Divide Iraq Up Into Three Nations Now Before It's Too Late.

[David Zephyr]

The only solution left for what's left of the Old Iraq and that may still work at this late point is a quick move to begin the division of the nation of Iraq into geographic "pieces". This is not such a radical idea, for the truth is that "nation" Iraq was an invention of the British anyway...sort of like South Vietnam was an invention of the Pentagon in the early 1950's.

The Past is Prologue:

After declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914, the British invaded and occupied Mesopotamia including Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul.

Clandestinely, the British, along with the French, in 1916 had drawn up the very imperialistic "Sykes-Picot Agreement" dividing up the old Ottoman empire. By 1919, Britain had created the current national borders that the world recognizes today as "Iraq". The following year, the "League of Nations" dutifully sanctioned and granted British control over the new nation of Iraq.

So, the unfortunate, yet popular understanding that the current borders of modern day Iraq are some sort of sacred and cultural extension of the ancient Persian Empire is simply wrong. The borders of Iraq are mere pencil marks from a British pencil less than a century ago.

Here's How to Divide Up Iraq Now and Possibly Spare A Holocaust in Civil War:

1.) Establish either an independent Shi'a Islamic Iraq which will probably meld into Iran within two years --- or fast forward the inevitable and cede the Shiite territories now to Iran. Since the Americans must always "save face" and have "peace with honor", the former is more probable, but the latter is inevitable.

2.) Establish a Sunni Iraq with Baghdad as the Sunni Capitol.

3.) Establish a new national state of Kurdistan.

4.) Cede some of the northern Iraqi territory to Turkey as a trade-off for the establishment of Kurdistan. Turkey currently has oil leases in Northern Iraq and this would be the quid pro quo and would finally deal with the business left undone after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.


The Saudis and The Israelis Will Just Love This:

The Balkanization of the current nation we know as Iraq as I have prescribed above will have the further benefit of pleasing both the Saudis and the Israelis who would prefer having smaller, less powerful neighbors in the Region than the former, unpredictable Iraq. Imagine that: the Israelis and the Saudis nodding approvingly at the splintering of their old nemesis.


Make Certain That The New States All Have Oil Fields of Their Own:

One of the greatest sources of friction between the world's predominately Islamic Nations has been this: some have oil resources and others don't. The solution I've described above begins to address the uneven distribution of petro-wealth in the Muslim world.

Certainly, the ability of Saudi Arabia to lord its proud purse over Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians (Muslims without oil) and over the poor in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims without oil) has been at the very root of so many of the world's problems. Indeed, Osama bin Laden's initial appeal in the poorer Islamic world was made possible by his Saudi petro-wealth, wasn't it?


The Nations Out of One Keep Osama Out of All:

With the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis truly independent and having their own states; and with allowing Turkey to "get a little of the goodies" in return for good behavior, Osama bin Laden and his crowd will have to go hunting for another scab to pick for they would hardly be welcomed in either of the three new nations.


Little Time Remains For Dividing Iraq Before Civil War Begins:

Let's face it. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now advocating exactly what they had crowed against: Cutting and Running. The arbitrary date in June of the facade of turning over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people will be the beginning of the upcoming bloodbath between the distrustful Kurd, Sunni and Shiite camps. Why wait until thousands are thrown into the nightmare of Iraqi Civil War?

If the British could divide up the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century for Imperialistic motives, why can't we, along with the United Nations, finally address the elephant in the living room and now divide up Iraq without bloodshed...before it divides itself up, pretty much as I have described, but only after a horrific bloodbath?

--D.Z.

(Thanks to William Pitt for his earlier thread which finally motivated me to write what has been on my mind for a very, very long time).

[SeattleDem]

1. geographically, how to ensure each gets some oil fields?

that was my understanding of why making 3 nations would be difficult. Aren't most oil fields toward the northern Kurdish areas? Is there an equitable way to ensure each new nation gets an adequate share of the natural resource?

[David Zephyr]

5. SeattleDem, Here's A Good Map of Iraq and It's Oil Fields

From the University of Texas Libray:

[pinto]

2. I am generally opposed to partition, witness the British "successes", but

at this point, a UN sanctioned agreement with the participation and consent off the dominant three Iraqi groups makes some sense.

I would not want any US "security" promises after a tri-partite "Iraq" was concluded, though.

