Road map for Iraq: division
Tuesday, 7 November 2006 | 441 readers so far
Is it time for serious talks about dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions? I think so. And so does Peter W. Galbraith, who writes the following in this week’s edition of Time Magazine:
A divided Iraq will be destabilizing to Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors all fear the destabilizing consequences of partition. But they fear an Iran-dominated Iraq even more. Turkey, Iraq’s other powerful neighbor, has a population that includes at least 14 million Turkish Kurds. The Turkish nightmare has been the emergence of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq. But now that it is actually happening, Turkey has responded pragmatically: it is by far the largest source of investment in Iraqi Kurdistan and has cultivated close relations with its leaders. As Turkey’s more sophisticated strategic thinkers understand, Turkey and an independent Kurdistan have a lot in common. Both are secular, pro-Western, democratic and non-Arab. Not only will Kurdistan depend on Turkey economically, but it can serve as a useful buffer to an Iran-dominated Islamic Iraq.
Prior to leaving for my year-long mission in Baghdad, I believed that we had to do something to stem the tide of Islamic terrorism against Western democracies. I still do. But Iraq isn’t even close to becoming a democracy. It’s not freer than it was under Saddam Hussein. Certainly, there are some freedoms enjoyed by Iraqis now that didn’t exist under Saddam - you can have a cell phone, satellite television and an Internet connection. I’m sure that’s of little comfort to people who cannot move freely through their capital city and must struggle daily just to avoid being murdered by their own police forces or army. I doubt that secular Iraqis who are now being forced to follow new religious mandates appreciate it much.
For the United States, the choices are tough. We lose our sons and daughters everyday trying to make the country a better place to live for its citizens. But are those citizens interested in what we want for them? Many are. But many more are busy being duplicitous with us while settling old scores with each other - and we pay for it daily.
Galbraith says:
Iraq’s national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.’s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country’s escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.’s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite states.
I saw many Iraqi Army units doing their jobs professionally while I was out and about in Baghdad. But I didn’t really get beyond what was on the surface. I don’t speak the language. I couldn’t tell whether I was watching Sunnis, Shias or a mixture of the two. I only got the “official” viewpoint. I don’t think we have enough Iraqi commanders committed to national unity and a nonsectarian outlook to make a real dent in the violence that takes place every day. The commanders and political figures who do espouse such views are often murdered.
The Kurds in the north live in a completely different world already. The have a de facto nation of their own, provide their own security, and they love Americans. They would welcome us with open arms on most levels. Countering all the messages of national unity that our own government insists on pusing, the Kurds have already stopped flying the Iraqi flag in their cities. And who can blame them? Iraq murdered so many of them under Saddam’s rule.
Southern Iraq is now completely dominated by the Shia and by Iranian interests. And in the middle sits Baghdad and the Western provinces - the sources of the majority of the violence you see on TV and read about in newspapers and on the Internet. These mixed areas are the battleground between the formerly ruling Sunnis and the new Shia power structure. The violence between the two is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, but perhaps it could be mitigated and minimized by the implementation of a Sunni autonomous region - that, at least, would give those now focused on only violence as a solution to problems some other more peaceful avenue on which to focus their energies.
Go read what Galbraith has to say. The debate over Iraq shouldn’t be about timetables or mistakes that have already been made. We shouldn’t talk in terms of abandoning the country. But we should be realistic about the nature of the beast we’ve created. We should be asking ourselves what we can do to help average Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic or religious status. We should be practical about what we can do to improve the security situation.
Autonomous or semi-autonomous regions seem to me to be the only near-term solution that has a practical chance of lowering the level of daily conflict. This might mean mass migration, but that is already happening. It might mean more division between Sunni and Shia inside Iraq but that is also already happening.
Four months before I left Iraq, we were told that Baghdad was the hub that held Iraq together, and that we would have to secure it before the country could have a chance. I don’t think that is even remotely possible with the current state of Iraq’s own military forces and our limited human resources on the ground. Those four months gave me no indicators of an improved security situation, no matter how various departments tried to spin it.
We must try new approaches. If partitioning the nation isn’t a viable one, then what else can we try that hasn’t been tried? I’d love to hear from you.
1 November 8th, 2006 at 1:54 am
Jim says:
Trevor! Welcome home!
Good to see you got back, safe and sound, and to know that you can enjoy a hearty welcome from your friends and family. I got the same sort of reception when I came back from Vietnam in 1968 — except at Travis, where we were met by screaming protestors — and except most places I went in the years that followed. Hopefully, you never encounter the mindless crap we did.
