Slicing Up Iraq in Order to Save It

The Independent Institute's Ivan Eland sees Vietnam in Iraq, and calls for some radical amputation to save the patient:

When armed guerrillas roam the countryside, even a free and fair democratic vote may be irrelevant to the outcome. According to a New York Times article from 1967, the Johnson administration was pleased as punch then about an 83 percent voter turnout in South Vietnamese elections. We all know how that conflict turned out: the majority went to the polls and the armed minority eventually went to the halls of power.

If the president and the Republican Congress really wanted to do the Iraqi people a favor…they would abandon the illusion that merely allowing the Iraqis to vote will eventually make them free and prosperous.

Iraq was carved out of three provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire by the British in the 1920s and has been an artificial country ever since….If given a real choice--instead of the constrained option offered by a heavily armed occupying power to elect the leaders of a unified U.S.-like federation--Iraqis might want a looser confederation, with increased autonomy for various ethnic/religious groups, or even a partition of the country into separate states.

Genuine self-determination that would probably lead to such decentralized governance--accompanied by a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces--would likely take the fire out of the insurgency. The foreign occupier would be gone and no strong central government would exist to threaten to oppress groups that didn't control it. Security could be provided locally, rather than nationally, using existing Kurdish and Shiite militias and insurgents converted to security forces in Sunni areas.

Comments

[thoreau]

Partition may very well make sense.

But the decision must be made by the Iraqis via their own elected representatives. Externally imposed partition would be more trouble than it's worth.

As Dan once said about the idea of a US-imposed independent Kurdish state: We've already carved out one ethnic minority state in the Middle East, and we've spent close to 60 years supporting it and taking heat for doing so. Do we really want to repeat that experiment?

If there is to be an independent Kurdistan and/or Sunnistan and/or Shiastan, these states will have to be created via internal Iraqi processes.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

I essentially agree with you. Still there's the problem that Iraqis may end up "deciding" upon partition via civil war. At the least, we (or should I say, "we"?) should at least allow such an option to be available by peaceful means. Right now, I'm not sure if we would be okay with that.

[gaius marius]

why is divorce a panacea? say iraqis themselves move for separation. what stops the shia militia from invading the sunni and kurdish states to take the northern oil fields? more american armed intervention? a syrian-iranian proxy war? partition doesn't remove any of the impetus to civil or regional war, i'm afraid -- we've been fighting an insurgency that has openly nationalistic aspects at least as strong as religious ones. and the urge to dominate the entire territory of iraq will not evaporate because we draw different lines in the sand, a la israel.

[a]

"Iraq was carved out of three provinces of the defunct Ottoman Empire by the British in the 1920s and has been an artificial country ever since"

I have seen this claim repeated many times. But it is nonsense. Iraq was the center of the Islamic empire (Abbasid, 758-1258) long before the ottoman's took over. Baghdad was the capital of that empire. Iraq was the center of many civilization before then. Kuwait and other Gulf emirates, in the other hand, are British creations.

It might be true that Iraq did not exist as a country with the current borders and in the modern sense of the word before the Brits, but this is true of many countries the Brits have colonized.

[thoreau]

fyodor, I see your point. What I wonder is, what if "peaceful means" involves forestalling the civil war by keeping US troops there indefinitely to enforce the borders between the 3 new nations? What if we know that the moment we leave the place will go up in flames?

OK, we've maintained a status quo like that on the Korean peninsula for 50 years. But I don't know that the division between North and South Korea is a model that we should look to for inspiration, given that North Korea is not only illiberal but also in the WMD business.

If we wind up defending a comparatively liberal Kurdistan (hypothetically) from much less liberal Mesopotamia and West Persia, we could easily wind up with another Israel on our hands. There would once again be disputed territories and questions about which ethnic group "deserves" that land, but the stakes would be even higher because of the oil fields. And other neighbors of Kurdistan would also be itching to invade, or at least cause trouble in Kurdistan, to squelch whatever dreams of secession their own Kurds might harbor.