[BurtWorm]

3. What about making three United States of Iraq?

In other words, making each region autonomous, but with an overarching federation, which would seem to offer a solution for the equitable distribution of wealth problem, if a national government were workable.

[Alerter_]

10. why not make them US States?

Give them each two Senators, representation in the South, and free commerce with the other 50. Just like we did with Alaska and Hawaii.

It's the only way to be imperialistic while retaining our Constitutional Republic and Democratic ideals. They would be better off as US States than protectorates of the US or UN.

[David Zephyr]

13. I Hope You Are Being Sarcastic.

In the meantime, the good folks in D.C. still are waiting for their two Senators and a Congressperson that can actually vote.

[BurtWorm]

44. I hope that was sarcastic as well, even if it was meant to zing me.

I don't know if I deserve to zung for my question, though. It's an idea I haven't heard anyone discuss. I have no idea if a federation of three autonomous states, more on the EU model than the US one, would work. It seems worth looking into.

[ithacan]

4. Dividing Iraq would be the worst possible solution.

Division does not resolve the basic problems and often just empowers the worst elements in each of the new states.

The main problem in Iraq is NOT that it includes several religious and cultural groups. That is an assumption made often by Americans who just cannot understand the realities of truly multicultural societies.

The problem will not go away with division and in fact it will make the area less stable.

The problem includes US meddling -- aggressive attack and occupation -- and US empowering of elements like Chalabi; US fucking up the occupation in such a way as to empower the worst elements; etc.

Division is the worst possible move that the international community could make.

[Cheswick2.0]

25. You think they're cultures get along better than ours?

?

[The Stranger]

6. Wasn't that the GOAL for PNAC and the Neocons?

To attack Iraq based on lies in order to break it up and destroy it? You need to do some reading on these groups of people and their goals.

[charlie]

7. No

It was to establish unassailable US hegemony in the region. It matters little to them whether Iraq as an entity survives, so long as the preeminence of American influence does. One of their early plans was to roll Iraq up into Jordan, create a greater Hashemite kingdom, and had zip to do with bringing "democracy" and independence to the Iraqis.

[Solomon]

14. But if you read PNAC's plans you will see that the division you all are

touting is the same lines drawn in the PNAC plan. Dividing it up as you advocate is nothing more than the success of their plan all along.

It's not a popular view I know, but what fucking right did we have in stopping Saddam from forging a nation? The lines may have been drawn arbitrarily in the past, but you can't just wipe away all that's happened since, and say, well, the Sunni's are over here, and the Kurds are over there, so it's a simple matter of drawing lines.

Fact is, Iraq was the most advanced Arab nation on the planet. They were coming into a great inheritance - oil. They put healthcare and education as high priorities, and they have people with lots of degrees, fixing toasters and what not, because we don't want them to grow on their inheritance. So for years we put sanctions on them, wouldn't let parts through to fix broken plumbing, "because they parts could be used to make a weapon." I mean it's sick what we did to those people. Sick.

Saddam had a potential to unite Arab people, and that was the real threat. If all the Arab countries adopted the same policy towards the US, we would be up the creek with no paddle. THAT's why we took down Saddam. (Yeah yeah, I know, "the world is a much better place without Saddam". Keep on saying that so you can stay convinced.)

I really don't know how much more of this I can really stand. I am almost physically sick from the horror of what we are doing and why.
I feel disgraced and ashamed. And to see people greedily making money off of it... Aw let me stop...

[David Zephyr]

16. This Is Not About PNAC, Solomon. It's About Preventing Civil War.

And giving these people what they really are after.

It's a really bad marriage. Help them divorce peacefully rather than turn all of Mesopotamia into worse nightmare than it already is now.

It is what they want.

[Solomon]

20. If it's as simple as that, why haven't they done it?

It's not about PNAC? Um, Okay.

[David Zephyr]

21. Our Dictators Never Let Them

And when the Kurds were recently promised freedom and our support IF they would rise up against Saddam (our former dictator of choice), they DID rise up.

Guess what?

We lied to them. We betrayed them.

And our former dictator of choice, Saddam, mowed them down by the thousands with weapons he'd purchased from the United States of America.

There is no such thing as Iraq.

There never was.

Support peace, not a prescription for the upcoming Civil War.

