East/North and West Africa after second world war has outlived for the stakeholders interest. What has happened in Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Tunis, Egypt, Syria, and Mali...and sectarian strife in Bahrain/ Kuwait is all the loose ends of this chain. US/'west' needs to further flex her muscle overtly and covertly based on their geostrategic interests and Israel has not invaded a country since south Lebanon incursion....it's high time for Israel to expand her promised land along Nile and Euphrates. And folks could recall Obama's Cairo speech....and they should remember Bush 'new world disorder'. Arab spring has turned into a 'terrible' Arab autumn....look at Iraq. Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen...belligerent lies!!!!
2
The solution is simple: determine what Dubya's neoconservatives like Wolfowitz recommend then do the exact opposite. The huge injustice is that these desk-bound warmongers have gone on to cushy second careers instead of being shunned and pilloried as they deserve for committing, with Bush and Cheney, the most grievous strategic blunder in American history.
3
The Kurds should get a state and join NATO in place of Turkey.
4
Some want to make Iraq another Germany of the past and Korea by asking for its division.
Well, the author blamed everybody but the Americans for the turmoil in Iraq.
1
At the very least, Kurds deserve a homeland about the size of Texas. In fact, I'd be happy to give them Texas; including the Bush holdings.
3
So Biden had it right from the get-go of this administration.
5
I hope GW, Cheney, Rummy, and Wolfie are happy at the death, destruction, and turmoil they have wrought upon Iraq, this country, our dead and maimed soldiers, and the world. May they die extremely unpleasant deaths and their offspring suffer the consequences of their actions.
Identity is 90% of the game when it comes to who will fight for what, especially in corrupt societies and those where political and economic power are divided along sub-national lines.
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East, much to the consternation of our State Department and military who undoubtedly have not read it. Except for the British-lead revolt against the Ottomans, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong national identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East, much to the consternation of our State Department and military who undoubtedly have not read it. Except for the British-lead revolt against the Ottomans, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong national identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)
2
An old idea, yes, remember it well.
An idea that Joe Biden got hammered for when he proposed it.
An idea from a guy that has actual judgment,
just too bad he is not the one running.
An idea that Joe Biden got hammered for when he proposed it.
An idea from a guy that has actual judgment,
just too bad he is not the one running.
1
Biden had it right in 2008.
As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
1
Hullo???? Iraq has been split up for years. It will never be put back together. Practically the whole world knows that. It's only US policy makers who cling to the quaint hope that Shia, Sunni, and Kurds can be forced back into a unitary state. It is long past time to accept reality -- and in particular, to give full US support to the independent Kurdistan which will become our best and most reliable ally in the region.
5
Given the turmoil and the ethno-sectarian jockeying for power with separatist undertones if Iraq is to disintegrate into several fiefdoms it would be on its own failure to govern itself as single state entity but never as the planned division because some external powers so desire for Iraq.
This was widely predicted to be one of the consequences of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Hussein was the guy who held the country together and stable. All dismissed at the time by Republicans and the Bush administration as absurd.
7
May 9 marks the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a secret understanding concluded during World War I between Great Britain and France for the division of Ottoman Empire into various French and British-administered areas in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Palestine. Given the reality on the ground, there is nothing to celebrate. None of the current borders in Iraq and Syria were drawn in the 1916 agreement. They were settled by Arabs, Turks, Armenians etc. in bitterly fought battles in the course of history, which repeats itself today.
Unfortunately this "blood is thicker than water" mentality and this lose or win zero-sum view of power are part of the Middleastern culture. The region would be better off if the players could govern themselves, so that they won't have outsiders to blame for their failures and mistakes.
Unfortunately this "blood is thicker than water" mentality and this lose or win zero-sum view of power are part of the Middleastern culture. The region would be better off if the players could govern themselves, so that they won't have outsiders to blame for their failures and mistakes.
8
Is Iraq really a country or a group of tribes.
5
The same question could be asked of the USA.
Iraq hasn't been a "country" since the Bush administration broke it ousting Saddam Hussein without an End-Game, so it's neither really...too chaotic and dysfunctional to be considered "a country" in anything but name and the religious sects are too large, spread out with too many internal factions to rightly be call "tribes."
1
"Balkanization is better than deaths, miseries and refugees..."
No question! The best part is that when you split up already-small states into even smaller states, none of the smaller states is defensible. So each of them allies itself with some world power because otherwise it can't defend itself against an aggressive neighbor – especially an aggressive neighbor whose military has been built up by some other world power.
Sounds like a great idea, though I have a vague recollection that it's been tried before.
No question! The best part is that when you split up already-small states into even smaller states, none of the smaller states is defensible. So each of them allies itself with some world power because otherwise it can't defend itself against an aggressive neighbor – especially an aggressive neighbor whose military has been built up by some other world power.
Sounds like a great idea, though I have a vague recollection that it's been tried before.
17
The Bush family - the gift that just keeps on giving.
11
Sounds like the Arabs have no responsibility whatsoever for their behavior -- they're all just little Third-World children who can't be expected to wipe after themselves. Yes? It's always Big White Bwana in the end who calls the shots -- even for progressive Leftists who convince themselves there isn't a racist bone in their bodies.
That's a good idea. Offer the Bushes to lead Iraq. After all, they did such a good job in America.
"Good idea. The Kurds deserve their own country, as do the Kurds in Iran, Syria and Turkey."
Right on! If we could just figure out which countries to take territory from, we'd be ready to roll. Maybe we can talk Iran, Syria, and Turkey -- and Iraq, of course -- to give up some of their territory so the Kurds can have a state. I can't imagine any of them would object to that. And if they do, maybe we could offer to resettle any displaced Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis in, say, Georgia and South Carolina. We could move the Americans living there to, say, Michigan and Minnesota.
Better yet, offer them bupkus – just bomb them if they don't agree to give up territory to help out the Kurds. We would, after all -- it's just that the Kurds live so far away that they probably wouldn't want to move here.
Even so -- far away or not -- there's no question that an independent Kurdistan is extremely important for Americans. It's something that Americans should want to send their children to die for. Not my children, of course, but some other Americans' children -- all of whom will have the best wishes of the rest of us.
Right on! If we could just figure out which countries to take territory from, we'd be ready to roll. Maybe we can talk Iran, Syria, and Turkey -- and Iraq, of course -- to give up some of their territory so the Kurds can have a state. I can't imagine any of them would object to that. And if they do, maybe we could offer to resettle any displaced Turks, Syrians, Iranians and Iraqis in, say, Georgia and South Carolina. We could move the Americans living there to, say, Michigan and Minnesota.
Better yet, offer them bupkus – just bomb them if they don't agree to give up territory to help out the Kurds. We would, after all -- it's just that the Kurds live so far away that they probably wouldn't want to move here.
Even so -- far away or not -- there's no question that an independent Kurdistan is extremely important for Americans. It's something that Americans should want to send their children to die for. Not my children, of course, but some other Americans' children -- all of whom will have the best wishes of the rest of us.
10
"i can't imagine any of them would object to that" - regarding turkey relinquishing territory for a new kurdistan...
why do people bother commenting when they have no idea of history?
why do people bother commenting when they have no idea of history?
Iraq has been the scene of conflict between North and South ever since the rise of the Akkadian Empire. If Sargon the Great (the very first Middle Eastern leader to go floating down a river in a basket as an infant, several centuries before Moses copied his stunt) hadn't tried to unify the place back in 2300 B.C.E., maybe we wouldn't have this problem today. Unfortunately, like today's neocons, Sargon (or 'S-ya', as he was known back then) figured he could ignore all those pesky 'reality-based' critics and make his own reality. He spent the rest of his life putting down rebellions while his nation went bankrupt. Sound familiar?
8
For "God's" sake stop trying to force Sunnis and Shiites to live together. Nice idea but what's the point? And let the Kurds have their own nation. Duh. Nobody else on earth deserves a nation more after what they've been through. Sure, they'll all keep fighting each other, but at least the borders will be defined and one party won't be able to blame the other its nation's failings.
14
For Gods sakes stop trying to force white Americans, African-Americans, Native-Americans and Biracial people to live together in America; they deserve a country after all they've been through......n'est ce-pas?
1
Ah, there's the solution!
"I think the only long term solution to these problems is abandonment of fanatical religion or at least adding a healthy mixture of enlightened secular humanism."
All we need to do is send over a "secular humanist" to talk some sense into those people. "Give up your fanatical religion! Embrace secular humanism!"
That should do the trick!
"I think the only long term solution to these problems is abandonment of fanatical religion or at least adding a healthy mixture of enlightened secular humanism."
All we need to do is send over a "secular humanist" to talk some sense into those people. "Give up your fanatical religion! Embrace secular humanism!"
That should do the trick!
9
That will work, right up until the time the "secular humanist's" forehead bumps into a speeding bullet.
1
That would be a trick. If Freud is dead, then secular humanism is a mummified carcass.
1
Iraq should be partitioned into 3 separate States, with an absolute transfer of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish populations to their respective States. Otherwise you'll just end up with another India saddled with Muslims in their midst that don't want Indian Hindu rule over them and the ethnic and religious strife will continue on. Don't mind the liberal idiots who will call such a transfer "ethnic cleansing". It's just semantics. The liberals can easily call this "repatriation" and wax eloquence of its merits with the same conviction.
12
The liberals aren't the ones who started this madness. Try to remember back to the Spring of 2003 and see if you can also remember who the President was at that time. He certainly was not a liberal.
