Why not partition Iraq?

[Huntster]

Why don't we (the US Army) just leave Iraq. How about tomorrow. It's only making things worse in terms of inflaming Moslem extremism - and no I don't buy the Bush party line that if the USA leaves (ends the occupation) that an Al Qaeda-run state will emerge from the rubble of Iraq.

Is that the "Bush party line?" Where was that published?

We're there doing exactly what critics are claiming we should be doing: helping the responsible Iraqis stand up a government, police force, and military, and trying to help avert a civil war based on religious sectarianism.

It may work, and it may not.

I tend to think it won't, or if it does it won't last long.

 

[Tricky]

That major center of science, education, agriculture, and natural beauty can't seem to provide enough energy to meet their needs. They need to trade like everybody else.

They would. But then, they have a lot of stuff to trade. The things they need, like energy, the US is a fairly poor provider of. They can get their cars from Japan.

You may not like California's politics (although remember both Nixon and Reagan came from there), but they are a big plus for the US overall.

You talking about the War Between the States?

No, it wasn't a good thing.

Well, when you should agree that a California secession and forced reconstruction would not be a good thing either, though you earlier said you loved the idea. It's okay. I'm not going to get into a dither about this. I'm just encouraging you to think past your gut reactions.

Me, too. As long as it works.

Nothing every works forever and nothing works 100%. I am of the opinion that diplomacy works better against terrorism than bullets. The Camp David accords kept the Middle East relatively peaceful for years. It was not necessary to kill all the IRA terrorists to bring (relative) peace to Northern Ireland.

Nope. I think talking oil/money can go forward while the terrorists are rooted out and killed with extreme prejudice, but at no time can terrorists participate in oil/money talks, and at no time should rooting them out to be eliminated be ended.

What I am saying that "rooting out and killing terrorists with extreme prejudice" is causing more people to become terrorists. We are recruiting for them. I would rather we try our best to bring them to justice, or if we must kill them, kill them with great regret. Prejudice begets prejudice.

No, it is not easy, but anger makes us do stupid things.

Each time their Arab neighbors attacked Israel, Israel emerged victorious.

And each time, they wound up with more enemies. And of course, sometimes Israel staged pre-emptive attacks. And although they have (more or less) won each confrontation, it is getting harder each time. The latest clash with Hizbollah didn't result in a clear-cut victory.

However, let me propose a solution that you might like. Drop all support for Israel in their present location. Instead, give them California for their homeland. They already own much of it.

They have still not "won the peace", because that's impossible.

I continue to have hope. I've seen hostile regions reunite. Not always. Not often. But it happens.

Get it yet?

LOL. I've always "gotten it" as far as understanding what you are saying. It is not a particularly complex line of reasoning. I simply disagree with you on many points.

You (or any individual or entity) have no control over a mutual endeavor. I cannot force or compel someone to be peaceful. Peace is a two way street. Those who you wish peace with must want it, too.

There are better ways of making them want it, and worse ways of making them want it. I believe the "kill 'em all" method is one of the worse ways.

It's not their problem. It's the Iraqi's problem.

You cannot be serious. We invaded them. When we decided to alter their political structure, it became our problem.

I won't deny that a good case could be made that we are not doing Iraq any favors by staying there. But we would still bear much responsibility for what happened after we left.

The goal was to eliminate Saddam, and for obvious reasons. If the Iraqis can't get it together, there's nothing anybody else can do about it.

I believe that is incorrect. I think the stated goal was to bring democracy to Iraq. Getting rid of Saddam was simply the first step. If getting rid of Saddam was the only goal, then we sould have left the minute he was deposed. I'd say the stated goalposts for our invasion of Iraq have changed many times, and we will probably never know all of the real reasons.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That major center of science, education, agriculture, and natural beauty can't seem to provide enough energy to meet their needs. They need to trade like everybody else.

They would. But then, they have a lot of stuff to trade. The things they need, like energy, the US is a fairly poor provider of.

You've gotta be kidding.

What do I need from California? Spinach from the Salinas Valley, picked by illegal aliens?

They're a big part of the reason why Alaska, rich in natural resources, can't do a damned thing with them. We've got an area just to the west of Prudhoe Bay that has been a National Petroleum Reserve for 102 years because the stuff is bubbling out of the ground, yet every time a lease sale is proposed the environmental wackos from (yeah, you guessed it) file suit in San Francisco and halt the sale.

They have rolling blackouts, and yet still can't figure out why, even when folks have pointed out that they haven't built a power plant in over 30 years, and when power demands in the Pacific Northwest exceed the hydroelectric capability, the Californians are the first to get cut.

They can get their cars from Japan.

And how do they fuel those Japanese cars?