If Kurdistan and/or any other part of Iraq is to secede, it will have to be via a peacefully negotiated settlement. And the US must not attempt to defend a seceding region from its neighbors. The last thing we need to do is guarantee the security of another Middle Eastern state.

[rosecolouredglasses]

On paper, it's a swell idea, but...

If the country is divided into three separate ethnic areas thousands would have to be relocated.

And wouldn't all three groups want to share the oil-rich sections of the country?

And, an independent Kurdistan will be considered a threat by Turkey (with its own Kurdish minority).

Not sure about this: "...insurgents converted to security forces in Sunni areas." Aren't a lot of those guys from neighboring countries?

[trainwreck]

I don't see any reason why US military forces can't start withdrawing from Iraq today. A small contingent of advisers will need to stay, but right now I can't image what the US military mission would be.

The insurgents, who are Iraqis, need to be dealt with by the Iraqis.

The US Army can't guard the borders. They found the weapons of mass destruction in a trailer, according to Bush. Are they there to free hostages? Guard the airport??

The faster the army leaves, the faster the Iraqis will muster their own security forces.

[gaius marius]

The faster the army leaves, the faster the Iraqis will muster their own security forces.

as much as i want our people out of there and safely home, mr trainwreck, one can't deny the possibility that leaving means total chaos. there's no law that says it has to work out for the best.

of course, it could also be that our continued presence is the only real impetus to disorder, such that our leaving might bring peace. not very americentric, but it may be something of the truth.

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Your scenario is quite realistic. However, as gaius's post assists in suggesting, nothing guarantees that civil war won't erupt as soon as we leave, other than to choose wisely, Grasshopper....

[trainwreck]

I know gauis I have had the same reservations. But that was like a year and a half ago. It doesn't seem like there will be some ideal moment when removing US troops will suddenly be a good idea. So I am saying this thing needs to start drawing down or it will just drag on and on.

The alternative scenario of creating a benevolent empire in the Middle East isn't so attractive, either.

[PintofStout]

Our troops = welfare.

If we're there to fight, why would they want to be in a hurry to do it themselves. We're now the Nanny Empire! 🙂

[SR]

a: "I have seen this claim repeated many times. But it is nonsense. Iraq was the center of the Islamic empire (Abbasid, 758-1258) long before the ottoman's took over. Baghdad was the capital of that empire. Iraq was the center of many civilization before then."

So "a", do you also believe that it would be wise to turn the Anatolian peninsula over to the Greek government? After all, the population there was majority Greek from about 300 BC to about 1500 and a substantial Greek minority persisted through the 1800s. Oh, that's right the ethnic/religious composition of Anatolia has substantially changed during the last few centuries. Equally, the demographics of Iraq today are not what they were 800+ years ago.

[SelfDetermined]

fyodor at February 8, 2005 01:26 PM
thoreau,
Your scenario is quite realistic. However, as gaius's post assists in suggesting, nothing guarantees that civil war won't erupt as soon as we leave, other than to choose wisely, Grasshopper....

realistic, as being in the realm of possibility, then all scenario's are realistic as they are in the realm of possibility.
or
realistic as being in the realm of probability, then again, all scenario's are realistic as they are in the realm of probability.

we do not know what will happen if a draw down of troops is initiated and more power transferred to the iraqi people, to be truly self-determined and self-governed, even if that be an isalmic type republic, i.e., iran.

what we do know is the inevitable conclusion of our continued occupation.

?don't ask wwjd? the more telling and correct action is the one you would pursue if faced with this dilemma.

[joe]

"the urge to dominate the entire territory of iraq will not evaporate because we draw different lines in the sand"

Let's not assume that the urge to dominate the entire territory of Iraq is the primary motivator for each enclave. The Kurds, at least, seem to have little interest in governing Basra, let alone Baghdad.

Also, if offered the opportunity to trade responsibility for the internal security of Iraq for responsibility for border enforcement, we'd be a fool not to take it.

[R C Dean]

The insurgents, who are Iraqis, need to be dealt with by the Iraqis.