1
While it's true that this may be the most palatable solution & especially for the Kurds, you are far to dismissive of the human costs. Ethnic cleansing is not semantics especially to the dead. Perhaps instead of a glib response to the consequences of the conservative driven war that broke Iraq you could offer a way for this to not be a repeat of India's partition or the breakup of Yugoslavia. Otherwise the consequences of this partition will follow us into the future much like those we suffer from today.
1
you own your opinion, but not mine, so please put it forth as it is without justifying it as not being what liberals want, cause you don't know. dividing Iraq into 3 countries seems a solution, the Kurds deserve their own country, they have s h own they can fight for their beliefs not run away.
The Kurds have been amazing ! We are lucky to still have them as allies after all our backstabbing. They definitely deserve their own country. Ridiculous that Iraq is still one country. What a waste of lives, money and time.
7
Do it! Without Saddam Hussein, this so-called country can never be a true nation, and he was bound to die someday. So get it over with.
5
Who rules Sunistan?....ISIS?
A huge problem with no easy answers.
A huge problem with no easy answers.
3
Let Saudi Arabia run it, they have enough oil money to do so.
1
Blame Gertrude Bell for Iraq/Syria/Jordan borders.
Blame the English for Partition of Ireland, Middle East, India.
Blame the UN for Partition of Middle East.
What a mess we have. Playing god never pays off.
Next Blame in the making – USA for partition of Iraq.
Blame the English for Partition of Ireland, Middle East, India.
Blame the UN for Partition of Middle East.
What a mess we have. Playing god never pays off.
Next Blame in the making – USA for partition of Iraq.
3
The rotten mess that is Iraq is seemingly endless. How many corrupt, blood-thirsty Dictators can you fit into one Country ?
After America supported, trained, funded and armed Saddam and his Army, he turned on us, keeping the money and weapons. Big shocker.
Years later, Saddam falls to the Arab Spring Uprising - but his old Field Commanders exit North, to create ISIS, with our training and weapons.
Time and again, America makes a bad situation worse. Why? Oil ???
It is heartening to see the Iraq Public in the streets of Baghdad expressing their sincere dis-pleasure. Anger is a better level than apathy in that situation, but I see little hope for those people.
With every splintered faction in Iraq ready to kill any other faction, it is an old Tribal blood bath, and a vicious circle with no end in sight.
Let Iraq sort out it's own affairs. Bring all US money, arms and troops home, now. You can't buy friends, and we've created enough trouble over there.
After America supported, trained, funded and armed Saddam and his Army, he turned on us, keeping the money and weapons. Big shocker.
Years later, Saddam falls to the Arab Spring Uprising - but his old Field Commanders exit North, to create ISIS, with our training and weapons.
Time and again, America makes a bad situation worse. Why? Oil ???
It is heartening to see the Iraq Public in the streets of Baghdad expressing their sincere dis-pleasure. Anger is a better level than apathy in that situation, but I see little hope for those people.
With every splintered faction in Iraq ready to kill any other faction, it is an old Tribal blood bath, and a vicious circle with no end in sight.
Let Iraq sort out it's own affairs. Bring all US money, arms and troops home, now. You can't buy friends, and we've created enough trouble over there.
4
Partition worked in Yugoslavia (now the nations of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzogovina, and Macedonia). Czechoslovakia is now divided into The Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Ireland and Great Britain parted ways. The partitioning of Iraq is overdue.
13
While we're at it, maybe we should partition ourselves into red state US and blue state US. That is, partition off the former slave states, like they wanted. Then they could achieve the third-world banana republic status to which they clearly aspire. The blue states would be relieved of the tax burden of subsidizing the red states. Although I imagine there would be a flood of red-state refugees seeking a better life that would negate that financial advantage.
1
The Czech Republic is now officially named Czechia!
Mr. Khedery's comments are spot on:
"Mr. Khedery is now a sharp critic of American policy in Iraq, saying it has consistently ignored the realities of the country’s underlying political problems. Iraq, he said, “is a violent, dysfunctional marriage, and we keep pouring American lives and dollars into it, hoping for a miracle. We should instead seek to broker an amicable separation or divorce that results in self-determination for Iraq’s fractious communities.”
Yes!
And Gertrude Bell:
“...we rushed into this business with our usual disregard for a comprehensive political scheme.”
Iraq was NEVER a "country" until the Brits and French created it out of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement for their own interests, not that of the people. The Ottomans ruled "Iraq" as three provinces, the very ones Biden advocates for. These three peoples, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, never saw themselves as a united people.
T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) warned about these unnatural forced "marriages" in 1919 at Versailles, and in his 1922 book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom." No one listened.
What we see in Iraq today is the final death throes of the colonial era, where the colonial powers attempted to maintain control through artificial constructs such as 'Iraq" and "Syria," which is the same as Iraq - artificial.
Let these people go to form their own natural countries, and that part of the ME will be a lot calmer, after the initial blood and brutality such divisions bring.
"Mr. Khedery is now a sharp critic of American policy in Iraq, saying it has consistently ignored the realities of the country’s underlying political problems. Iraq, he said, “is a violent, dysfunctional marriage, and we keep pouring American lives and dollars into it, hoping for a miracle. We should instead seek to broker an amicable separation or divorce that results in self-determination for Iraq’s fractious communities.”
Yes!
And Gertrude Bell:
“...we rushed into this business with our usual disregard for a comprehensive political scheme.”
Iraq was NEVER a "country" until the Brits and French created it out of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement for their own interests, not that of the people. The Ottomans ruled "Iraq" as three provinces, the very ones Biden advocates for. These three peoples, Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, never saw themselves as a united people.
T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia) warned about these unnatural forced "marriages" in 1919 at Versailles, and in his 1922 book "Seven Pillars of Wisdom." No one listened.
What we see in Iraq today is the final death throes of the colonial era, where the colonial powers attempted to maintain control through artificial constructs such as 'Iraq" and "Syria," which is the same as Iraq - artificial.
Let these people go to form their own natural countries, and that part of the ME will be a lot calmer, after the initial blood and brutality such divisions bring.
7
"Mission accomplished."
6
Neocons win! So do Kurds!
Following the brilliant success of carving off South Sudan from Sudan, American meddlers are intent on breaking up Iraq. See what a "little" headache can do?
Let's follow up on our success to date in Iraq and leave a legacy of continual conflict and war, where Kurdish Iraq then seeks to unite with Kurds in Turkey, Syria and wherever else they may be. And then? Well after the several hundred year war, it's peace! Hallelujah!
Biden, who supported the invasion of Iraq and not the mission to neutralize Osama Bin Laden, is the one person no one involved with US foreign policy or Iraq decisions should be listening to.
There are always the neocons...Can we please not after tens of thousands of maimed Americans, thousands of dead Americans, over 100,000 dead Iraqis and a Middle East in complete chaos, not give them a victory in achieving another one of their completely mad objectives!!!!!!
Following the brilliant success of carving off South Sudan from Sudan, American meddlers are intent on breaking up Iraq. See what a "little" headache can do?
Let's follow up on our success to date in Iraq and leave a legacy of continual conflict and war, where Kurdish Iraq then seeks to unite with Kurds in Turkey, Syria and wherever else they may be. And then? Well after the several hundred year war, it's peace! Hallelujah!
Biden, who supported the invasion of Iraq and not the mission to neutralize Osama Bin Laden, is the one person no one involved with US foreign policy or Iraq decisions should be listening to.
There are always the neocons...Can we please not after tens of thousands of maimed Americans, thousands of dead Americans, over 100,000 dead Iraqis and a Middle East in complete chaos, not give them a victory in achieving another one of their completely mad objectives!!!!!!
5
Yes, better to promote a Palestinian state that will become dysfunctional within three years as opposed to a Kurdish state in which the Kurds have already proven they can turn a bad situation into a decent democratic autonomous zone. The largest nation on earth without a state of their own -- 20 million people. Oh, I forgot. The Palestinians are fighting the Jews. Gotta give them a state. The Kurds are not. Sluff 'em off and lump 'em with the neo-cons. How convenient.
2
An OBVIOUS could/should have been done a longtime ago: Biden had previously indicated his sensible agreement. What a waste of lives & trillions to try to re-make the regressive (literally) Middle East. Once Saddam was taken-out, surely partition could/should have been tried/done. And perhaps in Syria today, and perhaps Libya, and perhaps Yemen. Is the Middle East not able to
be rational? Balkanization is better than deaths, miseries and refugees
be rational? Balkanization is better than deaths, miseries and refugees
10
Since Balkanization is better............try it on the American people.
I think it's relevant to recall that when the Indians achieved freedom from the British, to Gandhi's dismay, the Hindus & Muslims couldn't get along, & they had to form the separate state of Pakistan for the Muslims. Of course, there is still animosity between them & they both have nuclear weapons, but the immediate problem was solved.
As a Humanist though I think the only long term solution to these problems is abandonment of fanatical religion or at least adding a healthy mixture of enlightened secular humanism. Human problems can only be solved through 2 methods: reason or force, and religious fanaticism takes the first off the table.
The Sunnis & Shiites & Kurds (& the Israeli/Palestinians, Irish Catholics/Protestants, etc.) will never get along as long as compromise is sacrilege, faith & machismo take priority over reason & human compassion, and a questionable afterlife is more important than this real life we actually live.
As a Humanist though I think the only long term solution to these problems is abandonment of fanatical religion or at least adding a healthy mixture of enlightened secular humanism. Human problems can only be solved through 2 methods: reason or force, and religious fanaticism takes the first off the table.
