This debate has spurred from one of the recent posts, so I decided to move it here where I can clearly explain why I oppose Joe Biden's plan to partition Iraq into three regions.
President Lincoln once said "A house divided can not stand." We need to open lines of diplomacy in Iraq between leaders to unify the country behind a constitution. The Sunni leadership has already opposed the current constitution because the establishment of their self-governoring region would crumble. I agree with Biden that oil revenues need to be equally divided among the three sects, however that does not mean all three must be partitioned. The Shi'ite have such a disproportional majority in Iraq that a Kurdish or Sunni region would never be strong enough to stand without the threat of sectarian violence. Using this sort of de facto segregation fosters not only tension between the three regions, but also economic conflict. I am not comparing Iraq's government to the "Articles of Confederation" when I write this, but there is an underlying similarity. A weak central government did not work in America due to individual economic sanctions relating to import tariffs etc. How are all three regions expected to comply with a national federation’s distribution plan when the population among sects is so disproportional? With crude oil making up 84% of the countries export commodities, what would happen if one region, upset with the deal, decides to place restrictive trading on the other? Not only will the country be thrown into a even more bloody war, but the economy of Iraq would completely collapse.
I also do not understand how HR 1585 would prevent genocide. There is so much violence still taking place in Iraq, I struggle to comprehend how sending peacekeeping troops to enforce a partition would actually be successful. If American troops cannot put a stop to the violence, how can peacekeeping troops “keep” peace where peace does not exist? The situation in Bosnia in the early 1990's is a tough comparison for people to make. What is taking place in Iraq is totally different then any other situation anyone has seen in the 20th century. What we need to do in Iraq is get out. It is time to bring American troops home and allow the Iraqi's to make decisions on their own. A civil war is inevitable, whether the United States pulls out of Iraq now or ten years from now, it will be no difference. There will be a civil war when we leave. If genocide starts then the international community must take action. I do not think that the United States government really cares about preventing genocide though, since everyone is twiddling their thumbs regarding the atrocities in Darfur.
-tg
President Lincoln once said "A house divided can not stand." We need to open lines of diplomacy in Iraq between leaders to unify the country behind a constitution. The Sunni leadership has already opposed the current constitution because the establishment of their self-governoring region would crumble. I agree with Biden that oil revenues need to be equally divided among the three sects, however that does not mean all three must be partitioned. The Shi'ite have such a disproportional majority in Iraq that a Kurdish or Sunni region would never be strong enough to stand without the threat of sectarian violence. Using this sort of de facto segregation fosters not only tension between the three regions, but also economic conflict. I am not comparing Iraq's government to the "Articles of Confederation" when I write this, but there is an underlying similarity. A weak central government did not work in America due to individual economic sanctions relating to import tariffs etc. How are all three regions expected to comply with a national federation’s distribution plan when the population among sects is so disproportional? With crude oil making up 84% of the countries export commodities, what would happen if one region, upset with the deal, decides to place restrictive trading on the other? Not only will the country be thrown into a even more bloody war, but the economy of Iraq would completely collapse.
I also do not understand how HR 1585 would prevent genocide. There is so much violence still taking place in Iraq, I struggle to comprehend how sending peacekeeping troops to enforce a partition would actually be successful. If American troops cannot put a stop to the violence, how can peacekeeping troops “keep” peace where peace does not exist? The situation in Bosnia in the early 1990's is a tough comparison for people to make. What is taking place in Iraq is totally different then any other situation anyone has seen in the 20th century. What we need to do in Iraq is get out. It is time to bring American troops home and allow the Iraqi's to make decisions on their own. A civil war is inevitable, whether the United States pulls out of Iraq now or ten years from now, it will be no difference. There will be a civil war when we leave. If genocide starts then the international community must take action. I do not think that the United States government really cares about preventing genocide though, since everyone is twiddling their thumbs regarding the atrocities in Darfur.
-tg
3 comments:
Tom showed this discussion to me earlier. At first, I had a sort of a tl;dr deal but the part about separating Iraq into three parts interested me, frankly because it is such a bad idea. This would be a huge irresponsibility for America to do.
One does not simply invade a country, separate the population, tell them that it is good for them, and then leave. This is a recipe for disaster.
For one, America has entered Iraq under false pretenses but is now in there and has the responsibility to keep it a cohesive and coherent state. Vacating the country immediately would mean that if the country was not a hive for terrorist groups to regroup, find members, and deal in weapons markets freely - and under Saddam's iron fist, humane or not, it wasn't- then leaving it now will leave the shell of a government it has now open for attacks and a power vacuum that would be filled with a ruling dictator, one that could be legitimately anti-American, like Al Sadr for instance.
You mention Bosnia? Ask that separation of the government to the Bosniak population. If you can find one member, that is.
By the time the division was created, the damage was to degree in which it did not even matter. Both populations were wartorn to the point that fighting was about to stop anyway.
So what's the solution? Split the government? Divide it into 3? Well, that is not the solution. What would happen is, in my non-professional expert yet humble opinion, is that you would divide the country between the Kurds, the Shi'ite Arabs and the Sunni Arabs. The Shi'ite muslims are 65% of the population and their leader, or at least the person that is most likely to be voted as the region's leader, is a subordinate of Iran. After the "Coalition of the willing" has pulled her last troop out of Iraq. The Shi'ite leaders would welcome an annexation by Iran in a heartbeat.