A significant fraction of the "insurgents" are not Iraqis. Zarqawi himself is not an Iraqi.

The US Army can't guard the borders. They found the weapons of mass destruction in a trailer, according to Bush. Are they there to free hostages? Guard the airport??

They are there to make sure the insurgents don't establish any kind of major presence while the Iraqi security forces are ramping up and a legitimate Iraqi government is being formed.

The faster the army leaves, the faster the Iraqis will muster their own security forces.

True, but if they leave too fast, the country will collapse. There is a balance being struck here. So far, its hard to say the balance hasn't been about right.

[SR]

RC: "A significant fraction of the 'insurgents' are not Iraqis."

I guess if 10% equals "signifcant", you're correct: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0208/p06s01-wome.html

"In late January, US Army Gen. George Casey told reporters in Baghdad that the foreign fighters in Iraq probably number no more than 1,000 - or less than 10 percent of the total insurgents. In November, Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said Iraqi authorities had 167 foreign fighters - including Syrians, Saudis, Egyptians, Afghans, Sudanese, and Moroccans - in custody."

[joe]

RC, with Army generals saying we're losing the war and the insurgency growing after each and every event that was supposed to weaken it, the line "So far, its hard to say the balance hasn't been about right" is a pretty tough sell.

BTW, when Ted Kennedy said we should pull out 12, 000 troops, you called him a defeatest traitor. Now Bush says we should pull out 15,000.

Where's the outrage? 😉

[Ken Shultz]

I've been arguing that there should be three mini-states for a long time. I believe that legitimacy will ultimately require a three state solution; I believe they'll have it before or after a civil war--take your pick.

Some argue that a three state solution will Balkanize Iraq and increase the likelihood of a civil war--I suspect Iraq is already effectively Balkanized.

Who's seceding? ...Isn't Kurdistan already a state? If Sadr's and Sistani's people lost a big election, how likely are they to form a loyal opposition? Since the election, there have been nothing but counter-indications that the insurgents want to join the coalition.

Some see a contradiction here--I say that because the ultimate solution, eventually, requires a three state solution, we should initiate a three state solution ourselves; at the same time, I say that some of those states are likely to ally themselves with our enemies.

However, if legitimacy requires a three state solution, and we make ourselves an obstacle to legitimacy, then the occupation will have to continue indefinitely. There was an old argument on this blog about whether or not the Bush Administration advertised the occupation of Iraq as a long-term commitment. Regardless, I don't think most Americans are now willing to squander the money or troops required to guarantee the illegitimacy and insecurity of Iraq indefinitely. The continued presence of American troops may make a full blown civil war less likely, but, then again, if there were a full blown civil war, I have little doubt that homeland support for the occupation would evaporate almost instantaneously.

...Maybe by midwifing three mini-states before a civil war breaks out, we can garner some genuine good will for the United States.

P.S. I know, I know--it's hard for RPVs to deal with the fact that the War in Iraq put American civilians in greater danger of a terrorist attack by way of a state sponser of terror, but, really, is that realization any more shocking than the non-existence of mobile WMD labs? If we knew that legitimacy required three mini-states, and if we knew that some of those mini-states were likely to ally themselves with America's enemies, then, as I argued more than a year ago, America shouldn't have invaded Iraq.

[kwais]

Yeah, I don't think deviding the country would be a good idea.

I also don't think that withdrawing the troops right away would be a good idea either. I think that the toops are withdrawing and they will mostly be out of Iraq. We are training up Iraqi troops to fight their own war.

The problem is that many of the insurgents and some criminal gangs are of Saddams military, and they have military training and some have years of combat experience, whearas the new police are ex school teachers or bus drivers, and they are at times overwhelmed. But little by little they are getting better and learning hard lessons, and they will win I think.

And meanwhile the US military is here to make sure that the bad guys can not get a decisive victory. So while everyone is dissapointed that we don't seem to be getting a decisive victory, we are preventing them from getting it, and we are building an economy and a local police and military.