The Sunnis & Shiites & Kurds (& the Israeli/Palestinians, Irish Catholics/Protestants, etc.) will never get along as long as compromise is sacrilege, faith & machismo take priority over reason & human compassion, and a questionable afterlife is more important than this real life we actually live.
8
Democracy, Respect for the Other, human rights, are still not part of the Arab philosophy and people, like the UK Labour leaders Ken Livingston and Jeremy Corbyn, help perpetuate the idiocy that Israel and Jews cause the trouble in Arab paradise.
7
It's also been referred to and written about as Churchill's Folly...and so this notion of an Iraq breakup is far from new.
American styled democracy does not suit everyone - tribal Mesopotamians included. Give Iraq back to it's tribes and let them sort out their issues. Too bad George W. and his dad and their de-facto President Cheney were not up on their Middle Eastern studies. All this turmoil could have been reduced to an internecine battle which we could have stayed out of...or as Bill Clinton often did - come down on all sides of an argument. IE. Support everyone.
But the blame really lands at the feet of the British and in particular, Winston Churchill. BTW - I'm a genuine fan of Winnie - but not his mistakes and this one was a beauty!
American styled democracy does not suit everyone - tribal Mesopotamians included. Give Iraq back to it's tribes and let them sort out their issues. Too bad George W. and his dad and their de-facto President Cheney were not up on their Middle Eastern studies. All this turmoil could have been reduced to an internecine battle which we could have stayed out of...or as Bill Clinton often did - come down on all sides of an argument. IE. Support everyone.
But the blame really lands at the feet of the British and in particular, Winston Churchill. BTW - I'm a genuine fan of Winnie - but not his mistakes and this one was a beauty!
9
FROM THE GIT-GO this was the stated inevitable outcome of GWB's pancaking of the wrong country after 9/11.
This is such a huge tragedy to ponder.
All that death, destruction and now terrorism due to the ineffable stupidity of this endeavor. It's nearly too horrible to contemplate.
Now comes the inevitable. Make no mistake, this is not new thinking. At the time it was stated that the split up of Iraq was inevitable after Saddam was eliminated.
There are criminals at large right here in River City! They are former 'neo-cons', and their vehicle, the BushCo admin.
They now sleaze around the nation posing as senior statesmen.
This is such a huge tragedy to ponder.
All that death, destruction and now terrorism due to the ineffable stupidity of this endeavor. It's nearly too horrible to contemplate.
Now comes the inevitable. Make no mistake, this is not new thinking. At the time it was stated that the split up of Iraq was inevitable after Saddam was eliminated.
There are criminals at large right here in River City! They are former 'neo-cons', and their vehicle, the BushCo admin.
They now sleaze around the nation posing as senior statesmen.
17
Don't forget Tony Blair's support for his neo-con friends in Washington.
1
JUST like the Arab tribes in "Lawrence of Arabia".
6
"An independent Kurdistan is really in America's best interests."
I give up -- why is that? Why should we care at all whether the Kurds have an independent state? What if "we" split up Iraq and then parts of one of the three new states are discriminated against? Split up their mini-state into several micro-states? Maybe have sovereign villages?
How about we just pull out and mind our own business?
Before we attacked Iraq, did you really care whether the Kurds had their own state? Did you even know there were Kurds?
I give up -- why is that? Why should we care at all whether the Kurds have an independent state? What if "we" split up Iraq and then parts of one of the three new states are discriminated against? Split up their mini-state into several micro-states? Maybe have sovereign villages?
How about we just pull out and mind our own business?
Before we attacked Iraq, did you really care whether the Kurds had their own state? Did you even know there were Kurds?
7
But I'll take a guess that you bleed for the Palestinians who've turned down every offer ever made to them for their own state; but the Kurds -- the largest nation on earth of 20 million people -- have never been offered their own nation-state. And they don't dream of annihilating any of their neighbors. And in fact, despite all the odds and dysfunction and plotting around them, Kurdistan even as an autonomous region has achieved a democratic government and a strong economy. Can't say the same for Hamas in Gaza; that's for sure. If the Kurds were shipped concrete, they'd build schools and homes -- not terror tunnels.
2
Combat seemed uncalled for, to be sure. Is anyone sure what happened there?
However, I venture to speak to an autonomous Kurdistan. It would pull hungry mouths from Bagdad, to Irbil, drastically simplifying the politics there. It might also pull PKK members from Turkey. It might dawn a new era for the Caucuses region by creating new leadership for the region's underserved peoples?
I too, hope it's not just another pursuit of the Great Game, Open Door Policy, et al.
However, I venture to speak to an autonomous Kurdistan. It would pull hungry mouths from Bagdad, to Irbil, drastically simplifying the politics there. It might also pull PKK members from Turkey. It might dawn a new era for the Caucuses region by creating new leadership for the region's underserved peoples?
I too, hope it's not just another pursuit of the Great Game, Open Door Policy, et al.
2
I did care about the Kurds after I saw how they were treated in Turkey and , of course, I knew there were Kurds. And, I also knew that after WWI they came close to have there own country, but France and Great Britain were more interested in their empire building than giving them their own country.
And, yes, I protested against the war in 2003 and was called by passerbys a traitor. I protested, not because I wanted to defend murderous Hussein but because it was clear to me life and treasure would be wasted, it would create more terrorists and Irak would disintegrate . But, that, of course, require knowing history which very few Americans, and apparently our now leaders, know or care.
And, yes, I protested against the war in 2003 and was called by passerbys a traitor. I protested, not because I wanted to defend murderous Hussein but because it was clear to me life and treasure would be wasted, it would create more terrorists and Irak would disintegrate . But, that, of course, require knowing history which very few Americans, and apparently our now leaders, know or care.
1
Well, one thing is for sure: Iraq will never, ever become the compliant, pro-American client state siding with Israel and Saudi Arabia in every dispute as the pie-in-the-sky neocons dreamed of and still bitterly lament could have been the outcome had Barack Obama not withdrawn U.S. soldiers from the country in 2011. For the record, this neocon narrative of Democrats "cutting and running" is utter nonsense. U.S. military intervention in Iraq was a disaster from day one in March 2003. It could never turn out any other way with George W. Bush as commander in chief.
There is no way to overstate how unbelievably delusional and dangerous the neocon faction in the U.S. foreign policy community has been since coalescing around the PNAC project in the late 1990s. If neocons are bitterly opposed to Iraq's partition, then it's probably a very good idea.
There is no way to overstate how unbelievably delusional and dangerous the neocon faction in the U.S. foreign policy community has been since coalescing around the PNAC project in the late 1990s. If neocons are bitterly opposed to Iraq's partition, then it's probably a very good idea.
10
I think you have an obsession with "neo-cons". They are not under every bedpost, nor are they behind anything that goes bump in the night. Nor do they pull the string behind every slaughter in the Mideast. Have you considered getting counselling?
2
Its seems obvious to allow the region to be divided along religious and ethnic lines, but doesn't that just create another Pakistan-India situation where you have distrust and saber-rattling between neighbors?
8
Still a far better result than what is currently happening on the ground- genocide.
1
"I can imagine what a "Kurdistan" would look like, but what would a Shiastan and Sunnistan look like?"
Well, it's pretty easy to figure that out. Sunnistan would include much of the territory now controlled by ISIS, except that all of their soldiers would immediately lay down their arms and be happy to do without the portions of Syria they now control. Their leaders would calm them with this: "Look, if that's where the US thinks the boundaries should be, that's good enough for us." And so they'd never attack Kurdistan or Shiastan.
Shiastan would be most of what's now Iraq, with Baghdad as its capital. The people who live in Kurdistan and Sunnistan wouldn't pay much attention to Shiastan, though, since its only significance for them would be that the "central financing authority" that splits up oil revenues would be based in Baghdad. But that wouldn't matter much because there'd never be any disagreement about the revenue split.
Three happy new states, living in peace, instead of one state where different groups don't get along. What could go wrong, especially when the people learn this is something the US government supports?
Well, it's pretty easy to figure that out. Sunnistan would include much of the territory now controlled by ISIS, except that all of their soldiers would immediately lay down their arms and be happy to do without the portions of Syria they now control. Their leaders would calm them with this: "Look, if that's where the US thinks the boundaries should be, that's good enough for us." And so they'd never attack Kurdistan or Shiastan.
Shiastan would be most of what's now Iraq, with Baghdad as its capital. The people who live in Kurdistan and Sunnistan wouldn't pay much attention to Shiastan, though, since its only significance for them would be that the "central financing authority" that splits up oil revenues would be based in Baghdad. But that wouldn't matter much because there'd never be any disagreement about the revenue split.
Three happy new states, living in peace, instead of one state where different groups don't get along. What could go wrong, especially when the people learn this is something the US government supports?
5
Our own history makes us blind to the difficulties of uniting the disparate elements of a religiously divided state. Americans look at our own United States and think that our approach of cementing different cultures together under a central government is the way all countries should operate. It also overlooks the fact that religious freedom played a major role in our success, and that economics, not culture or religion, was the major driving force in both the American Revolution and the Civil War.
Failing to recognize the deep divides created by religion and culture is a major mistake. Trying to impose unity on a religiously divided country is a fool's errand.
Failing to recognize the deep divides created by religion and culture is a major mistake. Trying to impose unity on a religiously divided country is a fool's errand.
4
Good idea. The Kurds deserve their own country, as do the Kurds in Iran, Syria and Turkey. They are the one (and only) sane presence in that area, and have been for some time.