The Kurds(20% or so of the population) would stay neutral in the North for a couple of years until they gather the power to launch an offensive towards Syria, Turkey, and the Sunni portion of Iraq in order to make their idea of a Kurdistan live. Perhaps so many fronts would be the death of them so maybe they'd take on one at a time or maybe they'd ally with one and then turn on them at the opportune moment, as is the politics of the middleeast. Perhaps they would attack Turkey first. This attack would come in the way of a terrorist attack at the front and then retaliation. This would not be a Turkish-Kurdistan problem alone. Turkey is a member of NATO and she would use her power to call her allies to action and Kurdistan, unbeknownst to her, would be promptly blown back to the 11th century.
Elsewhere, The Sunni population would unfortunately be killed in an offensive by the Shi'ite forces or perhaps the Kurdish forces, or if they are on their good day, they'll be saved and evacuated by the time the Kurds and Shi'ites decide how they will split the land up.
This may seem like the worst case scenario, but it is actually a series of events that is likely to happen. Whether this actually happens or not, is obviously up for debate, but one thing is for sure. Whatever happens -divided or not- the state which the coalition leaves will be one that harbors terrorists.
And as history has shown us, they will be pissed.
Tom, your title may be clever, but it does not reflect the realities of the situation in Iraq.
Iraq is not a "house". Iraq is not a coherent entity. Iraq is an area within arbitrary borders drawn by the European imperial powers after World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq has always be divided in terms of the identities of the different ethnic groups that reside within the "country", and these groups will always be divided. The question is do we let them continue to slaughter each other in a zero-sum power struggle, or do we give them regional autonomy so each group can control its own future?
The Sunni leadership opposes partition because Iraq's oil is concentrated in the south, which would be included in the Shi'ite region. However, all reasonable partition plans contain a proposal for a national federation (with possible international oversight), which would proportionally distribute the oil among the three regions. You said, "I agree with Biden that oil revenues need to be equally divided among the three sects, however that does not mean all three must be partitioned." Do you realize how interspersed Sunnis and Shi'ites are in Iraq, especially in Baghdad? What are we going to do, distribute oil to individual people?
I find it very strange that you say a Kurdish or Sunni region would not be strong enough to stand without the threat of sectarian violence. First of all, the whole point of separating the groups is to establish clear ethnic majorities in each of the three parts of Iraq so they don't have to worry about large-scale internal sectarian violence. This point is only further reinforced by the fact that Kurdistan, which is overwhelmingly populated by Kurds, has experienced a largely peaceful and prosperous reign since 1991, when the U.N. imposed a no-fly zone over the region.
When you say, "With crude oil making up 84% of the countries export commodities, what would happen if one region, upset with the deal, decides to place restrictive trading on the other?", you seem to be confused over how the distribution of oil would work. Oil would not be traded between the regions. Rather, it would be controlled by a national federation that would oversee the proportional distribution among the three regions.
You ask, "If American troops cannot put a stop to the violence, how can peacekeeping troops “keep” peace where peace does not exist?" What you fail to realize is that the point of a partition is to create the conditions that would allow peace to be maintained. You also say that a civil war is inevitable, but the fact remains that right now Iraq is engaged in a civil war. We need to withdraw our troops from this quagmire while providing a mechanism for the civil war to end. That mechanism is partition. Once the groups are separated, it becomes far more difficult to launch attacks on a different ethnic group than it is when the groups are interspersed.
And finally, you say, "If genocide starts then the international community must take action." This position is the height of irresponsibility. It's basically saying, let's get out of Iraq because a civil war is inevitable, but oh, you know, if there's genocide, then I guess we have to go back in there and stop it. We need to leave Iraq in a way that minimizes the possibility of genocide in the future.
You will not find a more outspoken advocate than me on the need for U.S. intervention to stop the genocide in Darfur. Even though I firmly believe that the U.S. is not doing enough to stop the atrocities there, I will readily admit that the U.S. has done more than any other nation with regards to the situation in Darfur. If you don't think the U.S. government really cares about preventing genocide, then the non-U.S. international community basically must not care at all. So how do you expect the international community to take action if genocide happens in Iraq?
The United States is the leader of the world. It is our responsibility to leave Iraq in a way that minimizes the risk of civil war or genocide in the future, and it is our responsibility to end the genocide in Darfur now.
COzuturk, in Tom's post I addressed why Iraq is fundamentally unable to be a cohesive and coherent state. And the three separate governments would be able to exercise far greater control over their individual territories than the central government exercises now, because of greater political consensus and the minimized internal security risk.
The point about Bosnia is not just that the war ended, but that the peace has been maintained for 12 years now without any serious challenges.
You claimed your series of events is likely to happen, but every single event you mentioned seems extraordinarily unlikely.
Just because the Shi'ite leadership has significant ties to Iran in no way means that they would "welcome annexation by Iran in a heartbeat." States don't just give up their sovereignty and leaders don't just give up their authority because of common interests or religious ties. Peaceful annexation is very, very rare.
The Kurdish government does not have an interest in creating a greater Kurdistan. Rather, a Kurdish terrorist group, the PKK, aims to unite the Kurdish peoples. This group can be combated by traditional anti-terrorism tactics, such as shared intelligence and law enforcement. And it is truly absurd to believe that NATO members would join with Turkey to attack Kurdistan. There's no rationale for that whatsoever.
The Kurdish population has no intention of attacking the Sunni population. The Kurdish population is more than happy with their autonomous, peaceful, and prosperous state in the north. They have absolutely no desire to expand southward. The Shi'ite region would not have an incentive to attack the Sunni region either. First of all, it is very difficult to launch military offensives across borders, especially in the presence of peacekeeping troops stationed along the border (which may be an option in Iraq). Second, the Sunni region would be able to turn to its Sunni allies in the region, such as Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan for military assistance and aid. This would create a deterrent that would likely prevent any Shi'ite offensive.
Partition is not perfect, and peace is not guaranteed. But the prospects are far more hopeful than your doomsday series of events that in your words, is "likely to happen."
Post a Comment