Exactly, Shias do not share a homeland, just as Sunnis don’t, nor Catholics.:smack:
Okay last post for this thread, but no country is the homeland of the Shia. There are 1 billion Muslims, they do not have a homeland. Saudi Arabia is home to Mecca, but then no Muslim views Saudi Arabia as their homeland.
Because it looks too much like “Shitstain”.
Until ISIS I am not sure that many Shia leaders really had the idea that the splits would get this severe. Actually, I’m not even sure how much they see it now. I think the game plan for the Shia-dominated Iraqi government is - kick out ISIS, get back a share of Kurdish oil revenues, and pacify the Sunni areas. I don’t know if they see it as unworkable yet. If they do, they certainly won’t admit to it publicly.
Ah yes, the great metaphysical questions of:
“My wife wants me to masturbate in front of her. Is that OK?” (She must help)
“Can a man kiss another man?” (Only if there is no lust involved)
“Can I go to the gym where there are ladies, even if I’m in Denmark?” (No)
“What is the rule on intentionally infecting others with the AIDS virus?” (Not Allowed)
Despite what it looks like, I am not mentioning these things just to poke fun (I also disagree with intentionally infecting people with AIDS, and being in Denmark is no excuse for anything), but to observe that Muslim leaders feel a duty to give guidance to followers, and if Sistani wanted to promote a Shia state of any kind, he probably would.
I am not sure why anyone would think to call for such a thing.
The leaders of ISIS are claiming to want an Islamic state, not a Sunni state. (They seem to be intent on simply eradicating the Shi’a, not forming a country next to them.)
In general, all the Sunni dominated states have been condemning ISIS, indicating that there is no great desire for either a Sunni or an Islamic super-country.
Basically, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (aka Al-Khalifah Ibrahim) appears to be looking to emulate Mussolini and Hitler in using the cult of personality to make himself powerful. No one outside his followers has been impressed by his efforts, so there is no perceived need to create a counter movement based on religious beliefs.
The region is still very much tribal. While the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq share a number of tribal ties, the Shi’a of Iraq and Iran share far fewer, providing less encouragement that they establish a common state.
Iran has enough problems with the West and with its neighbors so that openly encouraging a Shi’a state crossing the Iran/Iraq border would almost certainly be perceived as a power grab, leading to an even greater threat that it would soon face military opposition beyond the current economic sanctions.
You completely misunderstood my OP. The idea wasn’t for all of Iraq to be called “Shiastan,” or the “Islamic Republic Of Iraq.” The idea was for the Shia parts of Iraq to declare independence from the Sunni and the Kurdish parts. (What such a state would call itself is a separate question, of minor importance.)
I think you’re right. But I wonder: If the day ever comes when the Shi’ites do realise that that game plan is unworkable, will we be hearing calls for independence?
Very true. I suppose the good Ayatollah has his reasons to be against a Shia state, or the partitioning of Iraq generally. I’m just surprised the idea doesn’t seem to be flouted at all - since people, even Shi’a clerics, have been disagreeing with Sistani on other points?
By the way, I, too, loved his Question & Answers thing! Specially the bit about how cat hair on one’s clothing doesn’t invalidate prayer; oh and that while practically all forms of dancing is forbidden, a woman dancing for her husband in a private setting (yowza!) is A-OK, of course provided that the soundtrack is not haraam. 
Not even the Shi’ites of Iraq? In this scenario, they would be the ones calling for it - or at the very least, a minority amongst them.
Good point. But I imagine that Iran would actually be against it, no matter what. They probably want their Shi’ite neighbours in Iraq to subjugate the country’s Sunnis, and keep the Shi’a Crescent intact, or as intact as it can be. Assuming that’s correct, we have both Sistani and Iran dead set against the idea - making it a no go, even if the idea ever popped up.
Good points. Iirc Shia Iraqis are primarily ethnically Arab and Arabic speaking. Iran does happen to be primarily Shia, but it is culturally Indo-European and Farsi-speaking. It might be similar to a hypothetical union of Quebec and Guatemala. Both predominantly Catholic (at least culturally?) Check. Is it going to work? Probably not that well. They don’t share a language and are pretty distant culturally.