5
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said it would be quick and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction. Bush and Cheney said $21 billion was all they needed. Over $1 trillion dollars and 13 years later the place is still such a mess that now people are talking about partition.
The entire thing was built on a pack of lies and everyone telling those lies knew they were lies and everyone with half a brain in our government also knew they were lies but authorized the criminal theft and inhuman slaughter they unleashed. In 2003, then Senator Hillary Clinton said: "Iraq ... remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Those were completely cynical lies and she received the endorsement of The Times to become the next President of the United States? Seriously?
The entire thing was built on a pack of lies and everyone telling those lies knew they were lies and everyone with half a brain in our government also knew they were lies but authorized the criminal theft and inhuman slaughter they unleashed. In 2003, then Senator Hillary Clinton said: "Iraq ... remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations." Those were completely cynical lies and she received the endorsement of The Times to become the next President of the United States? Seriously?
18
This article is infuriating! Not a single mention of the Sadrists, a Shia movement with similar problems with Abadi to the Sunnis. Half consider him incompetent and the other half think he is an American puppet. No mention of the widespread opposition to partition amongst Arabs. No mention of the divisions within Sunni and Shia sects. No mention of the transnational Arab dream of a single state, trashed by further partitioning by foreign occupying armies. None!
What about Iraqi civilization, known for thousands of years as "balad bein al raafidein", the land between the two rivers? How is it not a single American in power is capable of understanding the concept of Arab and Islamic unity? Chop up your own country first, Texas has been begging to go for decades!
What about Iraqi civilization, known for thousands of years as "balad bein al raafidein", the land between the two rivers? How is it not a single American in power is capable of understanding the concept of Arab and Islamic unity? Chop up your own country first, Texas has been begging to go for decades!
5
"Why not?"
But why should we get to decide -- or care? What are the odds that we (or anybody else) will just draw some new lines on the map and the three groups will say "Well, that looks pretty good to us, and, by the way, we also think your suggested split of oil revenues is perfect too!"
If one group (or two groups, or three groups) thinks "we" drew the boundaries in the wrong place, or that the oil-revenue split isn't fair, exactly what are we going to do? Send in troops? Bomb whichever group complains about our boundary lines, or says it's not getting its fair share of oil revenues?
Iraq has proven to be a tar baby. Getting involved in some partition would make it much worse. We'd be there forever.
It may be a good idea, but all three groups heard it long ago. There's a reason it hasn't happened. "We" could make it happen, of course, but why should we? It would take some serious enforcement, for decades, maybe centuries. Why would we even consider taking on that role?
But why should we get to decide -- or care? What are the odds that we (or anybody else) will just draw some new lines on the map and the three groups will say "Well, that looks pretty good to us, and, by the way, we also think your suggested split of oil revenues is perfect too!"
If one group (or two groups, or three groups) thinks "we" drew the boundaries in the wrong place, or that the oil-revenue split isn't fair, exactly what are we going to do? Send in troops? Bomb whichever group complains about our boundary lines, or says it's not getting its fair share of oil revenues?
Iraq has proven to be a tar baby. Getting involved in some partition would make it much worse. We'd be there forever.
It may be a good idea, but all three groups heard it long ago. There's a reason it hasn't happened. "We" could make it happen, of course, but why should we? It would take some serious enforcement, for decades, maybe centuries. Why would we even consider taking on that role?
6
Although it is politically incorrect to talk about, everything the British and French did after WWI, to serve their own selfish and narrow interests, not only led to Nazism and the Holocaust, but caused almost every problem between Greece and India since then. And during the 100 years that we Americans have been a world power, we have done nothing to improve any situation in the world.
3
Ultimately, correcting historical map-making and empire-building errors by Western powers, Iraq will become Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Greater Iran. The sooner we get there the sooner there will be peace.
2
Let's see – we "liberated" Iraq in 2003, but the people didn't throw flower petals at our feet as Dick Cheney assured us they would.
But if we "liberate" the Kurds and the Sunnis, by giving each group their own state, certainly they'll throw flower petals at our feet. Won't they?
I have just two questions about partition:
Question 1. What are the odds that the Sunni state would be controlled by ISIS? The choices are: A. 99.4%. B. 98.9%. C. 98.3%.
Question 2. How long would it be after partition before the Sunni and Kurdish states start fighting one another? The choices are: A. Three years. B. Three months. C. Three days.
Bonus question: The leaders of which of the three new states will admit to ever having met with, or even seen, a representative of the US government, in his or her entire life?
But if we "liberate" the Kurds and the Sunnis, by giving each group their own state, certainly they'll throw flower petals at our feet. Won't they?
I have just two questions about partition:
Question 1. What are the odds that the Sunni state would be controlled by ISIS? The choices are: A. 99.4%. B. 98.9%. C. 98.3%.
Question 2. How long would it be after partition before the Sunni and Kurdish states start fighting one another? The choices are: A. Three years. B. Three months. C. Three days.
Bonus question: The leaders of which of the three new states will admit to ever having met with, or even seen, a representative of the US government, in his or her entire life?
3
I think it's the only hope. Give people ownership, control and a vested interest and they can lead, build, educate and express their culture and freedom. It works in local communities and it works for smaller nation states.
4
Despite pessimism of dividing Iraq as being a difficult solution, it is not only possible but there is precedent. The severance of Pakistan from India and the result migration of individuals between those countries was painful, but it was accomplished. Iraq as a country with its three major disparate groups has shown that the group then in power is more likely to disenfranchise and then kill off the competing groups en masse rather than include all in government and society. The Sunnis when in power killed off Shiites and Kurds in what many have called genocide, once the Shiites came into power militias were allowed to kill off the Sunnis and are now battling Kurds in northern Iraq, the Kurds have proven themselves not only the most reliable fighters and ally to the US, but also the group least interested in taking over the central Iraqi government, all they want is their section of the country and to be left alone by the Sunnis or Shiites. Khedery speaks the voice of reason, sectarian violence has not diminished since the fall of Sadam, it has only intensified while we occupied Iraq, and has remained undiminished after we left. Iraq has not become a country after nearly 100 years that the British attempted to create one. Dividing Iraq is not dividing a country, as it never truly became ONE country. Dividing Iraq is accepting the fact that the original idea did not work, and attempting to have like minding people govern themselves.
5
The only real solution with any chance of long-term success is the much touted 3 state solution. The US should offer help and encouragement and act as a facilitator to move Iraq in this direction. The last thing the US should do is try to impose any solution. When "states" are unable to find their own way, they should not continue to exist as "states" Iraq is now not a real state under any classification system. Further efforts to prop up the current Baghdad group( it is not a government) by either cash or military presence would be more tragic waste.
3
One commenter states he knows what a Kurdish state would look like without offering any embellishment or facts to support the assertion. One might cynically ask whether he is aware of the rampant nepotism which permeates the current KRG or the ethnic cleansing which its forces carry out including of cities like Kirkuk which until the growth of the Iraqi oil industry had a minority of Kurds but a majority of Turkmen.
The partitioning into three states ignores the reality that creating a Sunni state and a Shi’a state strengthen the hand of the fundamentalists within each group. Secular Shi’a and secular Sunni, together in a single state are far more likely to act as barrier to fundamentalism then if separated.
What will happen to the Turkmen (Shi’a and Sunni). What will happen to the Christians who speak Arabic not Kurdish.
One commenter talks about a nomadic, tribal people. I invite him/her to try to find out which tribe the 5+ million nomadic residents of Baghdad, a city which has been in existence for longer than most cities in the west, belong to.
Others speak of conflict going back centuries, parroting some asinine comments made without justification let alone evidence. And finally, others talk of breaking off Kurdistan without stating what the borders of the state would be. Where two or more groups reside in the same area, which one would the US choose to alienate in order to create such a state.
cont....
The partitioning into three states ignores the reality that creating a Sunni state and a Shi’a state strengthen the hand of the fundamentalists within each group. Secular Shi’a and secular Sunni, together in a single state are far more likely to act as barrier to fundamentalism then if separated.
What will happen to the Turkmen (Shi’a and Sunni). What will happen to the Christians who speak Arabic not Kurdish.
One commenter talks about a nomadic, tribal people. I invite him/her to try to find out which tribe the 5+ million nomadic residents of Baghdad, a city which has been in existence for longer than most cities in the west, belong to.
Others speak of conflict going back centuries, parroting some asinine comments made without justification let alone evidence. And finally, others talk of breaking off Kurdistan without stating what the borders of the state would be. Where two or more groups reside in the same area, which one would the US choose to alienate in order to create such a state.
cont....
4
Drawing countries around tribal or religious borders condones the idea of tribal/religious/cultural purity and is a recipe for generations of conflict and even genocide. We have to be moving toward heterogeneous cultures and borders if we are going to get anywhere.
And let's not forget it was our friends in the region, even some of those whose friendship is always in doubt, who warned George W. Bush not to invade Iraq.
They warned the Bush administration because it would unleash all the hostility and hatred that the different ethnics group had for each that Saddam had clamped down with an iron fist and would cause instability through the whole region.
But they went ahead and invaded and now we'll be dealing with the headaches from that decision for the next 30 years.
They warned the Bush administration because it would unleash all the hostility and hatred that the different ethnics group had for each that Saddam had clamped down with an iron fist and would cause instability through the whole region.
But they went ahead and invaded and now we'll be dealing with the headaches from that decision for the next 30 years.
