| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Partitioning Iraq into three countries is the most viable plan |
| 2006-10-27 |
| Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying Washington’s Iraq policy, will release his panel’s alternative to the “stay-the-course” strategy next month. If partitioning Iraq into three countries is presented as an alternative, then the White House should earnestly consider and pursue the idea. This course of action will salvage Americans’ faith in the Iraq policy, and will be in the Iraqi people’s best interest. The current “stay-the-course” policy has utterly failed. Insurgent activities are escalating, sectarian clashes are intensifying, the Iraqi people’s suffering is worsening, the loss of American lives is climbing, and war expenditures are rising. The existing plan to pursue terrorists until each one of them is captured or killed has proven unworkable. On the other hand, the United States’ military departure from Iraq would be ominous for the entire Middle East, calamitous to the Iraqi people, and a clear proclamation of the failure of American foreign policy. Slicing Iraq into three countries is the only viable plan that will pacify the majority of Iraq and promise the US success in Iraq. The lack of security, sectarian violence and insurgencies are the main ailments plaguing the Iraqi people. And that’s only the beginning, considering the precarious nature of the serious and real threat of a wider civil war breaking out. But if Iraq were divided into three countries – a Shiite nation in the south, Kurdish in the north, and Sunni Arab in the middle – this would solve many of the current host of problems and obviate the threat of civil war. How would the division of Iraq bring an end to the activities of insurgents? Consider the present traveling arrangements in Iraq. The Iraqis, by virtue of their citizenship, are at liberty to travel anywhere within their country. This means an entire terrorist cell or their members can travel freely within Iraq, and allows weapons, ammunition, and needed funds to be transferred from one place to another. Most dangerously, it gives terrorists the ability to organize and recruit across the region. It is widely known that the source of the problem emanates from the central part of the country. Narrowing the realm of the problem requires the seclusion of the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq. Partitioning Iraq is the most efficacious way to achieve this. Once Iraq is partitioned, borders would then be drawn, and border security would hinder illicit traveling since a passport would be required. The partitioning of Iraq would also help decrease violence in Kurdistan. The present chaos in both Kirkuk and Mosul are largely engendered by the hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s followers who were settled in these cities and their surroundings during the Arabization campaign. Once an independent Kurdistan is declared, the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government and the US have not taken this predicament seriously enough, and as a result it has persisted and drags on, but in an independent Kurdistan it will be dealt with expediently to prevent further bloodshed and restore justice and equity. An all-out civil war would be thwarted by the creation of three separate countries. The Sunni Arabs would not be able to freely enter the Iraqi Shiites’ country nor Kurdistan due to border restrictions. At the same time, the menace of civil war between Kurds and Arabs would be averted since Kirkuk and Mosul’s problematic non-natives would be deported, and the small native Arab Sunni population will not pose a grave threat. In the central region, the most chaotic in Iraq, there would remain some violence after the partitioning of Iraq. But terror organizations eventually will be a thing of the past since the Sunni land will be squeezed between Kurds and Shiites, cutting off Sunni insurgents from their suppliers, thus lessening their ability to reach the outside world for ammunitions and material support. When talking about the division of Iraq, or in particular about Kurdish statehood, Iraq’s neighbors put up resounding objections, as if it’s their right to predestine the Iraqi people’s future, and plan for their political and social arrangements. Those opposed to partitioning Iraq are Syria and Iran, both of whom are US enemies. The other foe is Turkey which has proven itself to be an unreliable friend to the US and a liability. America should not sell out or ignore its best friend in the region, the Kurds, to appease its enemies or an unworthy friend. Should Mr. Baker’s panel be thorough, one of the alternatives to current US-Iraq strategy they come up with will have to be the partitioning of Iraq into three countries. When that presents itself as a solution, President Bush should act upon it promptly. If he does, the legacy of failure in Iraq policy will be transfigured into undisputed success, one of Bush’s triumphant, estimable legacies that will duly inspire the Iraqi people, in particular the Kurds. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #25 lol.... at last it's all fresh.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-27 22:47 |
