# Why was splitting Iraq into three countries not considered? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 21, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189 "2015-11-21T16:39:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![coremelt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@coremelt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coremelt)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/41 "2015-11-22T14:43:52Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I’m sure that’s a popular opinion, especially among people who are not fond of Muslims. It was the muslim league that insisted on partition in the first place because they didn’t want to live under an India dominated by Hindus. Now, over 60 years later neither side wishes to reunify and the same borders are still in place. Partition didn’t magically solve problems but it gave each side their own independent nation, and I think its fair to call it a qualified success. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/42 "2015-11-22T16:10:16Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Do you have a cite for this?? AFAIK, the Kurd’s had fled into the mountains and away from SH and his merry band, but the reason we kept the no fly zone going was because they hadn’t fled completely and weren’t pretty much out of Iraq before the invasion. I’m sure gassing them and otherwise trying to stomp them out didn’t help their population, but I don’t think they were ever gone completely from Iraq and still maintained strongholds in the north of the country until the invasion. Poor wording. I didn’t mean they left the borders of Iraq, I meant they had set up their own autonomous region within Iraq not long after the end of the First Gulf War. Once we invaded in 2003, we didn’t need to go into that area to do much of anything-- they just kept doing what they had been doing, only more so. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/43 "2015-11-22T16:46:47Z")
> [@coremelt](#): > > It was the muslim league that insisted on partition in the first place because they didn’t want to live under an India dominated by Hindus. Yes that is what the leadership claimed. Many others (including ordinary Muslims) rather have an opinion that some leadership were self-aggrandizing… where the rela problem is they did not wan to play any second fiddle. > [@](#): > > I think its fair to call it a qualified success. I would hate to see failure. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/44 "2015-11-22T16:56:53Z")
However things end up, can we (the US) just stay out of the fray _for once_? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/45 "2015-11-22T17:40:52Z")
The power vacuum left in the wake of Saddam’s toppling has led us to an Iraq that is now clearly partitioning into 3 sections. America should never have invaded Iraq under the deceitful pretense of nuclear imminence, but the country is already doing what should have been done after Saddam was deposed. Split it into three, and let these people have their autonomy. It’s happening whether we want it to or not. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/46 "2015-11-22T18:12:16Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > The countries mostly get along? India and Pakistan have nukes pointed at each other! And even the promise of mutually assured destruction can’t stop the endless stream of terrorist acts, insurgencies, and border skirmishes. > > Bangladesh is a better picture, probably because it doesn’t really have a choice, with all the nukes in the neighborhood. Err, sorry what? Nukes were going to be in the region, Partition or no Partition or British remaining in charge. The regional dynamics would have demanded them. United India would have faced the Chinese nuclear threat that the Republic of India did and also the Soviet threat that the Pakistani Federation did. Both countries had nukes for decades and a nice gentlemanly agreement not to bring that out; until Vajpaiyee and his ilk took over in 1998. [QUOTE=Ramira] Yes that is what the leadership claimed. Many others (including ordinary Muslims) rather have an opinion that some leadership were self-aggrandizing… where the rela problem is they did not wan to play any second fiddle [/QUOTE] The Sub-Continent is not your forte. In [1945](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_1945)-[46 elections,](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_provincial_elections,_1946) (General and Provincial) the Muslim League went in with an election manifesto of Independence based upon Partition. They won pretty much the entire muslim vote and formed governments in muslim majority provinces. They had a mandate to negotiate Partition and they did. Even then, they were still willing to accept autonomy short of independence and t[hey did in spring of 1946](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1946_Cabinet_Mission_to_India). It was the supposedly “Nationa” Congress which rejected that and made Partition inevitable. I think that Partition was a success. We would have suffered 45 years of Congress mandated socialism if we had remained part of India, We would have been a periphery and despised part of India… and prime place for Modi and RSS attacks, today. As it is, you cannot really compare the Indian Partition with the Iraq case, since the Partition was on Geographic, Pakistan is basically the Indus and its surrounding regions and a functioning state was always in place. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/47 "2015-11-22T19:47:54Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Or, it removes the need to. > > Look, problematic as they can be, obviously borders work more than they don’t; most borders in the world do not have ongoing tension and clashes like India-Pakistan. Many borders have never seen violence since the fight that established them. Since the last one, you mean. Which is like that line about things always being in the last spot where you search for them. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2015, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/48 "2015-11-22T22:04:26Z")