[The Stranger]

45. Dividing up Iraq is becoming dictator all over again.

It is imperialism, and it isn't even veiled. Forget it. Let the Iraqis decide their own destiny. Support them in that, and then leave them the fuck alone.

[The Stranger]

46. That's either being very, very naive, or very, very crafty.

The PNAC plan, plain and simple, was to divide up Iraq. The democracy part was just a pack of lies to feed people to get a nation to go to war unjustified and based on more lies. Do a google search on Paul Wolfowitz, or track what he told Congress, and you will see for yourself.

[charlie]

24. Is that for me?

I've never advocated for "taking down" Saddam. Nor do I hector anyone with the "world is better without Saddam" canard. I'm well aware that Iraq was the most secular, cosmopolitan Arab country before Gulf War I.

The division of Iraq is not a concession to PNAC aims. Their scenarios for post-invasion Iraq were as scattered and ad hoc as what we're seeing from Bushco today. Whether the country is intact or cut into bits never mattered to them, that the US has an intractable presence there does.

Right now, the prime argument from BOTH sides, left and right, for remaining in Iraq long term is the prevention of civil war. Leaving, they say, guarantees a bloody calamity. Partitioning, provided the groups agree to segregation, can mollify those fears and get us the hell out of there sooner, and minimize further damage we'll do to the country. But, if the Iraqis have a sense of nationalism so strong they won't countenance being broken up, then we shouldn't press the idea. I'm not advocating forced partitioning, just looking for the best way to extricate our imperialists from their lives and minimizing the wreckage we leave behind.

[Solomon]

32. Nah. My bad. I got carried away. Just jawing in general.

Didn't mean no harm. You helped me get on my soapbox.

[KoKo]

8. Well reasoned argument...but will never fly. It's too early and the

besieged Iraqi's don't want to be thinking about this when they don't have electricity and air conditioning and the comforts they had under Saddam's "evil empire."

You are talking as a philosopher as to what should be, David and not to the "reality."

[David Zephyr]

15. Not Philosophy.

The determination of proud people for self rule.

The Kurds will never submit to Shiite rule.
The Sunni will never submit to Shiite rule.

The Kurds deserve self-determination...especially after the all the times the West has let them down.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. Of all the gall to divide it into three parts

Playing here all week. Try the lamb.

[kaitykaity]

11. I think you're right on track with this idea.

You addressed my concern, which was the objections
of Turkey. The Kurds love us because of the autonomy
they gained because of the no fly zones. The only reason
there's no Kurdistan now is that Churchill forgot to draw
the border on a map.

[David Zephyr]

18. Thanks.

You hit the nail on the head in identifying the problem of most all plans thus far: how to appease the Turks while standing with the Kurds in their right to self-determination.

The Turks already are leasing oil fields in Northern Iraq now. Give them something to buy the peace.

This stupid war is costing us $1 Billion per week and our children are dying and/or returning home maimed or to face courts martial.

It's probably way too late for any of this to happen peacefully, but this is what the Kurds, the Shiites and Sunnis all want anyway. They don't give a rat's behind about the Iraq that Britain invented in the 1920's.

Thanks for weighing in.

[Cleita]

12. David it is necessary to do so.

Especially, where the Kurds are involved, they do need their own ethnic state. I knew many Kurds when I lived in L. A. and they have been poorly treated by all the nations they were conquered by. I know Americans think we should be integrated, but the ME isn't ready for that yet. Each ethnicity and tribe having their own sovereign state would balance the power in the region. The Palestinians need their own sovereign state too.

I think there would be room to make treaties with Israel so that these other states keep their hands off of Israel. The Egyptians discovered that Israel is open to negotiation once you stop attacking them.

[KoKo]

17. Cleita, it would mean major upheaval for years to get the "tribes/loyaltie

s back to areas where they could co-exist with each other. I worry that this was what the PNAC'ers were thinking about. And, when Bush says this will be a "long war" it fits with their ideas of reapportioning and repostioning all of the Middle East. I even think they are trying to find a "new homeland" for the Palestinians in their "Endless Wars against Terrorism."

So, being so much against EVERYTHING they think, I want us out of Iraq and leave it to the Iraqi's to decide whether they "split" their country or work together.

I'm not into "nationbuilding," here. I want us OUT! OUT! OUT! We didn't want anyone meddling in our affairs after we founded this nation. How can Bush get away with what he is doing with his new "Colonialism Policy" along with Blair. Colonialism is the Mantra because we want the oil. If it had been about "Liberation," it still would "smell like stale fish."