3
Don’t get me wrong. The political process in many ME countries is a winner takes all game. Compromise is eschewed in favour of repression and duplicity. Personal relationships/affiliations count for far too much in decision making. But much of the US and Europe’s approach to conflict lacks the maturity and clear headed thinking one would expect from an elite which pays itself so well to adjudicate and advise on such matters.
For Syria, we are told that military pressure was needed on Assad to force him to compromise. The idea of negotiating under fire, however, is supposed to antithetical to the Israeli-Palestinian peace “process”. For Iraq, partition is the solution but presumably not for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Lebanon.
When the first Gulf war erupted and the west discovered a people called Kurds, there was a mendacious attempt to distinguish between Kurds living in Iraq (good Kurds) and those living in Turkey (bad Kurds). Until, that is, the Turks elected an Islamist leader.
When trawling through history for victims in the region, the Armenian genocide/massacres are laid at the feet of the Turks alone with Kurdish involvement airbrushed out of history (many Armenians who were driven out of their lands ended up in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad where they made a disproportionately large contribution to the economy (an example of why ethnically diverse countries work!)
Where it not for oil on its borders, there would be no talk of an independent Kurdistan.
For Syria, we are told that military pressure was needed on Assad to force him to compromise. The idea of negotiating under fire, however, is supposed to antithetical to the Israeli-Palestinian peace “process”. For Iraq, partition is the solution but presumably not for Saudi Arabia, Yemen, or Lebanon.
When the first Gulf war erupted and the west discovered a people called Kurds, there was a mendacious attempt to distinguish between Kurds living in Iraq (good Kurds) and those living in Turkey (bad Kurds). Until, that is, the Turks elected an Islamist leader.
When trawling through history for victims in the region, the Armenian genocide/massacres are laid at the feet of the Turks alone with Kurdish involvement airbrushed out of history (many Armenians who were driven out of their lands ended up in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad where they made a disproportionately large contribution to the economy (an example of why ethnically diverse countries work!)
Where it not for oil on its borders, there would be no talk of an independent Kurdistan.
3
Division of Iraq on the basis of ethnicity? It is highly unfair. It reminds of the British policy of Divide and Rule, successfully adopted by it in many nations that it colonized. Those affected by this policy are still divided.
When United Nations was started, there was a great hope among many sections of the society, who saw the whole world as one, and expected universal brotherhood to bloom. But so far, United Nations has remained a puppet at the hands of the West. I wonder what United Nations is doing to promote peace around the world. Why is it silent on issues concerning Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We should try to sort out the differences between differing groups and strive to unite them. Division would only promote more hatred be it Iraq or elsewhere. Let us drop this idea of dividing Iraq and let us try to unite them. When we have a plan to divide, there ought to be a plan to unite too.
When United Nations was started, there was a great hope among many sections of the society, who saw the whole world as one, and expected universal brotherhood to bloom. But so far, United Nations has remained a puppet at the hands of the West. I wonder what United Nations is doing to promote peace around the world. Why is it silent on issues concerning Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
We should try to sort out the differences between differing groups and strive to unite them. Division would only promote more hatred be it Iraq or elsewhere. Let us drop this idea of dividing Iraq and let us try to unite them. When we have a plan to divide, there ought to be a plan to unite too.
It is refreshing to encounter optimism such as yours, but be sure it borders on naivete. The UN is a joke, and it is painting itself in ludicrous corners. Partition of land by ethnicity works. From a realist's point of view, a hot war once in a while between countries, than a perpetual bleeding and potential genocide inside one artificial state.
1
It's not just Iraq. This is the Middle East, in a nutshell. Shia and Sunni have battled for a millennium. Bush and his neocon cronies unleashed WW 2.5 and eventually half a billion Middle Eastern Muslims and an equal number of non-Muslims will be embroiled. There will be proxy wars between China, Russia, Europe, and the United States; gruesome civilian death tolls beyond imagining, and in the end the maps will be redrawn regardless.
The west has to accept that most of the Mideast is ungovernable outside of strongmen dictators. If we don't want strongmen dictators, our choices are chaos and anarchy, or partition. Bush chose chaos; I choose partition.
The west has to accept that most of the Mideast is ungovernable outside of strongmen dictators. If we don't want strongmen dictators, our choices are chaos and anarchy, or partition. Bush chose chaos; I choose partition.
3
"...it seems fair to ask a question that has bedeviled foreign powers for almost a century: Is Iraq ever going to have a functioning state at peace with itself?"
lebanon survived its civil war because of an agreement to share power that was enforced somewhat by hafez al-assad. yugoslavia did not survive its civil war, even after UN peacekeepers were on the ground, and the dayton accords were organized by the US. maybe the americans can organize a break-up of iraq, but i think that it is pretty clear by now that they can not enforce peace for a unified state. the iranians, saudis, kurds, turks and others would have to work together to accomplish that.
see also, syria.
lebanon survived its civil war because of an agreement to share power that was enforced somewhat by hafez al-assad. yugoslavia did not survive its civil war, even after UN peacekeepers were on the ground, and the dayton accords were organized by the US. maybe the americans can organize a break-up of iraq, but i think that it is pretty clear by now that they can not enforce peace for a unified state. the iranians, saudis, kurds, turks and others would have to work together to accomplish that.
see also, syria.
1
It's hard to imagine how people who are not rational are ever going to reconcile practical differences. Their lives are the fervor of religion, and obedience to the supernatural. It's still 1200AD. Ironically, brutality and despotism are what kept order. Assad is an example.
5
Iraq is a religious fight with each side slaughtering the other for over 1,384 years. American leaders' deliberate ignorance of this fact was but one reason they decided to contribute the sons and daughters of America's poor to their slaughter. For those who made it back to the US, the phoney "support-the-troop" hypocrites let 4 million of the Vets homeless and many of the rest in poor health, without jobs and little support of any kind. The irony of this being that many of those who sacrificed for the US are now supporting the same kind of actions represented by the GOP in their candidates for election to the presidency of the US. How sad.
7
Historically three former parts of the British empire have been partitioned: Ireland, Palestine and India and all went very well after partition, so probably partition will work well in Iraq. Maybe partition should also be tried in Syria (but that was part of the French empire and Lebanon was already partitioned off with no negative aftereffects.)
2
"Ireland, Palestine and India and all went very well after partition, so probably partition will work well in Iraq."
Don't forget Vietnam! That partition worked out well too.
Don't forget Vietnam! That partition worked out well too.
3
The Palestine Mandate did not go well after partition. The Arabs never acceded to a non-Muslim entity and attempted, repeatedly, to drown Israel into the Mediterranean, always losing some other peace of land in the process. You know how that stands. True, Egypt and Jordan made peace with Israel, and are the better for it, but don't hold your breath for blood to stop flowing in that region.
Still, imo, partition of Iraq is what is needed, even if the 3 new states duke it out for one or two generations, until they grow leaders who care for their people.
Still, imo, partition of Iraq is what is needed, even if the 3 new states duke it out for one or two generations, until they grow leaders who care for their people.
1
Splitting Iraq into three provinces or districts is precisely what a well known professor of ME studies at Duke University recommended after the fall of Saddam - with a central financing authority controlling the oil revenues and dividing such amongst the three entities. The solution recognized centuries of tribal loyalties with shared revenues among all..
9
A central financing authority to split up the oil revenues?
I once heard of an idea less plausible than that, but I can't remember exactly what it was or when I heard it.
I once heard of an idea less plausible than that, but I can't remember exactly what it was or when I heard it.
2
Iraq is not "still" in turmoil. It is "back" in turmoil thanks to its abandonment by the US. Just 6 years ago Biden was proclaiming it a great success story. Now we're supposed to be celebrating his prescience?
3
Joe Biden had this figured out years ago. The borders drawn after WW2 in the Middle East totally disregarded the tribal culture of the area. A century and a few million dead later...........
4
This idea really worked well in Sudan, why not try building on previous failures, just to be daring.
4
We get to decide?
8
The Balkans created the blueprint. We are not talking about genocide in Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia any longer. This is way, way overdue - we should support separate Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish states in what is now called Iraq. There will never be peace and stability until we stop trying to reverse ancient hatreds that lead to atrocities.
9
But, but we were to be greeted as liberators??
8
My grandfather fought for us in the First World War and (obviously) survived. One of his post war efforts was to try and sell a map of the war and what the aftermath looked like on a map. It was a total and complete failure, as no one wanted anything to do with that war when it was over; and, no one cares now. I have the only copy of that map. Maybe Biden is on to the fact that WW1 was, in fact, the most terrrible war for the human race for what it portended and fixed with those "borders in the sand." Hey, I can make copies! Very cheap! Biden gets the original free if he calls. . . .
Another solution would be for the US to get completely out of Iraq and let the parties fight it out either in their parliament or with real weapons. This is not the first time in history that two warring factions have occupied the same piece of land. Come to think of it, history is full of such examples. Only in those instances, there was no US to impose its solution. I don't mean to suggest that the US should get out of all such conflicts, only that it should pick and choose. Iraq is not one that I would have picked.
2
I agree and would add we should take a similar position throughout the middle-east. It's not our place to determine the final outcome. We, ALONG with other nations should be willing to assist, but we insist on self-determination in the U.S. why would we not support the same for others?