It’s not that simple, because the populations are scattered. There are Sunnis in the Shi’ite and Kurdish areas, and Shi’ites in the Sunni areas, etc. That could introduce new conflicts, such as groups that didn’t get lumped in with their preferred area fighting over it. Look at the partition of India between Muslim and Hindu areas for an example - they’ve had several wars and still have territory in dispute. Then there’s the fact that there’s a huge population of Kurds inside NATO member Turkey, and they might want to join the new Kurdistan too. Turkey would not like that at all. Sorry if this answer repeats what has already been covered in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/49 "2015-11-23T15:43:39Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > I’m pretty certain he was being sarcastic. I agree, now that I have gone back and read his reply #5 to this thread. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > The Arab [Lakhmids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakhmids) ( Sassanid clients ) occupied the west bank of the Euphrates. As in Byzantine Syria ( which had there own client cognate in the [Ghassanids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghassanids) ) there had been a steady influx of Arab tribes into the area for some time. They probably were quite not as numerically dominant in densely settled Mesopotamia as in non-urban Syria, but in a modern sense they would have controlled much of what is today western Iraq. Thank you for the correction. I had heard of the Ghassanids but did not know they were Arab. The Lakhmids I had not heard of. I should have done a fact check on myself before posting a fact check result on another writer. > [@Tamerlane](#): > > Overwhelmingly Turkic-Tungusic. > > It had been in slow decline for some time. Centuries of over-irrigation + a general drying trend seems to have led to increased soil salination and a substantial collapse in revenue production from at least the time of the Fourth Fitna ( i.e. later Abbasids ). Add in the conversion of farmland to make more pasture-land for Turkic tribes and the Mongol eruption was just a rotten cherry on top, which badly broke a number of urban centers in addition to further damaging irrigation ( in Khurasan in particular, less so than in Mesopotamia per se ). Thank you for the information. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [November 23, 2015, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/50 "2015-11-23T22:28:17Z")
> [@Nelson\_Pike](#): > > I do not think this is correct. > > Geographically that is now “Iraq” has seldom if ever existed as an independent state. It has often been referred to as “Mesopotamia” in the West. > > Perhaps DNA study will permit eventual precisely identification of the ancient ancestry of the modern Iraqi tribes, but if there was any Arab component before Mohammed’s death they were IIRC politically invisible, and were not numerically outstanding. > > From the time of the Persian (aka Iranian- that is what they called themselves from the start) Emperor Cyrus (fl. ~550-525BCE) > what is now Iraq was under the firm overlordship of > > 1. to ~325BCE the Persians > 2. Alexander and the Seleucid Diadochi for about 200 years > > Then Iraq was usually occupied by whatever power ruled Persia, with Rome at times contesting. > > Then after the fall of Rome the Byzantine (aka Eastern Roman) Empire filled in as Persia’s rival for control. > > Then in the immediate aftermath of Mohammed’s death Iraq was conquered and became permanently dominated, demographically, by Arab speakers and the Islamic religion. There was a Seljuk Turk overlordship interlude (whose most famous leader to the West was the Kurd Saladin), and I am not sure of the ethnic identity of the post-Seljuk state rulers, but for several centuries Baghdad and Iraq were the centerpiece of Asian Arab politics and culture; Baghdad may have at times been the world’s largest and most. intellectually advanced metropolis. > > The awful Mongol sack (~1250) and of Baghdad a later invasion by Tamerlaine (~1400) set the entire region back as far as the Iraqi Arabs were concerned- they increasingly became caught in the middle of the warring Ottoman Turks and the resurrected Persian state. I do not think there was an independent Asian Arab nation of significant stature until after WW2. > > And say what you will of the West’s influence since then, I don’t think the native Arab rulers (i.e. Syrian, Iraq, Kuwait) can be accused of consistently acting in their countries’ best interests. This is going way back, but wasn’t Iraq a unified country centered in the area that is now Iraq during Babylonian times? This obviously would not impact the current situation, but in the ancient past it was unified for a short time. ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/51 "2015-11-30T17:48:08Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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? It might not have been considered because unfortunately partitions don’t always work well (see Ireland, Palestine, and India for examples) and because drawing the borders of these new countries might have been extremely hard and troublesome for the United States. Also, partitioning Iraq might have raised some questions in regards to international law; after all, who exactly gave the United States the authority to partition Iraq? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/52 "2015-11-30T18:15:32Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > I’m sure that’s a popular opinion, especially among people who are not fond of Muslims. Partition was a gift _to_ Indian Muslims, not a blow against them. Nehru and Gandhi were overwhelmingly opposed to partition (though for different reasons). Partition was really not that bad an idea. Where it lacked was in the execution; the British should have partitioned the country _before_ leaving, rather than afterwards. As a result, there was no outside force to prevent the massive ethnic cleansing, and the nascent governments of India and Pakistan were either unable or uninterested in preventing it. Most of my stepfather’s family and part of my own were “cleansed,” so I hardly say this lightly. ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/53 "2015-11-30T18:24:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Partition was a gift _to_ Indian Muslims, not a blow against them. Nehru and Gandhi were overwhelmingly opposed to partition (though for different reasons). Partition was really not that bad an idea. Where it lacked was in the execution; the British should have partitioned the country _before_ leaving, rather than afterwards. As a result, there was no outside force to prevent the massive ethnic cleansing, and the nascent governments of India and Pakistan were either unable or uninterested in preventing it. > > Most of my stepfather’s family and part of my own were “cleansed,” so I hardly say this lightly. I completely agree with everything that you wrote here. 🙂 Also, though, Kashmir should have probably been partitioned based on religious lines (Muslim = Pakistan, Hindu or Buddhist = India) rather than given to India and then partitioned in its current way as a result of Indo-Pakistani warfare. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/54 "2015-11-30T18:38:11Z")
Only relatively small areas were partitioned by fiat in the manner you appear to suggest. Jammu and Kashmir, likely the other princely states, was allowed to choose its own fate. The Maharaja was waffling so the government-in-waiting in Pakistan incited a revolt which pushed Kashmir firmly into Indian “protection.” ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/55 "2015-11-30T18:42:43Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Only relatively small areas were partitioned by fiat in the manner you appear to suggest. Jammu and Kashmir, likely the other princely states, was allowed to choose its own fate. The Maharaja was waffling so the government-in-waiting in Pakistan incited a revolt which pushed Kashmir firmly into Indian “protection.” That was a mistake on Britain’s part, though. ☹ Indeed, Britain should have overruled the Maharja of Kashmir and divided Kashmir based on its own whims. After all, it’s not like the Maharja of Kashmir could have stopped the British from determining Kashmir’s fate by themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Futurist110](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e4f/32.png) [@Futurist110](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Futurist110)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/56 "2015-11-30T18:44:06Z")
Also, in regards to Nehru, didn’t Nehru eventually accept partition for pragmatic purposes (as in, to be able to have the Indian National Congress rule over most of India without any problems than to have the Indian National Congress rule over all of India and be frequently stymied by Muslim nationalists)? ---
**Author:** ![Chihuahua](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/dec6dc/32.png) [@Chihuahua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chihuahua)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/57 "2015-12-01T02:23:54Z")
As someone who was actually there at the time, it was considered. It was considered A LOT. The problem is that, as others have already pointed out, the idea of dividing up territory and oil rights was rather problematic and would have resulted in much resentment and civil war no matter how you sliced it up. Regardless, it is not correct to say that the idea was never considered. It was considered and rejected. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/58 "2015-12-01T02:58:38Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > There isn’t much more to say except that historically, partitions don’t work. Drawing a border between uncooperative groups just give them a border to fight over as well. That assumes Iraq was always bordered as it has been the last 100 years. It’s current border was drawn by the League of Nations. And there’s more than the internal states in play. Iran wants it’s finger in the pie and Turkey isn’t going to like an independent kurdish State. They would fear a united Kurdistan. ---
**Author:** ![Nema98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/d2c977/32.png) [@Nema98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nema98)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2015, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189/59 "2015-12-01T23:32:26Z")
We have no business splitting Iraq, only it’s people can do that and it should be done by referendum. Same with Syria. Trust me, no matter what happens there will be Syria, not some Alawite, Sunni, Shite or Kurdish state. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-was-splitting-iraq-into-three-countries-not-considered/738189.md?page=2)