[thoreau]

Ken, even if division is necessary, the boundaries should be negotiated by Iraqis.

And there is a solution short of division into 3 full-fledged countries, and that is federalism of some sort. The precise division of power between the provincial and central governments, the protections given to minorities in each province, and the sharing of oil revenues should be decided by negotiations amongst the Iraqis.

[joe]

kwais, perhaps you can enlighten me. There are constantly stories about Iraqi units who "refuse to fight." I'm wondering how likely the following scenario is:

There is a gang of insurgents holded up in some twisty urban neighborhood. There are 1000 American marines and 1000 Iraqi guardsmen. The American marines could clear the area out with, say, 10-20 killed. The Iraqi guardsmen could also clear the area out, but with 100-300 killed. The Iraqis know that the marines will be sent in if they don't go, and they don't much like the idea of seeing a couple hundred Iraqis die neendlessly, for a purpose that could be achieved much more cheaply. So they refuse their orders.

The spin we get in the states is that Iraqi guardsmen won't fight because they're afraid, or because they support the insurgents. What do you think?

[Ken Shultz]

There can be no meaningful negotiations without legitimate representation for Sunnis.

"Ken, even if division is necessary, the boundaries should be negotiated by Iraqis."

To the extent that this is possible, I agree.

"And there is a solution short of division into 3 full-fledged countries, and that is federalism of some sort."

I see why the representatives of the people of Kurdistan should agree to share power with a central authority, but I don't see why they would agree to do so. Why would they give up anything? What will they get in return?

I see why the representatives of the areas in Iraq where Shiites are predominant should agree to respect the rights of minorities, but I don't see why they would agree to do so. Why would they give up anything? What will they get in return?

"The precise division of power between the provincial and central governments, the protections given to minorities in each province, and the sharing of oil revenues should be decided by negotiations amongst the Iraqis."

On a good day, I can see Kurdistan negotiating an oil sharing agreement with Shiite groups, but I don't think oil sharing agreements between those two parties and Arab Sunni elements will emerge much differently than did the agreements between Southern Sudan and Khartoum--after a civil war, that is.

[a]

SR:
"So "a", do you also believe that it would be wise to turn the Anatolian peninsula over to the Greek government? "

The article said that Iraq is "an artificial country". That is the reason I mentioned that Iraq exists as a country for hundreds of years (even during the Ottoman empire).

Now, are you suggesting that whenever the ethnic/religious changes we should carve a new country? If so, when do we carve a new country out of California?

[kwais]

OK Joe,

Really there could be a lot of reasons why they might refuse to fight.
a) They are sympathetic to the insurgents, they have ties to the same tribe, or they don't know who all the insurgents are, but all the insurgents know who they and their families are.

b) They are indeed afraid, they feel they are going to lose and that the insurgents are better fighters than them

c) They are led and/or trained by an American who is an idiot who should not have that job. Who isn't going to pay the price for his personal and moral cowardice. Or they are sent into the wrong location, or for the wrong reasons.

I must say that I have never witnessed any of the above, it is all second or third hand stories.

More importantly, though indeed there are times where locals have refused to fight, there are many more occasions where locals have indeed fought and won. And sometimes under some adverse conditions.

Just prior to the elections, and following the elections there were many battles fought by the Iraqis. They didn't make the news.

[kwais]

Also,

It is generally that the Kurds could easily defeat all the Sunni Arabs and take all the Sunni Arab controlled areas in a couple of days if we let them.

There are Kurds living in Baghdad, who have been threatened by the 'insurgents'. The key is to have the Sunni Arab troops defeat the insurgents in Sunni Arab land.

[Andrew]

What Iraq needs is reliable Iraqi security forces in the Sunni areas. That means Shiite and Kurdish militias, which are either available, or shortly could be. Prior to elections, there was an unwillingness to commit such forces - but THAT is exactly the platform of the Shiite and Kurdish parties which probably swept the polling (NOT theocracy or partition).