And plenty of countries do get along with multiple ethnic groups, languages, and religions. Switzerland is a really good example of a very diverse country that seems to stay together pretty well without a lot of internal strife/civil war. Or imagine a balkanized US broken apart on ethnic or religious lines - it would destroy the economy! Before we can go on that road trip from Memphis to Boston, we have to apply for transit visas from the Snake-Handling Republic of South West Virginia, the Lutheran Republic of Pennsylvania-Dutchistan, the Jewish Republic of the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Kiryas Joel, and various other enclaves here and there. Oopsies, the Catholic Republic of the Boston Harbor area denied us entry on some vague “National Security” concern, so we have to drive all the way around via the Episcopalian Republic of Plymouth Bay.
The OP isn’t about Iraq’s Shi’as joining Iran. That idea didn’t pop up until post #6.
The OP is about Iraq’s Shi’as starting their own country.
Why would the Shi’a regions declare independence from Iraq when they are the majority in Iraq and control the government of Iraq? This is like asking why don’t 44 of the 50 states declare independence and form a new country excluding Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, and South Carolina.
If the Sunni areas and Kurdish areas break away from Iraq and form autonomous regions that the main government of Iraq is powerless to oppose, then this is the de facto result–a rump Iraq shorn of Kurdish and Sunni areas. Except that won’t be the end of it, since the borders between Shia dominated and Sunni dominated areas are not distinct, instead you have towns and regions where they mix. And so you’ll have to have bouts of ethnic cleansing and conquest to determine exactly where the borders will be. What side will hundreds of border villages and cities be on? Which side will control Baghdad? Which side will control the oil fields? If there’s an oil field with villages of the wrong sect over top of it, do you expect either side to wish the other well, and peacefully hand over the oil fields to their enemies, just because those villages are of the different sect?
Partition always seems like a clean and simple answer, and it is–as long as you factor in the massacres and ethnic cleansing and border wars that will create two single ethnic regions out of a single mixed region. And still you will have people on the “wrong” side of the border, who are now second class citizens in the new countries. And when those on the wrong side are abused by the new governments, what is the response across the border? A new war?
I agree to the notion that a smaller, homogenous and sect based country would be more eligible for a stable country and would be much easier to rule rather than a larger and heterogenous country but according to the principles of Realpolitik, no country in the World daren’t give a piece of his land to “enemies”, in which in this case are the Sunnis.
Absolutely. But Iraq is not one of those countries.
True. One might, of course, grimly argue that the “necessary” ethnic cleansing is already well underway - or even completed. Baghdad, for example, was already more or less “cleansed” of Sunnis, ca. 2006-2008, by al-Amiri’s Badr Brigades and Sadr’s Mahdi Army. I imagine that sort of thing will continue no matter what.
But yes, you make some very good points about the violence partitioning would almost certainly bring. Of course, at this point, both dividing and uniting the country would require, and lead to, lots and lots of violence. Either way, there will be blood. I can not say, for sure, that dividing the country would be any less bloody than uniting it. I’m just a little surprised that so far, only the Kurds seem to be up for giving it a shot.
So are you envisioning something like the USSR breakup, where the Russian SFSR decided they didn’t want to deal with the other republics anymore, even though they were the largest group?
Unfortunately I think Shia dominated Iraq will only accept the independence of Kurdistan grudgingly best 
As for the Sunni areas (and what were the Christian and Yazidi villages in the North), I can’t envision a situation where Shia leaders agree to cast them off without a much bloodier conflict than now. I think partition would play out closer to the Ethiopia/Eritrea situation, although I only have superficial knowledge of that conflict.
Iraqis outside of the directly affected areas have reacted slowly to the ISIS threat. The leadership is even more isolated. I think more time needs to pass to see how they deal with it, and who knows, maybe a pro-partition faction among the Shia will emerge.
Haha, I almost quoted the cat hair one. Cats have a very interesting history in Islam. Legend has it that on Noah’s Ark, the animals were complaining about mice (I guess some extras snuck on board) and so God made a lion sneeze, and a cat(s) came out. Cats are renowned for their cleanliness and Muhammad and other early figures of Islam liked them and forbade killing them. In fact, the most prolific source of Sunni hadith is known by his nickname Abu Hurairah, which means “of the kitten.” Guy was kind of a dink, but he loved cats.
Also, Iran also has their own Kurds to worry about. I don’t think they like the idea of an independent Kurdistan popping out of the ruins of Iraq.