As for Galbraith, I think he’s too short-sighted. Splitting Iraq may be a viable alternative, but not until Iran and Syria are dealt with. Setting up three independent nations instead of one would simply make the problem harder to deal with as long as Iran is fomenting death and destruction.
I don’t know the answers, man. Welcome back.
Tell all your fellow soldiers this old vet is happy they’re home safe.
A big hand salute to you all.
Jim
2 November 9th, 2006 at 10:23 pm
RevJim says:
I’m with the previous Jim on this. We really don’t want to create a bunch of countries or states that would immediately go to war with each other or become overrun by the Saudis or Iranians.
Welcome home, and it’s good to see you blogging again
3 November 10th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Soldier's Dad says:
If we look at the 3 legs of the violence, the partitioning “idea” makes some sense.
1) Mehdi Army - Main supporters in Shiite slum of Baghdad, opposed to Federalism
2) Bathist Sunni’s - Live primarily in areas without natural resources - opposed to Federalism
3) AlQueda - any sort of chaos is good chaos.
The “partitioning” idea is the equivalent of Dad looking at his squabbling children in the back seat of the car and telling them that if they don’t stop fighting, he is going to drop them all at the side of the road.
The Southern and Northern regions of Iraq would benefit nicely from partition, the central region, where all the violence is, would be the big losers. Note to idiots doing most of the killing, do you really want a partitioned Iraq?
4 November 15th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Kj says:
I’m glad you’re back up and posting. I’ve got to say that, having arrived here in Baghdad perhaps two weeks after you left the country, I see the point you’re making about the mess things are in here. Before I arrived, I was a LOT more optimistic about what we (we Americans, we the Coalition) could do to clean up Iraq, but now that I’m here . . . I work in the Embassy and my office is dealing with monitoring the perceptions that Iraqis have of what’s happening. It’s been somewhat disheartening.
The three-part division idea seems pragmatic but most people around here hate it like poison . . . Though with “stay the course” a slayed dogma, maybe “a unified Iraq” will go down next? I kinda doubt it, but you never know!
5 March 7th, 2007 at 12:00 am
the will to exist says:
Discuss! [IMG ] | Email This Post [IMG ] | Print This Post [IMG ] | Permalink [IMG ] | 4 comments
6 August 29th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Nimrod says:
I think a three or a four state solution might be a great idea
Shiite terror and medieval culture need a hell hole of their own, however they cant have any access to the land between two rivers, from Ur to Babel all the up to Nineveh should be called the state of Nimrod, this should encompass all the secular Iraqis, then shove the baathists in Al Anbar province and the kurds in erbil, sulymaniah and dohuk while the shiites can start shitistan in basra, kerbala, Najaf and few other hell holes.
The State of Nimrod will be like Israel, we will encourage European settlers and people from all over the world and make sure that it becomes a powerful nation a name derived from the old testament and it will become an ally to Turkey and Israel so that they can monitor and halt Kurdish, Arab Sunni and Arab Shiite terror
7 August 29th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Nimrod says:
or if the above is seen as unrealistic then we can implement my partition plan which is already evident on my site http://factsofiraq.tripod.com
a three state solution with Iraq, Kurdistan and Shiite istan
we can then expel most sunni arabs and throw them in saudi arabia and keep iraq’s name, use arabic and be a non arab state and facilitate the migration of europeans, africans, asians etc and start a new nation a modern civilized nation.
8 August 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Trevor says:
Where do you fit into the plan?
9 September 3rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Nimrod says:
ha ha ha , well I don’t care about the name much but I am an Iraqi and I want to expel most of the idiost here and abolish religion and start fresh, I so fit into the plan I wanna rule this new state and expel all the present sub human riff raff wretched idiots who cant even run a Mc Donald’s branch much less a country.
10 September 3rd, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Trevor says:
So your national identity is more important to you than your ethnic or religious affiliation?
Are you referring to Nouri al-Maliki in the “riff-raff” comment?
11 September 4th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Nimrod says:
yes that whole government is riff raff, They should either restore the constitutional monarchy or have elections based on credit rather than ethnicity or religion, my goodness, religion is such an outdated concept, Im in Baghdad now and I can tell you that a large number of Iraqis are fed up and they are not even fasting, so religion is on its way to decline ( its about time), the kurds could declare independence and have their own state if that is what they wish , but the rest should seriously get over it and live together in one unified Iraq.