Partition of Iraq - the worst alternative, except for all the others?

Great Debates
41

I don’t believe we have any such decisions to make. Its like arguing whether to instruct a hurricane to come ashore in Florida, or insist that it alter its path. “Iraq” currently does not exist in any meaningful way, there is nothing to partition. The Republic of Greenzonia is an atoll of order in a vast sea of chaos, and that only because the insurgency is divided. “Mere anarchy is loosed” in the words of the poet.

We can decide whatever we like, we can make Ahmed Chalabi King of Iraq, and he might even accept, so long as he doesn’t actually have to go to Baghdad. We can bug out and endure the inevitable humiliation now rather than later, or we can squandor more blood and treasure in the vain hope that suddenly it will begin to rain ponies.

Of course, the next six months will be crucial…

42

You might like this post in another thread which quotes an columnist making the same point.

43

That was actually why I originally thought partition might be the least worst alternative: that self-organization had a somewhat better chance to prevail in each of three sub-nonstates with (mostly) religious and ethnic unity than in one big nonstate where the ethnic and sectarian divisions were already the basis for most of the killing and forced relocation.

I’m wondering if I wasn’t right after all. Would that there would be enough organization in each of the three substates for there to be your standard second-gen war over the boundaries.

44

As the old question goes.

Which is the biggest Sunni city in Iraq?
Shia?
Kurd?

Baghdad.

45

Baghdad’s always been the problem with a partition, and it’s why partition only makes sense as a last-ditch alternative to the total breakdown of order.

So you say that Baghdad west of the Tigris is all Sunni, Baghdad east of the Tigris is all Shia, and the Kurds in Baghdad all move to the housing freed up by the Kurds forcing the Sunnis out of Kirkuk. No, it’s not pretty - in fact, it sucks. But as it is, Sunnis are killing Shi’ites in areas that they can control, and vice versa. I’m not claiming a partition would result in anything we would consider good; I’m hoping for a little less hellish.

46

If one assumes that we have the right to dictate the future of Iraq, then I’d vote for putting a benevolent strongman at the head of a quasi-democratic governement rather than partitioning the country. Someone like a Musharif or King Abdullah II. That way, order could be restored and maybe (and I emphasize maybe) a road to true democracy could be mapped out for sometime the future.

47

The real question is what is going to happen. In a thread from long ago I predicted that Iraq will end up a seperate regions. A united Iraq was an arrtifice that only was possible by the strongman tactics of a dictator. There is no unifying Iraqi culture, no shared heritage, no past sense of national pride. There are various tribal groups who had tolerated each other because they had to. Without the strongman Iraq is just those groups vieing for power. Partioning will occur no matter how much we try to prevent it. The inevitable result of this fiasco will be a fragmented Iraq. The question is whether or not we assist in helping it get to a point where the fragmented entity can function as a loose confederation with fair distribution of the fruits of its resources, or if it happens in an unplanned freefall manner that give Iran the lion’s share of power after an increasingly genocidal civil war.

48

We already have dictated the future of Iraq, right or no. It’s spinning into chaos, with nobody strong enough to rule, and smaller and smaller armed groups violently struggling over smaller and smaller pieces of what once was a state.

Our non-rights clash in many ways. We don’t have the right to dictate anything; we don’t have the right to stay; we don’t have the right to abandon them.

The fact is that ordinary Iraqis have no way of choosing their own future at this point. Their purple fingers have done no more than to create the government of Greenzonia, which is propped up only by our money and our military. We can’t rescue them; they can’t rescue themselves.

All we can do is ask ourselves what we can do before we leave that has the best chance of resulting in the least carnage in the next few years after we leave - then do it, and leave.

And I’d vote for the Invisible Pink Unicorn riding in to save the day.

C’mon, John, what army is going to support your strongman, benevolent or no, even if you could find one? Because, you know, a strongman isn’t a strongman without an army behind him.

Frankly, at this point, Iraq will be lucky if that thug al-Sadr can control a good chunk of the land. He’s at least got a decent militia.

By the army of flying monkeys that will obey their every command.

Why do you say ‘maybe’ to the easiest step in your plan? Ponies for everybody, by gum!

49

A benevolent strongman sounds nice. Where do we find a ruthless, ironfisted despot with a heart of gold? And any such strongman would need a base of popular support, most likely candidate being the Shia majority. A Shia strong man acceptable to that segment of the population is most likely to be sympathetic to theocratic rule, if not an actual embodiment of it.

If we partition Iraq and are willing to suffer the ghastly consequences (not as bad as the India-Pakistan partition, but pretty darned bad…) there still remains the question of aftermath. Lets say we manage to negotiate a fair distribution of natural resources to all interested parties. Such a scheme depends entirely on the mutual good will of the participants, absent a guaranteeing military body (which damned sure ain’t gonna be us!). If that mutual good will is lacking, the scheme will dissolve the instant the last American troop ship disembarks, if not sooner.

And how do we ensure the Sunni’s survival and capacity to defend their interests? Do we train a Sunni militia and arm them such that they can be expected to defeat an attack by a Shia force several times their size? A Shia force armed by their co-religionists and fired by religious zeal (the only force in history more bloody than rage or greed)? I very much doubt that our officers and troops would look kindly on arming and training men who were trying to kill them yesterday, and may try again tomorrow. As well, the sovereign government of Iraq (Shia dominated) is not *about * to permit such a thing.

