The argument to partition Iraq

[Tacitus]

Gentlemen,
Just from what I read in the news, it seems that there is already alot of ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq. There won't be any need for a formal or informal partition of the country if that continues. It will be partitioned through people voting with their feet, not from some agreement on a piece of paper.

It is beyond my forecasting ability to predict how this phenomenon will affect regional or internal security. But the current effort in Iraq is inexorably leading to this, whether intended or not.

I don't see the Maliki government being able to appeal to all the groups/sects/tribes. Does anybody have confidence in it, either here in Iraq? It just seems to me that the Alawi government had more of a secular vibe to it, with leaders taking a more national perspective.

Our political leaders might eventually be tempted to overthrow the Maliki government, thinking it just won't happen with him in charge. JFK felt that way about Diem, and nothing that followed seemed any better in Vietnam, which was already divided in two.

[Jedburgh]

CSIS, 9 Oct 07: Pandora’s Box: Iraqi Federalism, Separatism, “Hard” Partitioning, and US Policy

A debate has developed over whether the US should try to legislate Iraqi federalism and encourage some form of “soft partitioning.” It is time to take a much harder look at the facts in Iraq, at just how “hard” partitioning has already been, and at the dangers any form of federalism or partitioning can have unless they are achieved as the result of some form of Iraqi accommodation that can minimize the years of turbulence and instability that could follow any form of sectarian and ethnic division.

Some formal political division of Iraq’s population may take place as a result of force, intimidation, and other factors causes by the insurgency and Iraq’s civil conflicts, but planning and managing it in any orderly way will be incredibly difficult for Iraq’s leaders and the Iraqi government, and is not something the US should overtly encourage.

No one can deny that Iraq is already dividing along sectarian and ethnic lines in many areas. This process, however, has been forced upon Iraq’s population by its violent extremists rather than by popular will, and Iraq’s Kurds are the only faction in Iraq that show major popular support any formal effort at partitioning. The term “Soft Partitioning” has also been shown to be a cruel oxymoron. Virtually every aspect of sectarian and ethnic struggle to date has been brutal, and come at a high economic cost to those affected. The reality is that partitioning must be described as “hard” by any practical political, economic, and humanitarian standard.....

[ali_ababa]

Iraq does not need to be partitioned. The whole middle east needs to be redrawn. This new of the middle east seems reasonable - i support it.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/xm..._map_after.JPG

[Tom Odom]

Iraq does not need to be partitioned. The whole middle east needs to be redrawn. This new of the middle east seems reasonable - i support it.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/xm..._map_after.JPG

Reasonable in a perfect world where one is free to draw new lines on maps without care for the people or the politics on the ground.

Sorry this is more of Ralph Peter's semi-polyannish behavior played out; what looks like a deft solution is only more crap sown on the same old fields. The Brits were quite good at drawing maps, followed closely by the other colonial powers. You might as well refer to this map as "Peter's Hiccup" as the 90 degree bend in Jordan's current border is referred to as "Winston's Hiccup."

The US Sec Def had to apologize to the Turks because Peters pulled this map out at a US govenrnment sponsored speaking engagement at the NATO defense college since Peters was essentially saying that the Yurks should give into the PKK.

Best
Tom

[ali_ababa]

Reasonable in a perfect world where one is free to draw new lines on maps without care for the people or the politics on the ground.

Sorry this is more of Ralph Peter's semi-polyannish behavior played out; what looks like a deft solution is only more crap sown on the same old fields. The Brits were quite good at drawing maps, followed closely by the other colonial powers. You might as well refer to this map as "Peter's Hiccup" as the 90 degree bend in Jordan's current border is referred to as "Winston's Hiccup."

The US Sec Def had to apologize to the Turks because Peters pulled this map out at a US govenrnment sponsored speaking engagement at the NATO defense college since Peters was essentially saying that the Yurks should give into the PKK.

Best
Tom

The British and French after WW1 simply got 'mandates' over the middle east after the ottoman empire was defeated and drew the borders as they wished.
When the borders were drawn no thought went into the people living within the regions. Iraq was drawn up to include the three main oil producing areas which were Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. Also Kuwait was not included in the Basra province as it was before since the British had signed a contract for protection with the ruling Al-Sabah family in 1899.

