An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Iraq and the Middle East: Pardon Me, But Your Partition is Showing
Like a bad penny that keeps turning up, partitioning Iraq into three ethnic mini-states in order to save it is back in the news.
The latest slugfest over this truly lousy idea has been aired out this week at TMV, and I review that in a lengthy post at Kiko’s House. But I also add some pertinent background – as in the fact Iraq’s borders today are a result of an insidious secret deal between the British and French – and review a fascinating flight of fancy by Ralph Peters in which he takes ethnic and sectarian partitioning to its logical end for the entire Middle East.
Fasten your seat belts and click here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Iraq and the Middle East: Pardon Me, But Your Partition is Showing”
I get that Iraq isn’t like Bosnia. What I don’t get is why that means partitioning wouldn’t work. Obviously I’m no expert on the region, but I am curious. It seems like the Kurds would be A-ok with having an independent state of their own, though I can see why Turkey would take issue with that. And the Sunnis and Shias are pretty bent on killing each other – so why not separate them? It wouldn’t be easy or instantaneous, but what we’re doing now isn’t working. Maybe it’s time to try something new.
I agree the Peters thing is more whimsical than explanatory.
From what I’ve taken from the no-partition arguments are the following:
It was attempted in the 1920′s and didn’t work out then.
Arguably, regionalism plays a stronger hand than sectarianism at times
Arguably there are more than 3 real sects to deal with
The clerics want only one big Iraq
Lastly, anything Biden aligns with must be a lot of hooey anyway
Shaun,
Thanks for graciously allowing my post an entire two minutes at the coveted top of the page before posting your own.
Interesting article though. Where did you find the maps? I went to the Armed Forces Journal link abovfe and could not find them.
I say let them “partition” themselves. While they fight eachother for control of tiny pieces of land for the next 100 years they can’t be much of a bother for us.
Especially when the oil runs out in about 20 years.
So the argument against partition is that it would have to be carried to its logical conclusion everywhere in the ME? That seems to be an extraordinarily weak argument.
Shaun,
Perhaps you could explain why partition is a truly lousy idea? What alternative is preferable?
Pyst, the country is already partly partitioned as you suggest. Non Kurdish Iraqis can only go through Kurdish areas with permission and a Kurdish escort, and they certainly are not allowed to move in. Thousands upon thousands have fled mixed neighborhoods and moved into places where they can live among their own, more would move if they could do so safely. Anbar now has it’s own tribal paramilitary forces, other areas are developing the same forces. As soon as we leave these forces will be used against any outsiders attempting to assert authority. Allow people to freely leave their homes and travel to where they feel safe draw up the borders, and we are done.
Entropy, Shaun just criticizes “Bushitler”and company, you won’t get a thoughtful, constructive, solution from him.
Entropy:
Here it is in 50 words or less:
Partition solves nothing. Partition turns the “mutual interest” aspect of reconciliation on its ear. Partition creates another crisis insofar as there would have to be massive population resettlement. With the exception of the Kurds, partition creates borders as artificial as the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
I with grog on this, let em move where they need to go, then get the —- out.