While I don’t THINK Turkey would launch a pre-emptive war if partitioning went through (they still want to get into the EU after all), they would be none too happy about it.
All this still assumes that the majority of Iraqi’s WANT partitioning though. Does anyone have any cites that this is the case? Or, if its not the Iraqi’s who want partitioning, can anyone explain who would be the driving power in partitioning Iraq…and what they hoped to achieve in the end?
-XT
It’s a two-sided problem. Can Turkey be persuaded from taking pre-emptive measures in Kurdistan? Quite possibly. Will the thousands of Kurdish ‘freedom fighters’, who believe a part of Turkey belongs to Kurdistan and who have engaged in guerilla warfare with the Turkish military for decades, continue with their attacks only to see the Turkish government respond with military action in the name of national security followed by an occupation to prevent ‘a breeding ground for terrorists’? That’s a certainty.
But the Kurds want independence - they view the current state of affairs as the phase before independence.
I don’t believe the rest of the Iraqis want a partitioning (based on news reports and cited surveys). The problem is that the secular centre is gone, swept away by highly polarizing clerics who play politics with one hand and distribute guns to their commandos with the other. Iraq is a smoking wreck waiting to explode, and this problem can no longer be solved by stimulating the economy or improving the living conditions of the Iraqi population.
But right now partitioning is at best possible in the case of civil war ending with most of Iraq joined with surrounding Arab nations.
Iran is not an Arab nation. It is, however, controlled by a Shiite theocracy which is manipulating the nascent Shiite theocracy in Iraq. It doesn’t follow that most Iraqi Shiites want a theocracy, but that’s who’s emerging to take control, just as the Bolsheviks were the only organization that could take control of Russia after the Revolution.
That portion of Iraq may not wind up “joined” to Iran, given ethnic differences, but it has a great chance of being to Iran as Lebanon is to Syria. Or, if you like, as Finland was to the USSR.
AFAWK, the Sunni guerrilla forces aren’t being led by the Wahhabis in SA, but are mainly secular/political/ethnic in motivation. That part has a chance of remaining secular - but it doesn’t have oil.
If this was directed at me then your point escaped me. Nobody has mentioned Iran so far, except you? Clarify?
(and a little Finnish history)
Who did you refer to by “most of Iraq joined with surrounding Arab nations”, then? Jordan?
Today Iran is happy, friends are in control in Bagdad and Iraq remains weak. Arab nations, most notably Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Lebanon, are on the other hand increasingly alarmed. It’s the first time in centuries that Shiites hold power in an important Arab nation. They fear this could encourage a Shiite revolt throughout Arabia.
If any of these Arab nations conclude that the threat of a Shiite controlled Iraq is greater than the fallout of civil war, then it’s likely they will take serious steps to destabilize the Shiite government, i.e. Iraq. As Iraq is breaking apart they might eventually make territorial advances. Jordan and Saudi-Arabia are most likely to do so. Iran on the other side will either try to protect the Shiite government, or secure Shiite control of sourthern parts of Iraq. Though it’s not likely Iran will advance into the south unless there’s an outright war or a territorial threat from Kuwait.
There are other problems facing Iraq’s unity. Militias aside, before the end of 2007 the Iraqi factions must reach a decision about the future of Kirkuk. This big, oil-rich city, traditionally home to the Turkomen, with a big population of Sunnis relocated there by Saddam, and with Kurds previously expelled by Saddam coming back and even groups of Shiite militiamen coming to the city, it’s like a mini-mini-Lebanon. The Kurds want the city bad. Whatever happens in 2007, many will not be happy.
There’s also a third dimension in all of this, the possibility of a nuclear showdown between the US and Iran. In that case Iran might want to take the fight to Iraq. Again, not good for the unity of the country.
Despite all of this, I believe in status quo, for now.
Actually, the whole notion of Nationalism is pretty recent. For most of human history ‘our land’ was just the bit you lived on, and your king was just some random person who laid down the law and took lots of taxes. Whether he was the same colour, creed or spoke the same language was pretty irrelevant, and ditto for the neighbours.
The whole notion that your rulers and your countrymen should all be from the same ethnicity or creed and anyone who didn’t fit should be kicked out is one of the more retrograde steps in human society which came about during the 18th and 19th centuries. If you look at the some of the old dynastic states in Europe, they were models of diversity compared to today.
Splitting Iraq into various ‘stans’ is pretty much ridiculous given maybe (and that’s a big maybe) Kurdish independence aspirations, the city of Baghdad would eventually turn into what the ‘green line’ was for the Lebanese, a divided state, a divided peoples (in this case more so) and a very hard time in the future to stamp down the rule of law, rule of central authority and bringing about the various groups into government.
I don’t adhere to the view Iraq should be split up due to the fact that despite all the violence plaguing the country, most of the political factions are in government and are hammering out a process in which all people/s are representative. If they wanted a civil war, or wanted out of the Iraqi state altogether, the processes put in place after the war wouldn’t of made a difference, they still would of seceeded.
