During the Iraq war, it seemed to me that the obvious solution to the sectional infighting between the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds in Iraq was to give each its own autonomous region with an agreement to split the oil royalties.
I’ll admit that I’m not a scholar on the relationship between these groups which hate each other, but a unified Iraq is merely a construction of past British colonialism. They have no inherent ties to one another.
If we had split the country in three, and before handing over sovereignty put safeguards in place to ensure that there was a functioning police state to punish any radicals, would that have worked better? Would there be less violence today? Would ISIS have not formed? Why was this idea not seriously considered?
Before you americans invaded Iraq the Arab populations were very mixed between the Sunni and the Shia - there is no single arab tribe in the Iraq that does not have both the Shia and the Sunni in them.
that is nonsense. there are centuries of ties
since you demonstrated very little knowledge of the history or the relations of the communities, or the religion etc. etc. it is hard to think more competence would have occured…
Considered, by whom? If you mean the Americans, well… we were arrogant enough to invade, but not so arrogant as to think we could split the country up. If you mean the Iraqis, well, some of them probably did consider it. And if the US hadn’t interfered, it might have happened due to a Civil War. In fact, the jury is still out on that one!
The problem, of course, is where to draw the lines and what happens if your family ends up on the wrong side of one of the lines. And then, what do you do about the lack of oil in the Sunni Arab dominated areas? Messy. Very messy. Czechoslovakia was an anomaly in being able to split peacefully.
Even Biden, who sort of suggested it, was talking about a loose federation, not an actual split into different countries.
There was also the matter of where the oil fields were and where the various ethnicities were concentrated. IIRC there was more oil in the kurdish areas than sunni and shia were willing to give them.
And yes of course we could have divided them up along ethnic boundaries. We carved up the Ottoman empire and look at how well that turned out.
Ramira would you let it go. They are not interested in your perspective, or making little things, they become experts on the region, by watching the nightly news. **John Mace **for instance.
It was only considered by exiles whom the U.S parachuted onto Iraq. The degree of intermarriage was quite high.
It was the Americans who encouraged sectarianism and ethnic profiling. Part of it was undoubtedly a hangover from a decade of encouraging fissures (an understandable act against an enemy, not a great idea in a country you wish to remake in your image.
That could work as well. Have an Iraqi national government similar to our previous Articles of Confederation. The only powers it has are to ensure that the oil revenues are equally distributed and to keep each faction from invading each other and the like. Otherwise make each region completely autonomous.
IIRC, we were also concerned about the effect on our ally, Turkey, of having an independent Kurdistan. The Kurdish regions in Turkey would love to secede and possibly unite with the Iraqi Kurds. The Iraqi Kurdistan would be able to offer significant support to militant separatists* in Turkey.
*The Kurds have many legitimate grievances with the Turkish government, but the PKK are a terrorist organization. Everything is complicated, the Middle East doubly so.
Thinking of Iraq as being divided into Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds is more than a little simplistic.
The Kurds after all, with exceptions are Sunni Muslims and have far more friction with Sunni Arabs than Shia Arabs. In fact Kurds and Shia Arabs have generally gotten along well.
Anyway, the idea that you could neatly divide up Iraq into an area with three ethnically homogenous areas was always a fantasy.
AK might know better but your information is a little dated. The De Facto Kurdish state and the government of Turkey have actually gotten along and become trading partners since Turkey’s invasion and withdrawal.
The 800lb gorilla in the room is Turkey’s not totally forgotten claim to Mosul.
If Iraq falls, then we will see a three way land grab between the powers in the region, Turkey and Iran.Syria would have been the third, but I hear they have been a little busy.
[QUOTE=Zakalwe]
Not to mention that we wanted to maintain a strong counter-balance to Iran and a unified Iraq was seen as a necessary part of that.
[/QUOTE]
No one has any idea what the United States wanted in Iraq in 2003, and certainly not the United States.
Generally partitioning isn’t looked on so favorably as a first resort. Ghosts of the partition of India. As it turned out, there ended up being a bunch of ethnic cleansing and mass population shifts anyway, but it was more organic instead of American directed.
yes I know.
but otherwise we get to read again and again gross distortion w/o any correction
anyway my spouse insists on watching Barça so I distract myself.
Not buying it. The Americans may very well have exacerbated things, but we’ve seen over and over again what happens when a strong man is toppled-- either from without or from within. Ethnic tensions that were kept in check by the strongman bubble to the surface and become a reality that might have been unimaginable while the strongman was in power. Had the US toppled SH the way they helped topple Khadaffi, is anyone seriously going to propose that there wouldn’t have been a civil war not unlike what we saw after the US invasion? SERIOUSLY??? People said the same thing about Sarajevo-- how integrated and peaceful the society was when Tito was in power.
The Kurds were pretty much out of Iraq before we even invaded.
:smack:
Board ate my post. I was going to say that you did infact know better then most. I owe you an apology it seems.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not buying it. The Americans may very well have exacerbated things, but we’ve seen over and over again what happens when a strong man is toppled-- either from without or from within. Ethnic tensions that were kept in check by the strongman bubble to the surface and become a reality that might have been unimaginable while the strongman was in power. Had the US toppled SH the way they helped topple Khadaffi, is anyone seriously going to propose that there wouldn’t have been a civil war not unlike what we saw after the US invasion? SERIOUSLY???
The Kurds were pretty much out of Iraq before we even invaded
[/QUOTE]
.