1
I didn't think it was possible for me to agree with Biden on anything, but I certainly do about Iraq. Dividing the country into 3 provices, Kurdish, Shiite & Sunni, is the smartest thing to do & I said that 20 years ago. The Kurdish portion has been semi-automous for many years anyway, so not transition there, and the areas that are prdominately Shiite or Sunni are already fairly well established, so it shouldn't be that difficult to formally establish 3 provinces & let each set up their own regional Gov't. And rather than a central Gov't. with a parliment or congress type arrangement, just a coalition of representatives from each province to coordinate things like taking in revenue from the oil operations then splitting it into 3rds, each province getting an equal share. Why the Brits thought they could force people who have been fighting for nearly 1400 years to live together is beyond me -- I guess they just didn't consider that.
6
Give the Kurds a homeland. They are the only ones willing to actually fight for what they believe in.
21
Great idea! But I just got a call from a Kurdish leader who asked exactly where the Kurdish homeland will be. I told him we haven't worked out the details yet, but I offered your home, Jacqueline, as a starting point, a good will gesture. I hope that was OK.
2
We should have never gotten involved in the middle East. What America has done is kicked up a ants hill now the ants have gone everywhere. Even America allies warned Bush about going over there. It is like Collin Powell said famously" You break it, you buy it". When are we going to learn to get out of the middle East and worry about building up America infrastructure, education. Let us be like China once and for all and stay out of endless wars.
14
Be like China - you mean the country that abuses its citizens, sets up a governing party that steals billions for private gain, steals innovators ideas, buys elephant tusks assuring that poachers will exist for ever, builds sand islands in public waters so they can control shipping through military engagement, murders millions as part of a cleansing....? Etc.?!
1
Lets make a list!!
i see a lot calls in the comments here for the division of Iraq by sectarian borders. I think we should start a list of people willing to volunteer:
Who will volunteer to go over there and draw those lines on the map?
And who will volunteer to provide explanation and escort to those who are on the wrong side of their borders?
Anyone remember the division of Pakistan and India? The problem runs a lot deeper than map boundaries, dearies. I both love and hate the fact that Americans always want to fix everybody else's problems. (Even when they can't fix their own.)
i see a lot calls in the comments here for the division of Iraq by sectarian borders. I think we should start a list of people willing to volunteer:
Who will volunteer to go over there and draw those lines on the map?
And who will volunteer to provide explanation and escort to those who are on the wrong side of their borders?
Anyone remember the division of Pakistan and India? The problem runs a lot deeper than map boundaries, dearies. I both love and hate the fact that Americans always want to fix everybody else's problems. (Even when they can't fix their own.)
9
Then, technically, would we then be training, equipping and fighting in two wars, or would it still be considered just the same one it is now?
1
So, bad for UK to split up - but good for Iraq.
Nothing like a coherent/consistent foreign policy.
Why don't we propose to let them become the 51st, 52nd, and 53rd states - we can then take in millions of Middle Eastern refugees, without incurring the plane fare.
Nothing like a coherent/consistent foreign policy.
Why don't we propose to let them become the 51st, 52nd, and 53rd states - we can then take in millions of Middle Eastern refugees, without incurring the plane fare.
5
Why not?
They were never a country, until England made them one after WWI.
They were never a country, until England made them one after WWI.
8
It is a great idea, but really none of our business. Our meddling has already done enough harm.
7
An independent Kurdistan is really in America's best interests. Unfortunately, Turkey would not like that idea. I wish there was some way to entice the Turks to surrender eastern Anatolia and, with a seceded northern Iraq, provide for a new Kurdistan. Kurdistan would be an immediate US ally and a good location for air bases in case of future issues in the area whether it be from Islamic extremist, Iran, or Russia.
18
Or Turkey.
1
Joe Biden was right the first time he advocated the partition of Iraq and subsequent events have made it even more imperative that such action be allowed to proceed. On the other hand, we need to take a carving knife to Syria, as well. Shiites, Arab Sunnis and Kurds reside in more-or-less contiguous areas of these two states. For the Kurds and the Arab Sunnis it makes perfect sense to unify the lands they now dominate and recognize them as two distinct political entities (i.e., Kurdistan and Sunnistan). Turkey and Iran will need to be reassured that the citizens of these new states will not claim any property presently administered by Ankara or Tehran. If they continue to put up a fuss, too bad. The Iraqi Shiites can have their rump-state and the Alawites in Syria can have the same (they can even keep Bashar-the-Butcher-Son-of-a-Butcher in a position of leadership should they choose to do so). As for the jihadists of ISIS, they can run for election in Sunnistan or they can ultimately be wiped out. Same difference.
13
"Turkey and Iran will need to be reassured that the citizens of these new states will not claim any property presently administered by Ankara or Tehran"
No, they don't.Turkey and Iran need to be told that the land that the Kurds and Sunnis currently live, along with any and all property on that land, belongs to the Kurds and the Sunnis.
No, they don't.Turkey and Iran need to be told that the land that the Kurds and Sunnis currently live, along with any and all property on that land, belongs to the Kurds and the Sunnis.
1
One upside of partition would be the Kurds having their own state. Aside from their own goal of autonomy, the Middle East could use a state that has a strong military which they are not afraid to use.
6
I can imagine what a "Kurdistan" would look like, but what would a Shiastan and Sunnistan look like? Would the process be as chaotic as creating a separate Pakistan out of India? How would oil revenues be split? What purpose would a federation serve, rather than provide complete independence for each new nation? How ensure that they leave each other in peace? As difficult to answer as these and other questions may be, at least partitioning Iraq makes sense, while trying to maintain things as they are doesn't.
5
Iraq is tri-prationed.
The Shia have the South and their capital in Bagdad, the Sunni have their state in the North with capital Mosul, and Kurds have the Northeast, with Erbil as their capital.
ISIS is the creation of Iraqi Sunni's that realized that they would be better off, there, in spite of all, than in Iraq, where in a rush to get out we left behind a Shia government bend on revenge on Sunni's and Kurds, rather than a representative government, protecting the rights of minorities.
The Shia have the South and their capital in Bagdad, the Sunni have their state in the North with capital Mosul, and Kurds have the Northeast, with Erbil as their capital.
ISIS is the creation of Iraqi Sunni's that realized that they would be better off, there, in spite of all, than in Iraq, where in a rush to get out we left behind a Shia government bend on revenge on Sunni's and Kurds, rather than a representative government, protecting the rights of minorities.
2
Most people in Iraq (i'm excepting the various ministers and vice presidents whose jobs rely on the existence of government) would benefit greatly from three distinct, real nations. Perhaps the division can be achieved now. More likely, it will take several serious genocides over the course of many decades and tens of millions of lives lost and government utterly weakened before those holding on to power will give it up to international pressure. Peace in Iraq?
1
The only way to create peace in Iraq is to occupy them with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Then completely control the oil wealth and create a massive welfare state. Ain't gonna happen.
Or to kill most of them, not happening either.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East, much to the consternation of our State Department and military who undoubtedly have not read it. Except for the brief British lead revolt against the Ottomans, which Lawrence organized, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong national identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
Identity is 90% of the game when it comes to who will fight for what, especially in corrupt societies and those where political and economic power are divided along sub-national lines. That's Iraq. That's Afghanistan.
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East, much to the consternation of our State Department and military who undoubtedly have not read it. Except for the brief British lead revolt against the Ottomans, which Lawrence organized, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong national identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
Identity is 90% of the game when it comes to who will fight for what, especially in corrupt societies and those where political and economic power are divided along sub-national lines. That's Iraq. That's Afghanistan.
4
The proposals for a partition should have been heeded years ago. This western obsession with artificial borders need to be reconsidered, whether it is applied to Iraq, Ukraine or various regions of Africa. Sometimes different ethic groups need to be allowed to govern themselves. You would think that after 150 years of post Civil War conflict, the U.S. should have learned this lesson.
3
The Kurds deserve their own state. If it takes breaking off Kurdistan, so be it. They are the largest nation in the world (20 million people) denied their own sovereign nation-state. The world goes into a frenzied perpetual conniption over a much smaller population of Palestinian Arabs who were formally offered their own state five times in the last 70 years on terms far better than they have now, but turned it all down anyway, wagering they'll still drive the Jews into the sea or their graves sooner or later.
The Kurds don't threaten any of their neighbors with annihilation. They never bred terrorist groups that attacked cities, planes or airports who have no relationship to their conflict with the Turks or the Arabs. Under trying conditions, they've built a pro-Western economically progressing self-governing Kurdistan, while the Palestinians have squandered every chance they've been given to prove their ability to rule themselves and live in peace with Israel -- Gaza in particular. If the Kurds were offered just any portion of their historic lands that stretch from Turkey through Iran -- today -- to build their own state on in return to forgoing any further claims of land, they'd accept it in a heartbeat without all the whining the Palestinians give us ad nauseum.
The fact that the world bleeds and wrings its hands over the Palestinians in their conflict with the Jews - by amazing coincidence - but won't lose a minute's sleep over the Kurds speaks volumes.
The Kurds don't threaten any of their neighbors with annihilation. They never bred terrorist groups that attacked cities, planes or airports who have no relationship to their conflict with the Turks or the Arabs. Under trying conditions, they've built a pro-Western economically progressing self-governing Kurdistan, while the Palestinians have squandered every chance they've been given to prove their ability to rule themselves and live in peace with Israel -- Gaza in particular. If the Kurds were offered just any portion of their historic lands that stretch from Turkey through Iran -- today -- to build their own state on in return to forgoing any further claims of land, they'd accept it in a heartbeat without all the whining the Palestinians give us ad nauseum.
