Iraq: The Three State Solution

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. Mitigates inter-faith and ethnic rivalries.
2. Postpones or eliminates civil war.
3. Three, three, three democracies in one!
4. Kurdistan guarantees(?) an American friendly, oil-rich state. (Hey, an ally!)
5. Kurdistan guarantees(?) American bases in ME, chiefly to deter an outraged Turkey.
6. Corrects a century old British mistake.
7. Elections can be held more rapidly, with less dispute.
8. Provides a vested interest for the three major regions.
9. It may happen anyway, after a bloody civil war.
10. At least it's not a "pie-in-the-sky" plan like we have now.
11. The three states exist whether the map says so, or not.
12. It may get the majority of troops home quicker.
13. Retreat with dignity.
14. What else are we gonna do?


It may be realized as three independent states or as a confederation. I believe the alternative, a central government, will either result in a tyrannical government (see: Hussein) or a civil war. I think this is an obvious solution that is being ignored for obvious reasons, lack of US control and presence.

What say you?

[jayavarman]

1. I've always wondered why there has not been more consideration of this

possibility . . .

Sounds like it could be a winner . ...

Turkey would be pissed, though

[the Kelly Gang]

2. one small problem..who gets the oil ?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. There's some for everybody.

As for us, we buy it.

[the Kelly Gang]

41. would be great but you think .Cheney will let em have it ?

[mot78]

28. Make all of the former Iraq a free trade zone for oil

[kiahzero]

3. Turkey and Iran would be quick to invade Kurdistan

The Shia nation would probably ally with Iran and attack the Sunni nation.

Sorry, but it's not practical.

[Beaker]

4. what if u.n. peacekeepers were thrown into the mix?

it stands as much chance of working as anything else.

[kiahzero]

6. Not really

We promised Turkey that we would never let an independant Kurdish nation be formed.

[Beaker]

7. we promise a lot of things to a lot of people...

if the turks can't understand "that was then, this is now", let'em get in line behind everyone else...
if they don't get all uppity, maybe someday we'll give them each 40 acres and a mule, and let them open up bingo parlors and casinos.

[lanparty]

17. I think Turkey lost their say ...

When they refused to let America deploy across their border. Turkey really doesn't have as much clout as it used to now that the cold war is over. It's only saving grace may be that it is now the ONLY SECULAR islamic nation (down from 2 since Iraq fell).

Personally, I don't believe that Turkey deserves ANY say on whether Kurds should have an independent nation. It's like us telling Mexico that it cannot split up into different entities. It's just none of our business.

[welshTerrier2]

5. a central govenment is not practical either

you've really hit the nail on the head about the problem with a 3 state solution ... the region will remain very unstable if this should happen ... we might be able to negotiate with Turkey but things would get ugly in a hurry with Iran ...

but what is the alternative? we're stuck between Iraq and a hard place ... civil war is inevitable in Iraq ...

will the problems with Turkey and Iran be less prevalent if a central Iraqi government tries to dictate to the Shia or the Sunnis or the Kurds? any way you slice the pie, foreign governments will seek to exploit the internal strife within Iraq ...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

13. See point #5.

For this very reason (Iran/Turkey), the Kurds would likely allow a US presence. They'd also likely be grateful that their dream of a free Kurdistan had been realized.



Edit to add: It even throws a bone to the PNACers.

[Pepperbelly]

8. the solution will have to be an Iraqi solution, not an imposed solution.

Perhaps, if we exercise our influence in this but not, of course, to dictate it, it might work.

There are Kurdistani security issues that would have to be addressed although that could come from a 3-state confederacy with sufficient central government to provide for a unified defense.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

46. Agreed. I'm not talking about imposing this by fiat.

I think this is what they might want. Maybe we should ask them. :shrug:

[AntiCoup2K4]

9. This is going to be another Yugoslavia/Bosnia/Serbia mess

or possibly worse. Saddam Hussein may have been a complete piece of shit, but he was good for the stability of Iraq just like the soviet bloc was good for Yugoslavia.

[lanparty]

19. You assume ...

You assume that a LARGER nation is necessarily better. Unlike Yugoslavia, the Population of Iraq is pretty well segmented in different regions. This wasn't the case in Yugoslavia. It had been "integrated" for thousands of years and is largely the result of the crusades.

Nope, you could draw lines in the desert pretty plainly about WHO is from WHERE. The only REAL issue would be dividing up the oil fields.

Of course, Exxon, BP, Halliburton, et al wouldn't like this. It means more people to bribe in order to steal oil and run pipelines.

[SOS]

10. This idea

would, most likely, not sit well with the Iraqi population. Leslie H.Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations has recently promoted the idea on the NYT op-ed page, but the origins go back much further:

"Oded Yinon’s significant article, entitled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,’ appeared in the periodical Kivunim in February 1982.
About Iraq, Yinon wrote: ‘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 is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. ... Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In 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."

Divide and rule (given the specific origins re: Iraq) would almost certainly be rejected.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. It was my understanding that historically there were

regional/ethnic/religious divides. Pre-WWI. And pre-British. They're still there whether a map describes it or not. Specifically, why would the indigenous groups tend to reject the idea?




Edit: clarity.

