Isn’t it about now someone mentions the Sudetenland.
Here’s the problem with that scenario: It won’t be the UN doing this, it will be the US, and the US will get tired of it and figure that we need to invade and overthrow the strongman.
It kind of did but you missed key steps, like sending a senior State Dept official - later to become Sec of State - to give the dude chemical weapons so (a) he can use em and (b) you have a handy reason to invade. You also send masses of arms so he can wage conventional war regionally.
Czechoslovakia was not historically a nation; it was formed as a mutual aliance between the Slovaks and Czechs basically to strengthen their claims against opposing empires (Austria-Hungary and Germany, respectively). The Czechs and Slovaks have never really been at violent odds with each other, and the dissolution (so-called “Velvet Revolution”) was largely done along economic and religious lines with Slovaks concerned about being treated as the minority polity and the Czechs concerned about having to economically support the Slovaks.
The breakup of Yugoslavia and partition of British India are examples of violent divisions due to ethnic and religious strife, with all sides taking the opportunity to try to gain strategic and economic advantage. In both cases, there were significant blurring of ethnicities across partition lines; this was the result of deliberabe policy in the case of Yugoslavia where the Tito regime sought to suppress ethnic strife and promote integration, which worked well enough when the Yugoslav single party state could keep unrest under wraps but fell apart once central authority was weakened.
The mess that is Iraq is the result of an attempt to enforce a mandate for a multi-cultural state upon three major ethnic groups (which themselves have internal splinters), largely to ensure continued British influence in the area. Iraq’s position as a crossroads for East-West trade and historically the agricultural core of the Middle East ensured that their was a fair amount of ethnic mixing, but the actual lines of die-hard adherents along which a partition could be drawn is fairly distinct. However, at this point, the various antagonists (which are not distinctly drawn on religious lines) are sufficiently well motived, financed, and entitled enough that no simple partition plan is going to stop the entrenched culture of violent conflict. This is not helped by the fact that, for the most part, there is no peaceable or legal means to resolve conflicts; most of the nation is not under the rule of law, and short of an oppressive military occupation (e.g. like that of the former Ba’ath regime) there will be no relaxation of tensions or significant reduction in violence.
As for the notion that “bloodshed will lead survivors to realize…” it hasn’t happened yet and likely will not happen any time soon. The comparison made by John Mace to the pre-Industrial European wars of religion are not a true parallel (the wars were largely fueled by the desire by various parties for control over the Holy Roman Empire and its successor states) but it they’re close enough to be worthy of comparison, especially when it comes to the contest for trade routes and sea access (in Europe) to petroleum (in the Middle East). If Iraq were not sitting on top of some of the largest remaining oil reserves, no one would be shoving enough money, weapons, and support for the groups to sustain the kind of warfare that we currently see.
The real way to reduce violence in Iraq and around the Middle East? Develop energy sources that are independent of petroleum (especailly transportation energy, which is the most dependent and for which a good comprehensive substitute does not currently exist) and stop pumping money and support which empowers small but violently fundamentalist minorities from promoting and funding violence. Promote literacy, develop sustainable infrastructure, and advance industrialization and self-sufficiency. Of course, these are not easy answers like “divide the country along ethnic lines” or “send in the Marines and let them sort it out” but they’re ultimately more likely to result in stability for the region.
Stranger
The events on the ground are less important than how the various powers react.
Iran is a big supporter of the Shia government in Iraq, which is allowing arms and troops to flow into Syria to support the Syrian government, and rather anti-Kurd. Saudi Arabia is not happy about Iran’s influence in countries to the north and is (at least) not preventing the funding of the rebels in Syria and Iraq. Turkey is pro-Kurd, anti-Assad, and not happy with Iran. Israel is mortally threatened by Iran and their Hezbollah allies; not sure about their opinions on the Syrian or Iraqi governments, but probably not happen with them, given their Iranian support.
Where does this put the US? Our interests are anti-Sunni insurgents, and also anti-Assad. I’d guess Turkey is the only country whose interests align with ours. Iran could help us against the Sunni insurgents in Iraq, but we don’t want them to continue helping Assad. Israel won’t be happy if we work with Iran. Saudi Arabia is probably chafing against our interests in the region these days, but certainly won’t do anything explicit.
I don’t even want to think about how Russia complicates all this. Or China.
Interesting times, indeed.
How can you reconcile the Sunnis to the majority Shia government now? They seem completely irreconcilable with each other.
Cite that the U.S. supplied Iraq with chemical weapons?
The Wall Street Journal now reports that “U.S.-Iran dialogue” is “expected to begin this week.”
Even Lindsey fuckin’ Graham - of all people! - now supports talks with Iran over the Iraqi situation.
Very, very hard. Perhaps impossible - at least for the next half a century or so.
Joshua Landis has this to say:
I mentioned that in one of the other Iraq threads. If the “West” or NATO wants to make a play here, it should be to support Kurdistan as much as possible. Support their takeover of Kirkuk. Re-establish “no fly zone” if Syria or Iran get pushy on the borders. They can save face by not saying Kurdistan is independent, but treat it that way regardless.
eta: So my answer to the OP, no let’s not worry about keeping Iraq intact.
Saddam didn’t need specific U.S. help to manufacture chemical weapons. This page discusses how Reagan Administration and Rumsfeld helped finance Saddam and “looked the other way” re: his WMD programs.
This newspaper article (from 2002?) claims
This charge from 12 years ago seems amazing. I hope another Doper will research it. I had to fire up Tor browser just to get this fair. (I guess Daily Mail badmouthed the Thai junta and is banned here.)
One thought that occurs to me is the concept of reservations/principalities. People seem to be okay with letting another group of people be self-ruling, so long as they’re “owned” by the main population of the country.
Does anyone know if such an idea has ever been floated?
There was the “Biden plan,” back in 2006.
Here is a good article, putting the idea in context.