You may not like California's politics (although remember both Nixon and Reagan came from there), but they are a big plus for the US overall.

California is a rusty anchor.

Originally Posted by Huntster

You talking about the War Between the States?

No, it wasn't a good thing.

Well, when you should agree that a California secession and forced reconstruction would not be a good thing either, though you earlier said you loved the idea.

I do love the idea, but I'm not willing to go to war to make them seceed.

Almost, but I'm not quite there yet.............

It's okay. I'm not going to get into a dither about this. I'm just encouraging you to think past your gut reactions.

Fair enough. I'm half facetious here.

Just dreaming. A guy can still dream, can't he?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Me, too. As long as it works.

Nothing every works forever and nothing works 100%. I am of the opinion that diplomacy works better against terrorism than bullets.

I don't. I've found that people who like to use violence to get their way will eventually need violence to put them down. They just don't have negotiating skills.

The Camp David accords kept the Middle East relatively peaceful for years.

That was a peace accord between two states; Israel and Egypt. It is still producing fruit.

The Palestinian terrorists operating for the past few years are not subject to the accords, nor do they respect them.

It was not necessary to kill all the IRA terrorists to bring (relative) peace to Northern Ireland.

That, too, comes and goes. When the terrorists start killing again, it's time to kill them back.

Originally Posted by Huntster

Nope. I think talking oil/money can go forward while the terrorists are rooted out and killed with extreme prejudice, but at no time can terrorists participate in oil/money talks, and at no time should rooting them out to be eliminated be ended.

What I am saying that "rooting out and killing terrorists with extreme prejudice" is causing more people to become terrorists.

I don't believe that. If they're becoming terrorists it's because they're inclined to do so anyway.

We are recruiting for them.

It's more like fishing for them. And this shouldn't be "catch and release."

I would rather we try our best to bring them to justice, or if we must kill them, kill them with great regret. Prejudice begets prejudice.

That's exactly what has happened. They flew hijacked airplanes into American buildings and killed thousands of innocent civilians because they hate us.

Now it's our turn..............

Originally Posted by Huntster
Each time their Arab neighbors attacked Israel, Israel emerged victorious.

And each time, they wound up with more enemies.

No, they didn't. They have no more or no less enemies than they've ever had.

They just deal with them effectively without the bullspit.

And of course, sometimes Israel staged pre-emptive attacks. And although they have (more or less) won each confrontation, it is getting harder each time. The latest clash with Hizbollah didn't result in a clear-cut victory.

The most recent spat in Israel/Lebanon/Palestine was initiated by Palestinians yet again. And the Israeli government is showing no sign whatsoever of fatigue. It's business as usual dealing with these killers.

However, let me propose a solution that you might like. Drop all support for Israel in their present location. Instead, give them California for their homeland. They already own much of it.

They're not stupid enough to buy into that deal.

But, maybe if we pay them to take California................

Originally Posted by Huntster
They have still not "won the peace", because that's impossible.

I continue to have hope. I've seen hostile regions reunite. Not always. Not often. But it happens.

For periods of time, yeah.

Ultimately it's in the hearts of both/all sides.

Originally Posted by Huntster
You (or any individual or entity) have no control over a mutual endeavor. I cannot force or compel someone to be peaceful. Peace is a two way street. Those who you wish peace with must want it, too.

There are better ways of making them want it, and worse ways of making them want it. I believe the "kill 'em all" method is one of the worse ways.

I don't propose to "kill 'em all."

Just kill all the terrorists so the decent people can have a chance.

Did you catch this post? I think it illustrates why things over there are not likely to get much better.

Remove the killers, and maybe it will.........

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's not their problem. It's the Iraqi's problem.

You cannot be serious. We invaded them.

The goal was to remove Saddam and his henchmen. That job is nearly complete.

When we decided to alter their political structure, it became our problem.

Stupid thing to do, but many were claiming that we were somehow responsible to fix everything that is wrong over there. I think we should have stayed until Saddam and his henchmen were captured or killed, then bring the bastard over here for a trial Manuel Noriega style. Let the Iraqis reform their government(s). If they screw it up again, "we'll be back."

I won't deny that a good case could be made that we are not doing Iraq any favors by staying there. But we would still bear much responsibility for what happened after we left.

Bullspit. Those people are killing themselves over there. The killers own the place because the decent people are afraid.

If you're not willing to kill the bastards, we may as well leave.

Originally Posted by Huntster
The goal was to eliminate Saddam, and for obvious reasons. If the Iraqis can't get it together, there's nothing anybody else can do about it.

I believe that is incorrect. I think the stated goal was to bring democracy to Iraq.

Got a reference for that?

Getting rid of Saddam was simply the first step. If getting rid of Saddam was the only goal, then we sould have left the minute he was deposed.