Why not a lopsided "civil war" - if that's what you would prefer to call it - where the bad guys lose (as in our civil war) than some kind of hokey partition where the bad guys are handed a semi-victory they could not have obtained by force of arms?

Why shouldn't Shiites "dominate" all of Iraq? It IS their country, and they are the majority, and they CAN make it stick...and that will get our troops hame on terms acceptable to US.

[a]

kwais:
"and we are building an economy"

So, is that why Iraq's oil production (essentially its economy) declined after the war (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)?

[Ken Shultz]

"It is generally that the Kurds could easily defeat all the Sunni Arabs and take all the Sunni Arab controlled areas in a couple of days if we let them."

Why don't we let them do it then? Why don't we do it ourselves?

"The key is to have the Sunni Arab troops defeat the insurgents in Sunni Arab land."

For what reason? Are you suggesting that we're tolerating the insurgency until we find enough Sunni Arabs volunteers to defeat the insurgency? ...That's gonna be a long, hard wait. Do you expect more Sunni Arab volunteers to emerge as things continue to improve? Have you detected any signs of improvement?

[thoreau]

Ken-

It may be that negotiations will only happen after a civil war. Then again, say we impose the division (and the borders) and then leave. There could very well be a war anyway over oil fields or demographic issues (e.g. there's an enclave of Sunni Arabs in Kurdistan or some Kurds in West Persia or Shia Arabs in Mesopotamia, and they want to join their brethren in another country, so they fight).

If this is the case, then war is inevitable unless we stay forever. Which is not an attractive thought.

kwais-

It may very well be that the Kurds could defeat the Sunni Arabs in a few days and take their lands. That doesn't mean the Sunni Arabs would accept defeat peacefully. I seem to recall another independent, non-Arab state in the Middle East that defeated its neighbors and seized territory in just 6 days.

It may very well be for the best that Kurdistan becomes independent, but they should not get any security guarantees from the US. The last thing we need is to entangle ourselves in yet another territorial dispute in the Middle East.

[thoreau]

kwais, just to be clear, I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was just commenting on the situation at hand. I agree with your statement that:

The key is to have the Sunni Arab troops defeat the insurgents in Sunni Arab land.

Andrew-

You write:
Why shouldn't Shiites "dominate" all of Iraq? It IS their country, and they are the majority, and they CAN make it stick...and that will get our troops hame on terms acceptable to US.

Just so we're clear, is the goal still to bring about a freer, more peaceful Iraq? I seem to recall hearing that peace and freedom would drain the swamp, reduce the number of terrorists, and make the US safer.

If so, then it's probably better to institute a more benevolent government than raw majority rule where 60% of the population dictates sticks it to the other 40%. You know, establish a republic, not a democracy (as some like to say). Especially if some of the religious leaders among that 60% have strong sympathies for Iran.

One group dominating another may bring about stability, but not necessarily peace, freedom, or stability. Federalism, where all the various groups get to run their own affairs, seems better. Of course, the details of that federal arrangement should be worked out amongst the Iraqis rather than imposed by Americans (especially Americans who want to stick it to one group in particular).

Switzerland seems to have done OK as a country with 3 major linguistic groups and 2 major religious groups. The key seems to be decentralization. Whether that means a federal state or 3 separate countries is for the Iraqis to decide.

[thoreau]

CORRECTION:

When I wrote "One group dominating another may bring about stability, but not necessarily peace, freedom, or stability."

I should have written:

"One group dominating another may bring about stability, but not necessarily peace, freedom, or prosperity."

I shouldn't be posting when I'm sick. I should be sleeping. I think I'll do that now.

[Andrew]

thoreau

"One group dominating another may bring about stability, but not necessarily peace, freedom, or stability."

But what if they did? What if the only way to give even the sunnis some kind of free society was to let the Shiia and Kurdish militias whip the insurgency?

Even if 60% of the Sunni want to "govern themselves" in a jihadist redoubt - something that appears far from evident/ the jihadis are not necessarily a majority, and even the jihadis don't want partition, they want to rule it ALL- what about the other 40%? And does every totalitarian minority - like Sudetan Germans eg - get to call the tune?