I remember reading in a book about the creation of Jordan and a quote Winston Churchill said - it went something like this: 'I came up with Jordan in one afternoon'.

If the people were taken into account then the Kurdish people would have been given a state instead of being the largest group of stateless people in the world suffering prejudice from Syria, Iran and Turkey (Also Iraq during previous governments).

This map i believe would stop all fighting as every person would be within their own sect meaning there are no excuses to cause trouble. However the ethnic minorities is a problem which would be more difficult to deal with.

If the map did go through as proposed the largest oil producing countries would be the Arab Shia State and Kurdistan - the two most opressed groups with their countries.

Regards.

[charter6]

Baghdad being self-partitioned doesn't change the issue. You can't allocate non-continguous neighborhoods to two neighboring states likely to be rivals, so that's out. The idea of making Baghdad a self-governing city state doesn't solve the issue -- you're still left with a huge population of angry Shia who are being cut off from the state they'd identify with. al-Sadr, or any Shia leader in Baghdad for that matter, will not allow his constituency to be cut off from the financial support provided by pilgrim revenue in Najaf and Karbala. After oil, this is probably the single biggest economic factor at work in Iraq. That's why Hakim's proposed 9 province Shia equivalent to Kurdistan didn't gain traction beyond the SCIRI leadership -- he wanted to go as far north as Najaf and Karbala, and other Shia leaders saw this as a blatant power-play on the Badr's part for the pilgrimage revenue.

The issue I was trying to get at was that either you take the Shia state so far north to include Karbala and Najaf, sticking a huge Sunni population in Shia-land and leaving Sunni-land with wonky, narrow borders; or you don't and leave a huge Shia population and Shia Islam's traditional cultural center of gravity in Sunni-land -- a situation likely to be unacceptable. Either way, it's unworkable.

Kirkuk becomes a much bigger issue if we partition. Right now, there seems to be general acceptance on both sides of the fact that oil revenue will somehow be partitioned, some Kurds are going to come back but not all, etc. Everyone sort of figures there will be a relatively amiable compromise down the road. If you partition, then suddenly there are no such assurances. Kirkuk will have to fall on one side of the line or the other -- when you place it, you give that state ultimate control over the oil regardless of written agreements or anything of the sort. It's a flashpoint, and it seems un-resolvable.

Ali, the Peters map is unworkable. Just to start, the day the Turks give up Dyarbakir is the day I voluntarily join the Eunuch corps -- pretty confident I'll be keeping my balls.

[Jedburgh]

26 Oct 07 update of the CSIS report originally posted near the beginning of this thread:

Pandora’s Box: Iraqi Federalism, Separatism, “Hard” Partitioning and US Policy

The attached report provides a major revision of the previous draft report on the prospects for federalism, separation, and partition in Iraq, and is virtually a new document. It has no simple bottom line, and all of the options present agonizing trade-offs and are almost certain to resul in some degree of added separation and displacement.

At the same time, the analysis indicates that the vast majority of Iraqis -- other than Kurds – do not want a weak central government or any form of division of the country. It shows that violence is serious in the areas dominated by the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shi’ite as well as in mixed areas, and that any form of federalism or partition that divided Iraq’s economy, infrastructure, and petroleum sector would be almost impossible to achieve on anything close to an equitable basis or using Iraq’s present governorates and divisions by sect and ethnicity.....

[SteveMetz]

You mean they wore gloves versus bare knuckles?

I actually agree with a lot of what he says (the exception being anything dealing with counterinsurgency). It's just that I try and express the ideas without insulting half the audience. Someone introducing me when I gave a talk at the Marshall Center once noted this and referred to me as a "kinder, gentler Ralph Peters." I took that as a compliment. If nothing else, I wish I could speak and write half as powerfully as he does.

I gave a pitch based on my "rethinking insurgency" ideas at the Brookings thing on Monday. I really expected Ralph to jump on me. I had already girded my loins. But he didn't.