Baghdad is not only the symbol of Iraqi statehood, it’s also an area where the majorities of both communities reside, and if eventually split, how would you accomodate these two groups?
The only people who would love Iraq to be permanently divided would be the insurgents and Al Queda affiliates.
I think that’s a price worth paying, the Kurdish majority were forceably kicked out in the 80’s to make room for loyal Arabs (Shia and Sunni alike) to keep the Oil supply in safe hands. It’s only fair the Kurdish regional authority gets it back. This isn’t like a hundreds of year old grudge, this has all happened within the space of 30 years.
If the Kurds can promise the various minorities they won’t be persecuted and will respect their rights, I don’t see how this could be bad for them considering the area they’d be incorporated into would be the safest place in Iraq.
So what realistic alternatives do you see?
Who would agree to send blue helmets to Irak currently, anyway?
Actually, not necessarily. There are multi-ethnic tribes. Actually I don’t even know if it’s the exception or the norm.
Well I see the federal structure with some provisions ,such as retaining a strong non sectarian-ish military and police force, and promotion of seperation of mosque and state. The Army already has some high regard in Baghdad by both factions, so I think the process of training and getting the Iraqi army out and replacing MNF forces in the cities is the best shot we have.
Militias need to be disarmed, with the exception of the Kurds, due to the fact they’ve been a region always willing to seceed from the Iraqi state, giving them a portion of autonomy, keeping their Militia forces within Kurdistan, and the threat from Turkey and Iran will keep them within the Iraqi state.
We have to look at what is making them stay together and what keeps them coming back to the negotiating table to sort out the future of this country. Breaking it up doesn’t solve it. A Federalised structure can still be achieved, but with less provisions to make Iraq look like a Confederation, which the current constitution makes it look like.
Also, no matter how absurd to think about it, a peace and reconciliation conference between the various ethnic groups has to happen, and real bold attempts to bridge the gaps between the divides, this being the only way in which real progress in pulling Iraq from the brink will succeed. Something along the lines which Desmond Tutu did in SA. However, even though the violence has been terrible, still Ayatollah Sistani calls for restraint, as do various Sunni religious leaders.
Sounds good. But I said “realistic”.
Do you think any of that qualifies? Is it achievable? How?
And the Kurds. Especially the Turkish and Iranian Kurds.
No I think they’d settle for Turkish and Iranian seperation. The majority of Kurds live in Eastern Turkey anyway. The Iraqi Kurdish leadership, even though it wants independence, isn’t going to rock the boat with the threat of Turkish and Iranian military action.
That is realistic a well funded Iraqi army and non sectarian police forces will help to hinder the violence in Iraq. There is already the promise of a review of the Constitution which was promised to the Sunni political factions, which would focus on the articles of Federation.
Militias will either be disarmed or incorporated (which is a very bad idea, however this is their idea) into the armed forces. Or they’ll become like what Hezbollah is to Lebanon.
Ayatollah Sistani has called for Militias to disarm, combined with the Iraqi governments statements to disband them, once the Iraqi security forces are sufficient enough to hold territory and arm and train themselves, they will be in a better position to wound them up.
The point is, the Iranian and Turkish Kurds would rejoice at an independent Iraqi Kurdistan – because, for the first time, there would be an independent Kurdish state with which they might hope, in time, to unite.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but I think you’re painting a mighty rosy picture. Who’s going to disarm the militias? They are now run from the Ministries and the political parties elected to office. Independent administrators are threatened to leave or outright killed and replaced by faction faithfuls in city after city. Parts of the police force are militias. Sistani’s warnings are, reportedly, increasingly falling on deaf ears.
The US has ceded administrative and political control to the Iraqis and now Iraq is run by religious groups, by and large. Secular groups are left with little influence. As I see it, it’s either about holding on, hoping for the Iraqis to sort it out and the insurgency to die down, or throw them all out and start over?
Depends on how credible the threat is. Ankara can’t even exert authority over its own Kurdish region - how well can it go into and control another one? As for Iran, are the mullahs going to get diverted from their own goal of controlling a Shiite Iraq with some adventurism that could only stir up their own Kurdish separatist movement? Seems to me that the Iraqi Kurdish leadership hasn’t been deterred from its goal of independence since WW1, and especially since being placed under NATO protection at the end of GW1. They might not take your scenario as inevitable.
As we say around here, “How’s that workin’ out for ya?” After all these years of occupation, the most recent reports are that the Iraqi Army is down to a single semireliable battalion, and that it serves mainly to provide weapons and training to people who then fade back into their ethnic militias.
It seems you have an idiosyncratic definition of “realistic”, then. Who’s going to do that?
The head of the Iranian Shiite theocracy. Gee, I wonder what his goals could possibly be? Whatever could happen once the minority opposition to Iraq’s Shiite theocracy is disarmed? Hmm, thinkthinkthink…
Cite?
Maybe you’ve heard about the Kurdish rebellion in Turkey before now?
Primer.
The level of central-government authority in the area is erratic on its good days.