Why should US policy seek to create a jihadist redoubt in Mesopotamia, when a quick campign by Shiia and Kurdish militia could bust bullshit?

If the 1930's Chek republic had had to deal with a Sudetan uprising, would you have counselled them to either wait until "loyal" ethnic German units could do the job, or concede a violent secession?

All this partition talk is just the latest attempt by anti-Administration pundits to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Kurdish and Shiia parties that won on the 31st agree on one thing - put the baathists in the dust once and for all, and forget about all these affirmative-action games. They are right.

Federalism, where all the various groups get to run their own affairs, seems better.

[Andrew]

"Federalism, where all the various groups get to run their own affairs, seems better."

Wrong. A "federalism" that leaves an enlightened Sunni at the mercy of jihadist neighbors is NOT preferable to a unitary Iraq which would protect him. It may be 40% of Iraqi Sunnis voted...don't THEY count for you thoreau? Is there any part of the continental US where you believe your neighbors have the right to violate your fundamental rights? (I am not guessing gay marriage is likely to be tolerated in Jihadistan)

[John]

This comment is a classic example of someone who knows nothing about what really occured in Vietnam. The Viet Cong did not take over South Vietnam. They were completely destroyed by the end of the Easter 1972 offensive. Enemy activity in South Vietnam had all but ended by the 1973 peace accord. South Vietnam was stable until January 1975, when President Ford said that the United States would under no condition ever return to South Vietnam. Shortly after this statement, the North Vietnamese invaded in the spring of 1975. The South Vietnamese had been crippled by the Congress' cutting off all military aid in 1974. Without U.S. military aid or direct assistence, the South Vietnamese did not stand a chance against the Soviet backed North. Even with that, the North was barely able to piece together an army big enough to conquer the South. Its forces had been shattered during the eight year struggle with the Americans.

The point is that the armed minority in South Vietnam did not win. The invading, Soviet sponsored, North Vietnamese won. Think what you want about Iraq, but the comparision between the 1967 South Vietnamese election and the January Iraqi election is completely false. The only way the comparison would work would be if John Kerry had won the election, pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq, cut off all military aid to Iraq, promised never to return to Iraq and Iran invaded. Since none of this is likely to occur, it would do the media and the liberal establishment well to get out of 1968 and start making realistic proposals.

[Andrew]

Concurring a bit with John above. WE betrayed the South Vietnamese voters - WE opened negotiations with the PRG(VC) and North Viet Nam, and proceeded to give them areas of sovereignty they could achieve neither by force of arms OR democratic processes. The British did the same in North Ireland and have mever ceased to regret it.

Moves to partition Iraq concede legitimacy to the insurgency they have otherwise been unable to demonstrate, either on the battlefield OR in the polling place.

And that is the point, isn't it? To derail the democratization of Iraq somehow?

[Ken Shultz]

"The point is that the armed minority in South Vietnam did not win."

Underneath it all, isn't your point that the North Vietnamese, somehow, weren't really armed?

"According to a New York Times article from 1967, the Johnson administration was pleased as punch then about an 83 percent voter turnout in South Vietnamese elections. We all know how that conflict turned out: the majority went to the polls and the armed minority eventually went to the halls of power."

Is there anyone else out there, other than John that is, who has a problem comprehending the fact that, in spite of high voter turnout in 1967, the North Vietnamese won the War?

[John]

Ken,

The North Vietnamese were another country alltogether. They were not the insurgency. The Viet Cong were the insurgency. Yes, if left defenseless, an agressive neighboring nation can conquer and subjegate another nation. This is exactly what happened to South Vietnam. The fact that this happened says nothing about the effectiveness of insugencies.

[thoreau]

All this partition talk is just the latest attempt by anti-Administration pundits to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Since you brought it up in a post responding to mine, I want to point out that I never suggested partition should be imposed. I said that it must be an Iraqi decision, not a US decision.