[David Zephyr]

19. The Colony is Iraq.

Forget about PNAC.

This is about what the Kurds, the Shiites and the Sunni want.

And is what they are going to be fighting for the day we begin to turn things over to an imaginary government for an imaginary country.

It will happen either peacefully or with violence.

There is no such thing as Iraq.

[KoKo]

28. David, if you went to Baghdad and said: The Colony is Iraq! in

the heart of the city...I don't think you would be back here to post about it!

The "Colony" is Iraq! Are you smoking?

[democracyindanger]

23. Yeah, Turkey would be reeeeeal happy

about having a Kurdish state on its border.

That's not saying I like how Turkey treats the Kurds, I'm just saying Turkey won't sit idly by and let it happen.

There's also a huge difference between the oil fields in the north and south. I can't remember all the specifics, but one is younger with huge untapped reserves, and the other is old. Makes a difference in production levels and crude type, which makes a difference in revenues. The middle of Iraq would basically be screwed.

[Cleita]

26. Turkey is not the big bad USA.

They can't prevent it from happening if prevailed upon by a legitimate international body who will hammer out these borders, treaties and agreements.

[democracyindanger]

29. Turkey is a NATO member

and the only secular democracy in the Muslim world. Steamrolling them would be a bad idea, IMO. In any case, they can't just be ignored.

And, as pointed out upthread, the British drawing up borders is part of the reason the Middle East is a mess today.

But I think 3 states under a federal gub'mint would work.

[Minstrel Boy]

22. How about America show some humility for a change?

It is not for America to decide. It is not.

And please note: There is NO CIVIL WAR in Iraq.

What's more, there never has been. The Shiites and Sunnis are uniting in opposition to America's neverending "liberation." Iraqi nationalism has been given a infusion by the occupation.

The division of Iraq into three vassal states is the objective of the neoconservatives. It's positively Bushian to keep talking up civil war. Who would benefit from it more than they? It is the forces of occupation and the neoconservative ideologues who keep bleating about civil war. Why? Because having conquered Iraq, they want an excuse to divide it. A divided, sectarian Iraq is easier to administer as puppet, vassal states, and it would ensure that Iraq would never again be an independent economic and military power.

There's a war of LIBERATION. So get the hell out, and stop presuming the United States has the divine right to determine which nation can live and which must perish.




Iraqis unite to condemn interim constitution
March 20, 2004

Thousands of Muslim Sunni and Shia gathered after Friday prayers in al-Adhamya and al-Kadhimya districts in Baghdad to demonstrate against the interim Iraqi constitution.
...

Demonstrators chanted "Yes to Iraq, no to sectarianism, no to US occupation", in an attempt to show the commitment to national unity among Iraq's various religions, sects, and ethnicities.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B90497BA-C408-4E65-8ED7-5301CBBF841A.htm

Who wants a divided Iraq? Read Israeli journalist Oded Yinon, writing in 1982:

"The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target.... Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria.... Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north."
http://www.xymphora.blogspot.com/2004_03_01_xymphora_archive.html#1078

Note his words. What looks to us like a disaster is, to the neo-conservative lobby, a transitional stage to the redrawing of the map of the Middle East.

And read Robert Fisk, from March 3: "All This Talk Of Civil War, And Now This.... Coincidence?"

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias - even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

...

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.

...

We are entering a dark and sinister period of Iraqi history. But an occupation authority which should regard civil war as the last prospect it ever wants to contemplate, keeps shouting "civil war" in our ears and I worry about that. Especially when the bombs make it real.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5805.htm

[Cleita]

27. We should never have gone in unless we had been attacked

by Iraqis in 9-11 fashion, but since we did, if we leave after making a big mess, there will be civil war and when the dust settles, there will be a divided Iraq along tribal lines. They will be constantly raiding each other and destroying what is there, like the oil fields. How much better to give each faction a piece of the cake with treaties insuring peace and trade?

[Minstrel Boy]

31. From where comes this assurance of civil war?

Because I don't see it.

Destroying Iraq because America's made such a mess would compound the tragedy and humiliation of the Iraqis, who only want Iraq. Is this so hard to understand? There is a national consciousness. There is a national pride. Does this mean nothing?