It may be that the least bloody alternative would be to throw our support behind the Malaki government entirely, to cooperate with the al Sadr type militias in order to crush all Sunni resistance before it has time to coordinate itself. We are about half way there already, we kill the Sunni insurgent and we scold the Shia insurgent.

If we are to seriously examine our prospects for disengagement we must accept an obvious fact: there are no good solutions. None. And even if we pick the best of a bad lot, the chaos of the situation means even that is likely to fall apart from the pressure of circumstances.

Five years from now, Iraq will most likely be a Shia theocracy. A bit milder than Iran’s, with any luck, given Iraq’s many years of secular rule, but far from a western style democracy with warm relations with the US. What becomes of the Sunni minority in this situation is anybody’s guess. We can hope that the resulting government of Iraq would be more benign towards them than the previous regime was toward the Shia. History offers little encouragement for that hope.

So: want out? Hand up the Sunni. Pick the Shia side, ignore the Shia militia and make every military move to accord with establishing an Shia theocracy. Which will likely prove to be, in the long run, hostile to our interests. If the Sunni dominated states in the region decide to come to the aid of their co-religionists, I reckon that’s their beezwax, we’re outa here.

Bloody, shameful and humiliating? Yes. Inevitable? Likely.

50

As others have noted, Iraq is a sovereign nation. There is a governmen that we’d have to overthrow and overturn the constitution if we wanted to either partition or set up a strongman. I’m just saying that if you’re willing to do that, there are other options rather than partition, and one that I think is better.

The same army that would support your partition. Do you think partition is going to happen peacefully? You declare martial law, suspend the necessary parts of the constitution, and pick the best guy around to run things, hoping it will be temporary.

It’s easier to find one “benevolent strongman” than three. What makes you think the partitioned states would be any more peaceful or stable than the whole country-- and receptive to democracy?

Seriouslyl, I’m convinced that a country like Iraq can

51

…Seriously, I’m convinced that a country like Iraq can not just be switched over to Democracy. One has to make it stable first, get the economy going, and then ease into Democracy. Taiwan and South Korea might be good models.

52

And your plan to do that would be … ?

53

One other thing… One key advantage to my plan is that it would have the support of every one of Iraq’s neighbors. Partition would have the support of none.

As for the “benevolent strongman”, well you make the transition with the strongman you have, not the strongman you wish you had. IOW, you do the best you can with what you have. Most people in Iraq want order, and care less about the niceties of what Westerners take for granted in our government. But we’d think the same as they do if our country was in as bad a shape.

54

So who do you have in mind for the job?

55

I certainly don’t. Sorry, thought I made that clear.

56

It’s getting a bit irritating to hear the suggestion of partition dismissed because it’s imperfect. Of course it is. Nobody has claimed otherwise, despite the occasional strawman claim from the likes of Mr. Mace.

It isn’t a hypothetical, either - it’s already well under way, and following the examples of Bosnia and, to a lesser degree, India/Pakistan.

No, the borders aren’t clear now. But they’re getting clearer, with widespread internal migration (aka refugees fleeing ahead of time) into safer areas. The Sunni Arabs are leaving Kurdistan and the Shiite areas, even inside Baghdad, and vice versa, all in search of safety among their brethren. The borders are forming. And they won’t depend on any outside help in drawing them - the internal borders in Bosnia were defined as a fait accompli, only after the same internal migration, after a possibly-more-intense ethnic cleansing campaign than is underway in Iraq. Even drawing enforceable borders ahead of time isn’t a panacea - there were millions killed in the 2-way internal migration that ensued in the separation of India from Pakistan.

Yes, there will be bloodshed involved - but any more than now? Dozens, hundreds sometimes, of Iraqis killed every day in the current violence. The violence isn’t random, either, it’s part of establishing and enforcing the nascent governments of the 3 new countries. There are “strongmen” already taking power over each patch of the quilt - they may form a loose, on-paper-only confederation of local thugs like Afghanistan, or maybe the best leaders will be able to eventually gain control over their entire regions, like so many other postcolonial countries. “What army would enforce partition?” is fatuously asked - why, their *own * armies, the ones doing the guerrilla fighting already.

We could still help. We could offer “neutral” line-drawing services, as the UK did for India/Pakistan, and could help police the inevitable resulting “sorting” of the population that hasn’t already occurred. We might even get some blue-helmet help there. But that’s about all we can still do, and our credibility to do it is fading.
The objection that goes “But it wouldn’t but Iraq on the path to being a peaceful, stable, unified democracy!” is just too bizarrely unrelated to reality to respond to.

57

Gosh, it’s almost like you’re saying a Happy Iraqi Democracy ain’t gonna happen.

How dense must I be to have not figured that out by post 55 or so? I must have my head so far up my ass that I can only avoid bumping into things thanks to the miracle of CCTV!

-Joe

58

You can, of course, show where I’ve dismissed it because it wasn’t perfect. Right?

59

Didn’t mean anything personal by it, Merijeek. Just sayin’, is all.

60

John, every timeyou’ve asserted your desire for a “benevolent strongman” instead is a dismissal of something reality-based. Nor is that the only kind of strawman claim you’ve made here, as you know, and is the subject of the statement I made, as you also know. “Do you think partition is going to happen peacefully?”, for instance.

Do you have something more than pouting to contribute to the discussion?