Not just deposed, but captured or killed.

Yes, we should have left, but our tradition is to help such nations afterwards (Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc.)

 

[thaiboxerken]

I agree, partition it so that half of it is run by Windows and the other by Linux.

 

[Darth Rotor]

[qimg]http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/iraq/images2/oil_fields_map.gif[/qimg]

Good points. *claps*

Iraq may have been born a bastard step child, but it's all grown up now, schizoid as it may be, so it can't be treated as anything other than adult.

I disagree that "we" -- the US/UN/powers-that-be-in-the-world -- have any good right to "partition" Iraq. We've done enough damage as it is, wouldn't one say?

It'll partition itself just fine without us. Chzechoslovakia managed a partition with not too many dying. There is hope. (Not much, I'll grant.)


Sure, there'll be more bloodshed, but how is that news? Plenty now.

To partition Iraq, all that has to happen is: USA must GTFO.

The rest will be in accordance with standard human behavior, plus any bonus insanity local nations with a stake in the future of that bit of turf choose to toss in for entertainment value.

The news papers will love it, since

If it Bleeds, It Leads.

DR

 

[Correa Neto]

Tito´s Yugoslavia and the separation of Pakistan from India are templates for Iraq´s case. Any half-brained strategist with a minimal ammount of history knoweledge could have foreseen such possible outcome.

I think a peacefull separation would be quite unlikely if not impossible. Three states would have to be created: a Kurdish one near Turkey´s border, a Shi´a one at the Northeast and a Sunni one at the Southwest. Now, a quick glance at Tricky´s map shows Iran would have an enormous influence over the Shi´a state and it would have almost all the known oilfields. Something surely people at a number of Western governments would not be at ease with.

One extra problem: Turkey would not like a neighbouring Kurdish state.

Now, if all of this were not enough, imagine the exodus that the tripartite division would cause. Imagine a family having to leave their city, a place where they lived who knows for how many generations. Imagine also the bloodshed that such thing may cause. Remember India/Pakistan partition?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Tito´s Yugoslavia and the separation of Pakistan from India are templates for Iraq´s case. Any half-brained strategist with a minimal ammount of history knoweledge could have foreseen such possible outcome.

I think a peacefull separation would be quite unlikely if not impossible. Three states would have to be created: a Kurdish one near Turkey´s border, a Shi´a one at the Northeast and a Sunni one at the Southwest. Now, a quick glance at Tricky´s map shows Iran would have an enormous influence over the Shi´a state and it would have almost all the known oilfields. Something surely people at a number of Western governments would not be at ease with.

One extra problem: Turkey would not like a neighbouring Kurdish state.

Now, if all of this were not enough, imagine the exodus that the tripartite division would cause. Imagine a family having to leave their city, a place where they lived who knows for how many generations. Imagine also the bloodshed that such thing may cause. Remember India/Pakistan partition?

Although with a more than "minimal ammount" of history, one knows that Iraq was an entirely artificial creation cobbled together out of disparate and disagreeable elements quite on purpose. It was designed to be internally contentious, to prevent its neighbors from getting any benefit of it. Mostly Shiites but with Sunnis in charge, Kurds who were promised independence by the British who did not deliver, and an imported deposed king of Syria who owed it all to Gertrude Bell, to the resentment of the locals who didn't like an English woman breezing in and out of the palace like she owned it. Iraq was a hideous blunder from the very first day of its creation. The only surprising thing is that it stayed together this long.

Division might not be peaceful, but unity will definitely not be peaceful. Not without either a dictatorship as repressive as Saddam, or total genocide of at least two of the three largest groups.

 

[Mephisto]

I don't. I've found that people who like to use violence to get their way will eventually need violence to put them down. They just don't have negotiating skills.

You're absolutely right, and sometimes those people with no negotiating skills can justify paranoid pre-emptive strikes on countries that had nothing to do with terrorism against the U.S.

Apparently, there are a whole group of people in the middle east who also believe that violence is needed to "put them down."

 

[Tricky]

You're absolutely right, and sometimes those people with no negotiating skills can justify paranoid pre-emptive strikes on countries that had nothing to do with terrorism against the U.S.

Apparently, there are a whole group of people in the middle east who also believe that violence is needed to "put them down."

"An eye for an eye until everyone is blind."
--- Sean Sands

 

[Mephisto]

"An eye for an eye until everyone is blind."
--- Sean Sands

Will it really matter in a world where no one stops to see?

 

[TragicMonkey]

"An eye for an eye until everyone is blind."
--- Sean Sands

You really think people would stop then? They'd be feeling around with knives or trying to shoot by smell.