America can contribute to the fixing of Iraq by leaving it.

[Cleita]

33. Because when they don't have us to fight anymore, they will

fight with each other for power. Anyone who is familiar with family and tribal affiliations in the ME knows this.

[Minstrel Boy]

36. Robert Fisk is familiar with the ME, and he disagrees.

I know your heart's in the right place on this, but to me, it's inconceivable to propose something like this - to tell more than 20 million people, your country doesn't exist anymore.

I just don't get it. Maybe it's a Canadian thing. Maybe if I were an American, I could better understand such presumptions. And I don't mean that in a bad way. I merely mean that many Americans have a presumption about the special role of their country in the world, and its entitlement to decide the fate of other peoples, which would appear bizarre and foolish in someone else.

[charlie]

38. Ooooof

...presumption about the role of their country in the world, and its entitlement to decide the fate of other peoples...

That's it right there. I've ground my teeth into nubs from a lifetime exasperation with our overweening self-regard. It's a goddamned mental illness. Ack.

[David Zephyr]

41. Their Country Never Existed In The First Place.

Why must the United States impose this artifice on the Kurds and Sunni which will be run by the Shiites, who are over 60% of the population with the imaginary borders that the West called Iraq in the 1920's?

[KoKo]

30. Welll, I agree, with you Minstrel. You make your case well, although

I understand where David's coming from...he's too early out on this. There will be civil wars before the territory gets redefined from when the British drew the lines and all the mucking up interference in the ME.

David is right for the long haul, imho, from reading about the area, as to what will eventually come, but I'm with you Minstrel. Get the HELL OUTTA THERE! We CANNOT AFFORD to be Colonial Britain no matter how much Bush and Blair wish for "their" new World Order.

Wasn't that Poppy's phrase? the "New World Order." Wasn't that what Kissinger and his PNAC Crew were about doing? Throw out PNAC and get the hell out. Every day we are there increases more threats for US citizens at home and abroad.

In this "global economy" how is it good for business when Americans no long feel safe traveling overseas or at home? I'm tired of the "fear factor" and endless War Mongering by this hideous group.

[Cleita]

34. I agree with you Koko.

We have to get out of there, but we can't do it alone. We need to get the Bushistas out and soon, so that the international peacekeeping forces will help us to make the transition. The Bushistas have to go ASAP. We won't have world peace until they are gone.

[Solomon]

35. Now ya'll know we ain't going nowhere. Kerry notwithstanding.

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

[charlie]

37. True

and beyond dismaying :(

[KoKo]

40. train wreck in slow motion! It's the Bush years. Wearing us down

watching this wreck..knowing it just will go on...it's a long train..:-(

[David Zephyr]

42. This Is The Best Way For Us To Leave.

John Kerry is wrong that we will need to provide the "security" there for the next four years.

If the Kurds provide their own security for a Kurdistan, they will not need the U.S., NATO, or anyone else.

And the same applies to the Shiites and the Kurds.

[nomaco-10]

39. Too late for who? Us or Iraq?.....

We are long past the phase of saving face in this bullshit sham of a war for oil, and I'm long past the notion that we are even minimally entitled to saving face in Iraq.
We have spawned 10,000 bin ladens by our actions in Iraq and the penalty will be ours to pay for generations to come. That will be our legacy of "Operation Iraqi Freedom".

[David Zephyr]

43. Too Late To Prevent A Horrific Civil War

that will be our fault as Americans.

I don't give a crap about America saving face. There's none left to save. Bush has fucked up the entire Middle East.

Even Israel is now threatened by the vacuum created in the country formerly known as Iraq. Sharon's wish of removing Saddam Hussein has now become his greatest nightmare.

I agree with you that we have spawned 10,000 bin Ladens with this god-damned invasion. It's probably closer to hundreds of thousands and you are right, Americans will have to deal with the fallout from Bush's fuck-up for generations to come.

We need to get the hell out as quickly as possible. Kerry is simply wrong in promising that the U.S. can provided "security" there for the next four years (yes, yes I am supporting him).

What I am proposing is simply helping facilitate what the Kurds, the Sunni and Shiites will war for anyway.

At least I am providing a real solution where the people in that tragic land might have a small chance of avoiding a terrible Civil War.

I don't see anyone else, except Cleita saying this.

Iraq* is as legitimate of a nation as George W. Bush* is our legitimate President.