| #24 "Pepsi, cheeps, cheesboogy." I always wondered if Belushi / SNL used their "menu" as inspiration, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 22:45 |
| #23 did ya ever notice, they have the simplest menu in history (except for the secret stuff) and it takes FOREVER to do a drive-thru? "I'd like two tacos" "we don't have tacos" "OK then, two onion rings...." |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-27 22:41 |
| #22 Heh - you've got kids with drivers licenses - that's what they're for, lol. I told my daughter that, after she got hers, that the price was payback for all the taxi services I had rendered for 16 years. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 22:15 |
| #21 you had an In-N-Out and didn't bring some for us? BASTARD. Next time - I like my double-double animal style TYVM. I also like my fries extra crispy |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-10-27 22:09 |
| #20 Lol - I had just walked in when I saw your response - and had a rapidly-cooling In-N-Out Double-Double that needed my attention. :-) While wolfing it down I've been trying to remember about how long ago it was - and I would say 3-4 months ago that there was a small flurry of articles on Kurdistan. At least one story coincided with their TV campaign where they say, "Thank you, America!" - as I recall posting a link to the Kurdish website that carries copies of the ads. Yeah, about 3-4 months, probably. I hope this helps. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 21:50 |
| #19 Nobody said massive - don't pad the position. The links are here on the Burg, somewhere. I don't have them handy, sorry. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 21:35 |
| #18 -- .com: Would very much like to see links to back up an massive Arab migration to Kurdish Iraq. Everything I can remember reading the last few months indicates Muslim Arabs are not easily allowed into the Kurdish areas. This Michael Totten article is a month or two old: the Iraqi army has been infiltrated by Ba’athists and isn’t allowed anywhere inside the [Kurdish] autonomous zone. ... I learned that when Omar and Mohammad Fadhil, the bloggers behind Iraq the Model, drove up to Kurdistan from Baghdad to meet me at my hotel. They never made it. The Peshmerga told them Arabs were not allowed to enter the region without a Kurdish escort [Perhaps they didn't bribe the right people]..., the Kurdistan Regional Government actually provides money and housing for Arab Christians who want to pick up and resettle in the north...Arab Muslims aren’t barred from the region. They can visit as tourists, and they can buy new homes there. But they must have connections if they want to settle in Kurdistan, and they must prove they aren’t a security threat before they can even show up. A recent NY Times article did say this: The influx of Arabs has made many Kurds nervous, and regional leaders are debating whether to corral the Arabs into separate housing estates or camps....Arabs moving to Kurdistan are required to register with security agencies, which track how many arrive and where they live. The chief security officer for Sulaimaniya, the largest city in eastern Kurdistan, said about 1,000 Arab families had moved into this area, and that thousands more families had settled in other parts of the Kurdish north...“We know the parents of families who come here are Baathists, but they’re allowed to live in Sulaimaniya if they have a Kurdish sponsor,”[a principal at an Arabic primary school was quoted] |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-27 21:06 |
| #17 The restrictions the Kurds may place upon Arabs trying to enter will, and I'm sure have, change as circumstances change - so "restricted" may, indeed, be true - but the flow of Arabs into Kurdistan is occurring. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 20:31 |
| #16 And phil_b was telling you that it's not true, and I confirm his view is correct and yours is not. We have had several news stories posted here detailing precisely the Arab -> Kurdistan flow. Arabs fleeing the violence. It was remarked upon in the Iraq the Model blog, as well. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 20:30 |
| #15 I was attempting to say that non-Kurds are restricted from moving into Kurdish Iraq, rather than the other way around. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-27 20:25 |
| #14 Word. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-27 17:38 |
| #13 AH9418, you are working from a number of false assumptions. There is in fact large scale Arab immigration into the Kurdish region. The previous article (at the link) by the same writer highlights the problems this is causing. Kurdish parties govern in the provinces containing the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, having won an absolute majority in the former province and being easily the largest party in the second. I believe the US is constructing a large base in Kurdistan. And as for Kurds not being allowed to travel outside of Kurdistan. First I've heard of it and I follow the news about the region closer than most. The reality is Arabs are floooding north into Kurdistan because it is stable properous and there are ample employment opportunities. Sound familiar? |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-27 17:13 |