 

[Correa Neto]

Although with a more than "minimal ammount" of history, one knows that Iraq was an entirely artificial creation cobbled together out of disparate and disagreeable elements quite on purpose. It was designed to be internally contentious, to prevent its neighbors from getting any benefit of it. Mostly Shiites but with Sunnis in charge, Kurds who were promised independence by the British who did not deliver, and an imported deposed king of Syria who owed it all to Gertrude Bell, to the resentment of the locals who didn't like an English woman breezing in and out of the palace like she owned it. Iraq was a hideous blunder from the very first day of its creation. The only surprising thing is that it stayed together this long.

One more reason to ask why those strategic planners have not foreseen the possibility of triggering a bloody civil war. Or, more exactly, why they considered the risk to be low or the civil war manageable.

Another point is that Iraq´s "artificial creation" is nothing but another example of flawed "strategic planning" or foreign intervention. Africa has some other examples. The very origin of the whole problem lies within foreign intervention and flawed strategic planning.

Once again, I ask why the policy makers considered the situation as manageable, taking in to account the avaliable examples.

Of course, we could go completely OT and start asking ourselves how nations are "naturaly created" or "naturally defined". What are the factors that define an internally stable nation? How its borders should be defined? Perhaps an interesting topic for another thread.

Division might not be peaceful, but unity will definitely not be peaceful. Not without either a dictatorship as repressive as Saddam, or total genocide of at least two of the three largest groups.

With India/Pakistan partition and Yugoslavia in mind, I guess there´s a great chance genocide will happen if (unfortunately, perhaps more exactly when) the civil war escalates and Iraq starts to shatter. And specially with India/Pakistan example in mind, its possible that the resulting nations (if they ever manage to achieve a minimum of internal stability) become rivals entangled in sporadic wars or are engulfed by their neighbours. A source for unstability for the Middle-East, exactly what strategic planners and policy makers say they are trying to avoid. I fear it can become a great tragedy and a shame for those involved.

Yes, Iraq's division may be unavoidable, I think there's no way to deny this possibility. Perhaps one of the actual questions now is how to minimize the bloodshed. Sure, the governments of some countries are also looking at courses of action that will take in to account the protection of their own interests. Another question then would be how to make these two goals compatible.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I don't. I've found that people who like to use violence to get their way will eventually need violence to put them down. They just don't have negotiating skills.

You're absolutely right, and sometimes those people with no negotiating skills can justify paranoid pre-emptive strikes on countries that had nothing to do with terrorism against the U.S.

In what case has that occurred?

Apparently, there are a whole group of people in the middle east who also believe that violence is needed to "put them down."

Yup.

Are there any other answers?

Are you proposing we climb up on a crucifix?

 

[Dave1001]

Edit

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Tito´s Yugoslavia and the separation of Pakistan from India are templates for Iraq´s case. Any half-brained strategist with a minimal ammount of history knoweledge could have foreseen such possible outcome.

I think a peacefull separation would be quite unlikely if not impossible. Three states would have to be created: a Kurdish one near Turkey´s border, a Shi´a one at the Northeast and a Sunni one at the Southwest. Now, a quick glance at Tricky´s map shows Iran would have an enormous influence over the Shi´a state and it would have almost all the known oilfields. Something surely people at a number of Western governments would not be at ease with.

One extra problem: Turkey would not like a neighbouring Kurdish state.

Now, if all of this were not enough, imagine the exodus that the tripartite division would cause. Imagine a family having to leave their city, a place where they lived who knows for how many generations. Imagine also the bloodshed that such thing may cause. Remember India/Pakistan partition?

I think that this hits the major points well. Add to that: One region (The Shia one, IIRC) would have virtually no oil. so the Turks would hate the Kurdish state next to them and their own local Kurds thinking separatist; the Shias would likely be a client state for Iran (which the Sunnis would hate), etc.

 

[Ziggurat]

Add to that: One region (The Shia one, IIRC) would have virtually no oil.

It's the Sunni region which would be left without any oil (assuming the Kurds get Kirkuk, which they will if it comes down to a fight, and probably even if it doesn't).

 

[NoZed Avenger]

It's the Sunni region which would be left without any oil (assuming the Kurds get Kirkuk, which they will if it comes down to a fight, and probably even if it doesn't).

Whoops. You are indeed correct -- thanks.

 

[Libertarian]

Hey, I've got a radical idea. Why doesn't the world's largest arms dealer bring all its troops home from all around the world, and let the Dept of DEFENSE live up to its name?

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp

 

[Huntster]

Hey, I've got a radical idea. Why doesn't the world's largest arms dealer bring all its troops home from all around the world, and let the Dept of DEFENSE live up to its name?

Because Congress and the Presidency won't go for such a radical idea.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I don't think you will have to worry about partitioning when we leave. Iran will eat Iraq from the inside out like a giant cancer.