And I'm not saying that the least enlightened elements of the Sunni Arab minority should have a veto. My only point is to take issue when you seem to suggest that the Shia should have the run of the place by virtue of being 60%. And that the best elements of the Sunni Arab community must have a seat at the table. There's a big difference between a seat at the table for the best elements and a veto for the worst elements.

[pragmatist]

If you look back at history, you'll see that Iraq never wanted the Ottoman Empire to break up. The people of Iraq were happy and fine with Ottoman rule.

Ottoman rule, like most pre-20th century Islamic gov'ts, is best described as "minimalist". There were no national boundaries, no strong central gov't, and often not even a full measure of simple law and order in day to day life. But the truth is, nation-states never existed in the Middle East before the Ottoman Empire was carved up.

That, I argue, is the fundamental problem of the Middle East today. The West has been attempting to impose a whole new system that runs against the grain. And yes, you can impose a new system and pull it off. But it can take a long, long time. More than a century.

Additional fact, which I suspect many of you will not like so well: when a new system is imposed, there are groups that get squashed in the process. Peace and stability rarely come about until after the squashing is done.

The creation of a stable political system has much to do with imposing the new system. Key word: impose.

We in the West have gotten so squeamish about this, we've swollowed so much egalitarian bull crap, that we've lost touch with this aspect of political reality. In Europe and the US, we squashed our main dissenters a long time ago. The Middle East has barely begun the process.

So let the Iraqis decide to carve themselves up? What if the Shias say no? They're the majority. Game over. That means, let the Shiites dominate, merely because of numerical superiority. Well, you have to have some basis for deciding who gets to do the imposing.

btw, look at history -- the Kurds have hardly been "liberal", and I sincerely doubt they'll become liberal if they got their own country.

Dislike this if you will, but don't forget -- if somebody doesn't do some imposing over there, then things will never be any different than they are now.

The conditions under the which the US was born are a historical freak of nature -- the US is nothing like what's happened in the rest of the world, over the last 5,000 years.

[pragmatist]

btw, Iraq was hardly the center of the Ottoman Empire. True, Baghdad mattered, but most of the rest of Iraq meant little of nothing. In the 19th century, "back water" would have been an apt description of Iraq. The real power was always in The Porte.

In more recent history (19th century), Syria was a much bigger wheel than Iraq.

The boundaries of modern Middle East states were carved up arbitrarily, because there was no other way to do it. Nation-states had not previously existed there. I doubt anyone could have carved the Middle East up into nation-states in an "equitable" manner.

[joe]

kwais, "Just prior to the elections, and following the elections there were many battles fought by the Iraqis. They didn't make the news."

Sure they did. Admittedly, things goins smoothly don't get the level of press that disasters get (when did the local news ever lead off with "Violence Doesn't Flare Outside Night Club?), but there absolutely were stories in the news about American/Iraqi forces fighting insurgents.

Yes, Andrew, you're on to us. Everyone who suggests that an independent Kurdistan might be a good outcome is really motivated by hostility to democratic governance in the Middle East. Hold on a second, this rubber mask is getting uncomfortable - let me pull it off and reveal my reptile head.

[Ken Shultz]

"The North Vietnamese were another country alltogether. They were not the insurgency. The Viet Cong were the insurgency. Yes, if left defenseless, an agressive neighboring nation can conquer and subjegate another nation. This is exactly what happened to South Vietnam. The fact that this happened says nothing about the effectiveness of insugencies."

The point is that we lost the Vietnam War in spite of the fact that there was a 83% voter turnout in South Vietnam in 1967.

...Regardless of whether or not the North or South was armed or unarmed--deal with it.

[joe]

"The North Vietnamese were another country alltogether. They were not the insurgency. The Viet Cong were the insurgency."

An insurgency that, despite elections, did not see an erosion in its support and perception of legitimacy, and fought on for years, ultimately succeeding in its goals - to win a political victory that drove the United States out of the country, leaving it (as you say) ripe for takeover.