The fact that the world bleeds and wrings its hands over the Palestinians in their conflict with the Jews - by amazing coincidence - but won't lose a minute's sleep over the Kurds speaks volumes.
71
The Kurds sent a delegation to the postwar series of Paris conferences asking for an independent state. They were denied. Time to rectify that mistake.
Iraq was put together at the same series of conferences, in accord with Syke-Picot and the wishes of British Petroleum, but against the theory of "national" self-determination that was the most important principle of Wilson's 14 Points. Time to rectify that mistake.
Time also for an end to neocolonialism, American style, with the US picking up in Iraq for a British venture that failed. We did not learn that "nation-building" doesn't work after we tried to help the French venture in Indo-China.
Let's fix America. Time to abandon trying to fix the unfixable around the world
Time to rectify that mistake.
Iraq was put together at the same series of conferences, in accord with Syke-Picot and the wishes of British Petroleum, but against the theory of "national" self-determination that was the most important principle of Wilson's 14 Points. Time to rectify that mistake.
Time also for an end to neocolonialism, American style, with the US picking up in Iraq for a British venture that failed. We did not learn that "nation-building" doesn't work after we tried to help the French venture in Indo-China.
Let's fix America. Time to abandon trying to fix the unfixable around the world
Time to rectify that mistake.
3
I agree with your thesis but your comparison with the Palestinians needs some work.
Hey, JW:
Groups of terrorists who claim they represent the Kurdish people have carried out a number of bombings in Turkey. Your argument is largely based on a falsehood.
You could say that the Turks treatment of the Kurds has created the conditions resulting in these attacks, but you cannot say "they have never bred terrorist groups..." Downtrodden peoples have reacted violently forever.
Groups of terrorists who claim they represent the Kurdish people have carried out a number of bombings in Turkey. Your argument is largely based on a falsehood.
You could say that the Turks treatment of the Kurds has created the conditions resulting in these attacks, but you cannot say "they have never bred terrorist groups..." Downtrodden peoples have reacted violently forever.
Only one thing is clear. The Kurds must be granted their own nation of Kurdistan!
They have fought long, hard, and successfully as our only dependable ally, and Gertrude Bell's arbitrary devision of land should be thrown away once and for all.
The Kurds have shown themselves to be admirable administrators of the land they occupy, and the oil there as well. They are a peaceful, secular people with no part in the Shiite-Sunni wars that plague the adjacent land except where they themselves are threatened. Their Pesh Merga fighters can deal with that. But they are a homogenious people who deserve peace, and the Arabs & Turks should butt out.
They have fought long, hard, and successfully as our only dependable ally, and Gertrude Bell's arbitrary devision of land should be thrown away once and for all.
The Kurds have shown themselves to be admirable administrators of the land they occupy, and the oil there as well. They are a peaceful, secular people with no part in the Shiite-Sunni wars that plague the adjacent land except where they themselves are threatened. Their Pesh Merga fighters can deal with that. But they are a homogenious people who deserve peace, and the Arabs & Turks should butt out.
37
European colonizers left a spate of "fake countries" around the world with arbitrary borders not reflecting the linguistic, religious and ethnic realities on the ground. Iraq is one of these countries, and should as part of a natural course be broken up into units where borders actually stand for something real.
The US should have supported this policy long ago, but ego and pride - Iraq has to be a democratic success! - had taken the option off the table. It is time to recognize that with ISIS and the Kurds the country in effect is already broken up. Sitting in Baghdad and pretending otherwise is a fools game, one unfortunately being played by all the politicians and being supported by international bodies.
Enough is enough. Let countries return to their natural state of affairs.
The US should have supported this policy long ago, but ego and pride - Iraq has to be a democratic success! - had taken the option off the table. It is time to recognize that with ISIS and the Kurds the country in effect is already broken up. Sitting in Baghdad and pretending otherwise is a fools game, one unfortunately being played by all the politicians and being supported by international bodies.
Enough is enough. Let countries return to their natural state of affairs.
7
Not our business. Admit our mission was a failure and get out: all our troops, operatives, contractors, money and arms. Stop making things worse.
8
But making things worse is our one demonstrable foreign policy success. Also it's our right, to experiment with other's countries that is.
The article mentions the UN as a possible agent for resolution, but only in passing. The UN must take on the job. The United States, though its own cupidity and its long involvement in Iraq's affairs, is too compromised to accomplish anything of value. Not everything is or should be the responsibility of the world's indispensable nation.
7
One right (no US) one wrong (no UN). Let them settle it themselves if they want some advise then someone might give them some. We have already meddled too much.
1
A partition is the only possible solution.
8
A partition of 4500 US dead into individual gravesites is a solution already found.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the Middle East, but it seems to me that Westerners have a very poor understanding of the politics of the region. American foreign-policy seems to be convinced that the American model of democracy will prevail across the world. The truth is, however, most places are not as diverse or inclusive as the United States. Politics in this region of the world is dependent on family, ethnic ties, and political capital. Most of the ethnic groups in Iraq can barely tolerate each other and there is no reason to think they will set aside centuries of arguing now. I think it's time that we abandon the arbitrary borders drawn during colonialism and allow these people to divide themselves as they see fit. The United States should support a referendum to ask the Iraqi's whether they want to remain a state or divide. It's their land and it should be their choice.
13
Good points except a referendum requirement, that is democracy which those individuals don't work too well with.
A split seems like a good idea.
It would have been better if it had happened years ago.
(I think Joe Biden was right.)
It would have been better if it had happened years ago.
(I think Joe Biden was right.)
19
Really no different than the ultimate solution of having a separate Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Sikes-Picot agreement did not address the "Arab problem"--only a division of wealth for the Western allies. Without a unified Arab Nation as promised to King Faisal, the "borders" meant little to a nomadic, tribal and deeply religiously divided people.
The chickens of the WWI Sikes-Picot agreement and Western Colonialism have come home to roost. T.E. Lawrence predicted this would happen nearly 100 years ago.
The chickens of the WWI Sikes-Picot agreement and Western Colonialism have come home to roost. T.E. Lawrence predicted this would happen nearly 100 years ago.
28
The dysfunctional marriage analogy is a good one: if a reconciliation is not possible simply holding out for a miracle makes no sense, and can prove deadly. It would be in the best interests of all parties to negotiate a fair and amicable separation. However, this will not be possible without the cooperation of Iran and Saudi Arabia -- two giant mothers-in-law who seem to have no desire to reach a peaceful accord.
18
This is an old idea, and the only one with a prayer of working in Iraq. Due to centuries-old feuding, there are a few groups of Iraqis that cannot live peacefully with eachother, the largest being the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. They have engaged in brutal wars against eachother for a long time now, far longer than America has existed, and they show no sign of stopping on their own. Each group has had people in it who slaughter people in the other groups solely because they belong to those groups.
I think the most efficient plan for peace in Iraq would be to separate it into at least three sections, and then relocate people by sect. After that the borders would have to be patrolled by outside nations, and it would probably be a good idea to postpone self-rule for about a generation, to give them time to get used to living peacefully.
Of course, since this is a reasonably effective means of achieving peace, it won't get done. But when the water runs out, shortly afterward there will be everlasting peace there, as soon as there are no inhabitants.
I think the most efficient plan for peace in Iraq would be to separate it into at least three sections, and then relocate people by sect. After that the borders would have to be patrolled by outside nations, and it would probably be a good idea to postpone self-rule for about a generation, to give them time to get used to living peacefully.
Of course, since this is a reasonably effective means of achieving peace, it won't get done. But when the water runs out, shortly afterward there will be everlasting peace there, as soon as there are no inhabitants.
But for oil, Iraq, like almost all other so-called Arab countries, are artificial constructs.
All of these countries were provinces ("vilayets") of the Turkish empire, or under Turkish overlordship. Now they are merely collection of tribes with flags, with their borders essentially decided over long boozy lunches of the British and the French after the first, or the second World War.
Until the late 1960s/early 1970s quite a few of these "countries" did not even have their own currencies. For example, Saudi Arabia and its neighbors depended on the Indian Rupee brought in by the Haj pilgrims as their common tender.
So, let it be. Can it be any worse than the first attempt of Europeans drawing straight lines on an Arab map some decades ago? Maybe it will be better this time.
All of these countries were provinces ("vilayets") of the Turkish empire, or under Turkish overlordship. Now they are merely collection of tribes with flags, with their borders essentially decided over long boozy lunches of the British and the French after the first, or the second World War.
Until the late 1960s/early 1970s quite a few of these "countries" did not even have their own currencies. For example, Saudi Arabia and its neighbors depended on the Indian Rupee brought in by the Haj pilgrims as their common tender.
So, let it be. Can it be any worse than the first attempt of Europeans drawing straight lines on an Arab map some decades ago? Maybe it will be better this time.
4
What is with us and our obsession with the middle east ?
Gertrude Bell did not get it right 100 years ago. Bush did not get it right 10 years back. We will not get it right today.
Stay off middle east. Let us, maybe, revisit them in another 100 years.
Gertrude Bell did not get it right 100 years ago. Bush did not get it right 10 years back. We will not get it right today.
Stay off middle east. Let us, maybe, revisit them in another 100 years.
3
Saddam Hussein may have been a brutal, cruel dictator, but he understood that the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish Muslim factions in Iraq needed to be and stay divided. If that country is divided once again, hopefully it will be done fairly and the Kurds won't suffer further.
