I’ve heard many times that Jordan, the Saudis, etc. all want the US to keep Iraq whole, and the US has agreed. Why?
I understand that Turkey is antsy about the Kurds. Okay, fine. But what would be so wrong about letting the Shiites down in Basra split from Baghdad? It might make the change to democracy easier. Is this a case of the western-powers-imposing-arbitrary-borders syndrome?
I guess it’s easier to deal with one entity that with three. I think you’ll see some kind of lose confederation emerge. It’s a tricky thing, but perhaps if the various groups have enough autonomy, they won’t feel the need to split off. I’m not overly optimistic for the long term democracy in Iraq. It will be a MAJOR accomplishment if, 10 yrs from now, there isn’t another dictator running things there. Perhaps the best we can hope for is some sort of Mushariff (or however you spell his name).
We’re also probably concerned that an independent Shiite Southern Iraq would ally itself with Iran (a charter member of the Axis of Evil).
If we partition Iraq, we get first dibs on the part with the most petroleum, right?
We get dibs on the whole enchilada, no matter what.
Besides the problem with the Turks and the Kurds, a partition (I assume North, Central and South) leaves you with a fractionalized Iraq facing a united Iran ( the second universal joint on the axis of evil). If there is a partition, let me suggest that we call the northern state Texaco, the center Iran Lite and the southern Exxon.
We should give it all to Kuwait. I think that would be funny.
What happens in post war Iraq should be left up to the citizens of Iraq.
I’m sure they are tired of having people dictate how they will live their lives.
They could call it “the second through nineteenth provinces”.
It’s hard enough to partition a hard disk, never mind a country!
the main problem with partition is that you will end up with endless dispute on who owns the strategic oilfields. For instance the kurds claim with some justification the fields of kirkuk