[Andrew]

joe

Anyone who suggests an independent Sunnistan has their head up their ass. I assume THAT is the real proposal, because it is difficult to see how an independent Kurdistan is going to get our troops home...that was the desideratum, right?

The principal reason an independent Kurdistan did not emerge after WWI (as specifically promised in Wilson's 14 Points) is because the US was unwilling to assume a League of Nations mandate in the region alongside Britain and France. It is understood that an independent Kurdistan would require the presence of an American army in the region for a generation...always has.

Somehow, when I hear people who would not have lifted a finger to liberate 25 million Iraqis under Saddam, getting all starry-eyed about a proposal which is not on the table with either of the two main parties Kurds actually vote for (when they get to vote, thanks to us) I don't believe it is because these folks have become converts to Democratic Transformation...but rather, that they are willing to throw the Kurds to the wolves - once again! - while they cut and run.

The only enduring results of artificial partition plans are apt to be a Jihadistan in Mesopotamia, and a Mullah-stan in the south. No doubt this appeals to joe because it is the kind of Big-Picture stuff where the US fucks itself...thereby proving both that are motives are "disinterested", and that only an "expert" could have come up with the idea.

[Andrew]

joe

the only political victory the VC won was over the American public. This isn't because the VC were so good...anyone can win a political victory over an American public heeding the likes of John Kerry and Ted Kennedy - even "heroes" as unlikey as the Sunni insurgents.

[joe]

"the only political victory the VC won was over the American public"

Oh, is THAT all? No wonder they didn't get anywhere with such a pointless strategy.

It is sort of amusing to see someone who seeks to dismantle real, existing Kurdish self determination, and push them back under the thumb of Baghdad, accuse the other side of "throwing the Kurds to the wolves."

Otherwise, the same "Saddam-lover" rhetoric you've been embarrassing yourself with for a three years now, and I'm not biting.

[Ken Shultz]

"Anyone who suggests an independent Sunnistan has their head up their ass."

The insurgency will need to be put down then, will it not? That's going to be brutal, isn't it?

I'm assuming that we would have already put down the insurgency if we could, is that wrong? If that's right, then who will put down the insurgency? Will it be the Shiites--maybe with the assistance of Iran--and the Kurds?

...I thought we were trying to avoid a civil war?

Someone above suggested that the key is for the Sunni Arabs to put down the insurgency themselves. Is there any reason to suggest that such a force is likely to spring into existence?

The prospect of an independent Sunnistan may be far fetched, but it may be the most likely prospect for stability.

[thoreau]

Hold on a second, this rubber mask is getting uncomfortable - let me pull it off and reveal my reptile head.

joe, would you by any chance be making a reference to "V"?

Andrew, what confuses me the most is why you seem to view the Sunni Arabs as deserving some sort of collective punishment. The insurgents, their supporters, and any other elements associated with the old regime absolutely should be brought to justice. But there are several million Sunni Arabs, and I don't know why you seem upset at the vast majority of them.

[joe]

thoreau,

No. I do that at public meetings sometimes, when they get out of hand. Shuts everybody up.

[Andrew]

thoreau

I am not at all sure that Shiite and Kurdish militias would be especially brutal in suppressing the insurgency.

I think the biggest difference would be that insurgents will know that these militias are not going anywhere, whereas they can always reasonably hope the Americans will leave soon, and know we MUST leave sometime.

I think that it could take an excruciatingly long time to raise loyal militias among the Sunni, because of the rather pointed "peer pressure" that can be placed on extended families in the Sunni tribal community - and it really isn't worth the wait.

I think the reluctance to empower Kurds and Shiites has less to do with the situation in Iraq itself, and MORE to do with the usual State Dept. pandering to a mythical "Arab opinion" in the Sunni Mid-East.

Yet another example of how costly it is to factor in people who don't properly have any say in the matter. Let us empower the majority in Iraq (which may include who-knows-how-many Sunni) and fuck Arab opinion in Arab police-states.

One thing the Arab Mid-East needs to learn in the 21st Century is that the affairs of any one Arab nation-state - internal or external - are NOT automatically any of their business.