| #12 Ssshhh. LOL |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-27 15:14 |
| #11 "One option I haven't read anything about is for the US to build major bases in the Kurdish part," Google-earth is your friend. Look for large secured areas with long runways. But be sure the imagery is no more than 18 months old. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-10-27 15:10 |
| #10 "the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands" Right, tell me another. The only safety for the Kurds in the north is to deport Saddam's followers, indeed all terrorist-loving Sunnis and Shiites, out of their part of the country in any manner. There is nothing "graceful" about conditions in Iraq, although the Kurdish part comes closer than the rest of the country does. From what I have read about Kurdish Iraq, its borders are policed strictly to keep out non-Kurds. Iraqis in general are not free to travel to the Kurdish part, the contrary assertion in this article approaches a lie. There has been very little violence in this region, very few US forces need to be there. AFAIK Kirkuk and Mosul are not governed by the Kurds at the moment, and expelling the Arabs implanted there by Saddam would be a bloody affair. One option I haven't read anything about is for the US to build major bases in the Kurdish part, as a fall-back option in case the country does fragment. If things really go to hell in Anbar and southern Shiite Iraq, the US can pull back to the old "northern fly zone", thereby preserving its presence in Iraq, serving as a massive deterrent to nonsense in the rest of region, certainly Turkey and Iran wouldn't do much about an "independent Kurdistan" if 100,000 US troops were there to maintain law'n order. I don't think the Iraqi Kurds would object to this, in fact it may be the best way to ensure their prosperity, even their survival. The oil-rich area around Kirkuk could be "assimilated" one way or the other back under Kurdish rule. So many assumptions in this article vary with what is known to be the case in Iraq, it's virtually useless. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-10-27 12:40 |
| #9 Plan B. Reconstitute the Ottoman Empire (minus Israel) by conquering the relevant countries. Then put the Kurds in command (with US air support). If Iraq fails it will show the whole region is truly hopeless and only the Kurds have shown they have any sense at all. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-10-27 11:21 |
| #8 I used to be agaisnt this. But if we setp in and guarantee the Kurds independnace, and still have a say in the sotuerhn partititon (to prevent Iranian takeover), then I say let the Sunnis in Baghdad rot. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-10-27 10:28 |
| #7 I think it could split up at some point-with our hands in it our not-but our partitioning it could give way to countless battles over "this acre belongs to us, no it belongs to us", with no arbiter respected by all sides to decide the issues. 1001 Golan Heights. |
| Posted by: Jules 2006-10-27 10:24 |
| #6 We do, however, have a long-term stake in the matter. Depending on how partition was approached, it could trigger a region-wide war with Turkey, Syria and Iran fighting to keep the Kurds from seceeding to join a larger Kurdistan. Syria killed 25,000 Kurds a while back over just such an issue IIRC. Insofar as we have a stake in the region, we care about how this shakes out. But we can't force a model on them - we can only influence, maybe. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-27 09:53 |
| #5 Proco, The problem with the first go was the way they did it, and the reasoning. The arbirary splits across anything remotely resembilng tribal boundries was the primary goof. That's why you got Kurds spread across multiple states etc. I don't think we should touch this one with a 10 foot pole personally. If the Iraqis want to split let them do it on their own. The problem with approaches of this sort is they are all based on the omniscient, omnipotent US model. They don't allow or account for any initiative on the part of anyone else. Others can only manage a short term reaction to something the US did, talked about, thought or dreamt. That's why the "we should do this, we should do that" is such a crock. "WE" don't control others resonses or their initiatives. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-10-27 09:49 |
| #4 It has Kurdmedia flavor. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-27 08:45 |
| #3 As the partitioning of Africa in the 19th Century and of the Middle East after WWI worked so well too, let's try again. Why does this have that 'UN' flavor to it? Keep repeating the same mistake over and over again hoping that it will work this time? |
| Posted by: Procopious2K 2006-10-27 08:38 |
| #2 Not just Iran, Syria and Saudia Arabia, probably Pakistan as well. Then of course there is Turkey. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-27 04:36 |
| #1 Another positive aspect of partitioning may be showing Iran what is in store for them, provided that operation "Green Glass" won't be the final step of "negotiations". |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-10-27 03:03 |