Here we are over a decade down the road, and we have come full circle in Iraq. What an extraordinary waste of human lives and our own resources. We sought arrogantly to impose democracy on a country, as a means to our own ends. As a result, the Middle East ended up in chaos, ISIS and other terrorist groups were spawned, democracy failed to take hold, and we never did get the oil that Bush told us would pay for our grievous misadventures. All this horror, based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. There are no adequate words to express what a truly horrible mess we have made in the Middle East. What a disgrace.
Here we are over a decade down the road, and we have come full circle in Iraq. What an extraordinary waste of human lives and our own resources. We sought arrogantly to impose democracy on a country, as a means to our own ends. As a result, the Middle East ended up in chaos, ISIS and other terrorist groups were spawned, democracy failed to take hold, and we never did get the oil that Bush told us would pay for our grievous misadventures. All this horror, based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. There are no adequate words to express what a truly horrible mess we have made in the Middle East. What a disgrace.
29
Duh?
The League of Nations, and the European powers broke up the Ottoman Empire, created arbitrary boundaries and spheres of influence. When oil was discovered, in the region, then came supporting governments which would allow the free flow of oil. Even if this meant tolerating dictators and suppressing the people. Any nation, who did not like this model, their government was replaced (1952 Iran; UK and US).
Now, almost 100 years later, these seeds have gown into a region of turmoil and gave birth to movement like ISIS.
Of course, when the Ottomans ruled, what is now Iraq, it was three different provinces. One fro the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shi'ites But, the UK and France had different ideas. They took the Kurds and put them in four different countries, including Iraq. And merged them with the Sunnis and the Shi'Ite provinces. A Yugoslavia equivalent fro the Middle East. and a place that only an iron hand can govern.
So, now the brilliant people in the US, UK, France, UN, etc. now think dividing Iraq into three states is a great idea. If the League of Nations, European greed, and US neutrality did not occur 100 years ago, we may not be fighting groups like ISIS.
The League of Nations, and the European powers broke up the Ottoman Empire, created arbitrary boundaries and spheres of influence. When oil was discovered, in the region, then came supporting governments which would allow the free flow of oil. Even if this meant tolerating dictators and suppressing the people. Any nation, who did not like this model, their government was replaced (1952 Iran; UK and US).
Now, almost 100 years later, these seeds have gown into a region of turmoil and gave birth to movement like ISIS.
Of course, when the Ottomans ruled, what is now Iraq, it was three different provinces. One fro the Kurds, one for the Sunnis and one for the Shi'ites But, the UK and France had different ideas. They took the Kurds and put them in four different countries, including Iraq. And merged them with the Sunnis and the Shi'Ite provinces. A Yugoslavia equivalent fro the Middle East. and a place that only an iron hand can govern.
So, now the brilliant people in the US, UK, France, UN, etc. now think dividing Iraq into three states is a great idea. If the League of Nations, European greed, and US neutrality did not occur 100 years ago, we may not be fighting groups like ISIS.
27
Oh, I left out one point, the GOP was against joining the League of Nations. Then, like now, they did not support the leadership of the Democratic president, then Woodrow Wilson. And, of course, they ignored teh 14 points, as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
2
Instead of "arbitrary" borders, I would call them "artificial" - all on a Western idea, creating countries to weaken all tribes. In the end results, there has been nothing but trouble, including the French possession of Syria.
1
Think of how much easier everybody's lives would be if we could move beyond fossil fuels. No need for the U.S. to run the Middle East. Set it artificial boundaries the ignore ethnic and historic realities.
Cut fossil fuels, and of course cut the profits made by arming all sides of the perpetual conflict, and let the people of the Middle East work out their own destiny.
Cut fossil fuels, and of course cut the profits made by arming all sides of the perpetual conflict, and let the people of the Middle East work out their own destiny.
18
I agree with you of course, but the merchants of death, those who make their money making armaments, are a very powerful force. It's not going to be easy.
5
This is a story that should have been published during Bush 2. The neocons were ascendant and Iraq was about to become the aircraft carrier in the desert. Official American policy is still to maintain Iraq as one and not three countries. This failing is evident all along the Med.
What will be the US response when Russia goes down the tube, look for some White Russians to support?
What will be the US response when Russia goes down the tube, look for some White Russians to support?
3
The comment ignores the situation in Syria which is every bit as dysfunctional as Iraq. It too should be broken up. One could see three to five countries come into being one for Sunni, one for Shia, one for Kurds. Addiitonaly, existing stable countries might absorb similar populations, ie Jordan might absorb Sunni Arabs, while the Kurds could absorb Kurdish and since they are secular in outlook, Assyrian Christians ect.
Yes, there will have to be mass migrations. For the tender hearted, remember we approved moving Poland 10 KM to the West and the expulsion of virtually all the population of East Prussia, people who had been present for over 600 years.
Yes, there will have to be mass migrations. For the tender hearted, remember we approved moving Poland 10 KM to the West and the expulsion of virtually all the population of East Prussia, people who had been present for over 600 years.
Partition is a superficial solution to a deep problem. The sectarian and ethnic conflict won't disappear the moment you draw new borders and say, "okay, you all leave each other alone now." Unless the conflicting factions are willing to resolve their differences peacefully, you will only get a new round of fighting over where those borders are drawn, whose people should be expelled from which regions, and who gets the most valuable pieces of land with the important resources.
51
Partition is a long term solution.
1
But what's the alternative? Let the Arabs work it out themselves. We don't need to be a part of it. If they want to commit genocide on their turf, so be it. It's not our fight. This tribal stuff has been going on for 2000 years. Do you really think we can stop it or have the "answer"?
1
You are correct about the blood, but that is the necessary price that has to be paid in the inevitable "divorce." This is nothing new - see India/Pakistan 1947 or Europe for 500 years prior to 1945. The road to stability is not going to be easy, but it has to be taken.
The United States should abandon the colonial boarders draw by foolish British and French officials. These people can't work together, we can't continue this forced marriage.
11
I've been protesting against war since 1966. No effect...
America's military machine is going to bankrupt ordinary people and you know what? I simply don't care, anymore.
If mass murder of innocents does not incite you people to resist the flagrant abuses of money and power, then only God can help you.
And, note, I say that as an atheist...
America's military machine is going to bankrupt ordinary people and you know what? I simply don't care, anymore.
If mass murder of innocents does not incite you people to resist the flagrant abuses of money and power, then only God can help you.
And, note, I say that as an atheist...
76
So of course you have lost all hope. You believe in nothing.
Hey, better a century late than never.
36
I've suggested this for past few years. Actually after Saddam it has de facto been split. Anyone can see that.
9
I pointed out to the neocons and Republicans before the American invasion that this would happen. The situation is messed up and your fault. You acted thoughtlessly. American values are not always shared in other countries. That was obvious here even before you undertook this misguided venture.
56
Actually, the neocons didn't act thoughtlessly. They were thinking about money, and how much of it they could stuff in their pockets.
53
Many pointed out to the neocons that eliminating Hussein would not end well. This is an area that has, for hundreds of years, been defined by the various tribes, sects, and ethnicities. To expect them to live harmoniously is to believe that the right wing of the Republican party and the left wing of the Democratic party will agree on anything. Perhaps we should consider Biden's suggestion and consider the Middle East as similar to the Balkans and Yugoslavia. If we could get to the separation of the various groups without the mass slaughter of the Balkan war, that might be the best we can do. But we will also have to have buy in from those countries in the Middle East that are (at least somewhat) friendly to the US. And we will also have to have buy in from our allies in Europe.
1
The irony is, to change focus, so called American values are not practiced in the USA - hence the popularity of Trump and Sanders and the near unanimous disapproval of Congress.
1
Iraq started out as a failed state. Then things got worse. Time to rethink the Sykes-Picot agreement.
38
Perhaps that's the purpose of Biden's visit. Both Syria and Iraq are artificial creations of the Sykes-Picot agreement and British diplomat Gertrude Bell after World War I. It's time to revisit Biden's proposal for a partition that would also include the Kurds in Syria as both a reward for being our only effective "boots on the ground," but also as part of a peace settlement to the Syrian civil war. A quasi-independent Kurdish province could be a new homeland for Kurds in Turkey and Iran and thus provide a stable keystone for peace in the region that would allow ISIS to be eradicated there. The Kurds have already established a viable enclave in Syria where they are the largest ethnic minority so the "facts on the ground" provide the basis for redrawn map that would contain, and perhaps eliminate, the ethnic and religious conflict in the region.
100
The Turks are going to 'need some convincing'.
2
@Tracy That was my point: Turkey would love to solve its Kurdish problem and this could do just that with perhaps some minor land swaps along the Syrian border. We absolutely need Turkey's active backing to end the civil war and resolving their Kurdish problem is the key to gaining their cooperation.
WHY ON EARTH should we hold on to these artificial nations with straight-line borders????? Whoever decides on new borders cane surely learn SOMETHING from history.
1
A century ago T.E. Lawrence, a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia, wrote "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom." It was then and is now an accurate portrayal of the Middle East. Unfortunately, it appears our State Department and military have not read it. Except for a bit of unity forged by the British-lead revolt against the Ottomans, neither Nasser, the Baathists, nor anyone else has been able to create a strong identity in the region that transcends, religion, ethnicity, or tribe.
When Vice President, then Senator, Biden suggested the break-up of Iraq when President Bush was prosecuting his war, Biden was scornfully derided by most people in government and the media. After all, America is a multi-cultural nation state and our borders are collective, so why wouldn't that apply to Iraq, (as well as the other essentially phony countries of the Middle East?)