If only Sunni and Shia could reconcile, they could do a big comeback concert and make millions.
My point was that having more than one ethnicity, language, or faith in a country is not a guarantee of trouble because there are counterexamples of diverse countries that are not falling apart like Iraq. There must be other factors in play that are making Iraq a basket case that aren’t present, or a present to a much lesser degree, in other similarly diverse countries. Why is there no significant Catholic insurgency in Germany or Hasidic Jewish insurgency in New York? Why can they get along with others pretty well without pulling guns while many Iraqis seem to want nothing better than to kill all of those durned <people who are not like me>?
I think everybody already agrees that “having more than one ethnicity, language, or faith in a country is not a guarantee of trouble.” I don’t think anybody’s disputing that.
This is essentially what Iraq is at the moment.
And it is what Switzerland, Canada, Belgium, and Finland essentially are, and they are not stinking shitholes of violence. Northern Ireland is a similarly diverse and formerly shitholish country that has largely got its act together and reduced the mass violence to a few minor incidents now and then which can be handled as ordinary violent crime incidents that one or two SWAT teams can deal with. Cyprus is still dealing with the social and political ramifications of an ethnic, linguistic, and religious divide, but both sides agreed to stop the slaughter and they seem to be doing well.
So what the hell is wrong with Iraq? Why can’t they draw up a Cyprus-style Green Line, start to get their respective divisions back up and functioning, and pass the responsibility of a final agreement to a generation that won’t have been genocided?
Who says they can’t?
On the other hand, why are you asking why Iraq cannot achieve in five years what the much smaller Cyprus with fewer internal factions did not achieve in eleven years and then only after the rather permanent arrival of the Turkish military?
It’s less developed than those countries. Plenty of European countries that contained disparate ethnic and religious groups fought pretty regularly and were what we’d call “shit holes” in relatively recent history (say in the past 500 years.) Iraq and most of the near east have been sprinkled with some modern technology but little of the education and overall cultural and societal development that accompanied it in the West.
There’s an article out from a “journalist” who was captured by the Al-Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda in Syria) and held for a long time, only recently released. He got to speak at length with his captors both the higher level guys and the lower level guards and soldiers (many of whom didn’t last long as their lives were thrown away in fruitless battles against Assad and Islamic State.) The biggest thing I got from the article is anytime he would get these guys to actually question the logic of what they were doing (for example fighting brutally with Islamic State despite sharing an identical ideology) or how what they’re doing even violates their own version of Islamic belief is these guys really just don’t have an intelligent, developed ethos. They’re the equivalent of the “America Fuck Yeah” type guys here, except in a much less developed world where people like that can go sign up and are given guns and get to pillage, loot, and plunder.
Educated and intelligent people with reasonable career opportunities by and large don’t do stuff like this. A select few may, but the actual grunts who do almost all the fighting and dying are ignorant, poor, and with few options. They appear primarily motivated by money (Islamic State’s recruitment got stronger when it had enough oil that it could pay its fighters more than groups like the Free Syrian Army and Al-Nusra Front) more than anything else.
In Iraq Shi’ites and Sunni have simply never bought into the concept of a secular government where multiple religious factions can coexist peacefully. The Shi’ites have mostly used their power in a democratic government (due to being the majority) to oppress the Sunni minority. When the equivalent of a barbarian horde invaded the Sunni area, giving people the option to be put to the sword or join up, the Shi’ite military withdrew because they simply don’t give a fuck about the Sunni areas. Due to their stupidity they don’t realize the oil fields they covet will be very difficult to hold if you let the local population get impressed into a barbarian horde, but that’s typical of the short-sighted thinking throughout governments everywhere (not just the near East.)
I’ve just read that article. I liked the bit where he got to talk with soldiers from one of the groups the USA was arming to fight the group that held him and they said ‘well, yea, we lied to the Americans’.
My take out from the whole thing was that there aren’t any good guys. They are all lunatic fanatics with extremely fluid and biddable loyalties and you can’t push a playing card between ISIS and any of the rest of them in terms of craziness and west hating. It’s insanity to believe that arming one faction to fight another isn’t doing anything more than arming our enemies and that includes the so-called Free Syrian Army.
The enemy of my enemy is a once and future enemy in this mess.