[SOS]

15. Yes

Iraq was 3 provinces of the Ottoman Empire. The British lumped them together into "Iraq" in 1920.
Interestingly the 3 factions joined forces for a time to fight the British. Their differences were overcome in an effort to drive out the British. Many thousands died.
The Iraqis may well separate into some type of three province federal system, but they will not allow this to be imposed by the US.
Iraq has been one country for 84 years now. While troubled and fractious, they would unite before being broken into three by imperial decree.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

18. Maybe instead of decreeing, we should ask them.

<Insert diplomacy here.>

:shrug:

[lanparty]

21. One more thing ...

An indpendent Sunni nation may be a greater threat to Saudi Arabia/Kuwait than Iraq as a whole. There are strong ethnic ties here that could threaten the monarchies of these nations. I don't think the House of Saud would be on board for splitting up Iraq.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

14. This thread brought to you by Ford.

Like a rock.

[lanparty]

16. It's all good except the ...

Turks, Iranians and Syrians would freak out over this.

I agree, the Kurds deserve their own state. But their are sizable Kurdish populations in other nations. These nations would perceive a Kurdish state as a threat to their territorial integrity.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Would not a lot of Kurds in these states migrate to the new nation,

thereby alleviating much of the discomfort of the host nations?

Just wondering.



edit for syntax.

[lanparty]

22. My presumption is ...

The Kurds in these nations will rebel and try to be annexed to Kurdistan rather than emmigrating.

I think it's right that the Kurds have their own nation. But I also realize that it has the potential to result in a general regional conflagration among Arab nations. Ultimately, that conflagration may be helpful, but it could shut off oil spigots for quite some time. The British made these divisions for VERY SPECIFIC reasons. KEEP THE OIL FLOWING!!!!!!

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. Definately a concern.

I specifically mentioned that a new Kurdistan would be backed by a US military presence. I think this changes the dynamic from an offensive one to a defensive one, a la Korea. The US changes from occupier to defender. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around a solution that frees the most people while doing the least harm. No doubt that some folks are gonna be pissed. A "no decision" in a "no win" situation. My preference would have been to not be there in the first place, but hey, here's some lemons and here's a juicer.

[Vladimir]

24. I say we get the hell out and let the Iraqis decide n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. There's always that.

I pretty much agree but there's a little matter of 800+ dead and a measure of justification. I don't need it but the mouthbreathers do.

Okay, Plan B: Let's get the fuck out of here!

[Sufi Marmot]

26. Several questions:

1) Would Turkey be willing to accept an independent Iraqi Kurdistan in exchange for more rapid entry into the EU?

2) Doesn't the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO pretty much guarantee the integrity of its borders?

-SM

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

27. 1) Probably not, but it wouldn't hurt. They would need additional

concesssions/assurances/$$$.

2) Yes. The question is whether they want to expand them to the South, or not.


No doubt that Turkey is the rub in the equation. I just think that there is a history with Turkey that we can deal with, as opposed to a dissolved Iraq which we can't.

[Sufi Marmot]

31. I don't see why Turkey would want to expand south...

From what I can tell they're in no hurry to renew the waves of Kurdish terrorism in Turkey that the've more or less gotten under control - if Turkey pushed south it would make a huge mess in the entire region - I just don't see it happening - the rest of the world would put enormous diplomatic pressure on Turkey, and any increase in terrorism in Turkey itself would devestate the Turkish tourist industry.

At least with an independent Kurdistan, Kurds living in Turkey would theoretically have the choice of remaining in Turkey or relocating to Kurdistan.

I suspect there are a lot of other less obvious factors involved that make it profitable for people on both sides to maintain the status quo: economics, smuggling, drug trade, etc...

-SM

[matcom]

29. Been Saying This For Months - BUT....

the Kurdish state would be almost IMMEDIATELY invaded by Turkey. THAT is the caveat (bases or no)

other than that, 100% correct. no matter WHAT type of gov'ts they elect.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

32. Turkey would invade a US militarily-backed Kurdistan?

I know we're into supposition mode here but I'd like to know why you think so.

[matcom]

44. you couldn't have a "US backed Kurdistan"

without backing the others. wouldn't work. we can't pick sides like that. if we did, i wouldn't be a true "3 state plan"

we need to help establish 3 states and get the fuck out completely. and yes, Turkey would invade before our exit tracks were cool

[Darranar]

30. An interesting plan...

it would anger Turkey, and probably Iran, but it might avert some internal trouble...

But we really have no right to decide, this should be up to the Iraqis.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

33. You're putting Iran, Turkey and Syria on one side of the scale

and the Sunni, Kurds and Shi'ites on the other. The US is the fulcrum. At first glance one would think that the Turkish, Iranian and Syrian side would have more weight, but they are uncommitted. The Iraqi contingents are in full blossom. It's a crap shoot.

Fuck Bush.

[Darranar]

34. You'll note that I did not declare my...

support for or oppossition to the plan.

I merely stated a possible problem.

Again, however, I think the Iraqis deserve to decide these matters on their own. If China invaded the US and decided, to cut down on possible interracial conflict, to sunder the US into an Anglo-Saxon north and a Hispanic south, how many people would approve?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. Ah, yes.

There's a disconnect here, though. The internecine battles between the indigenous ethnic groups in Iraq have been going on for centuries, actively and bitterly. That same battle in the US, while still going on, is very much subdued. I suggest apples and oranges, while still understanding the thrust of your statement.

"Leaving it up to the Iraqis" means an immediate withdrawal. I have no problem with that. However, the American powerbrokers DO, and will fight tooth-and-nail to oppose it. I'm trying to suggest a solution within the realm of possibility, that saves "face" for all those involved, and still gets us the fuck out of there.

It's definately a difficult problem. I'm open to other possible solutions. Got any?

[Darranar]

39. No, I don't have any because I don't see any...

you point out, quite accurately, that the US powerbrokers do not want to get out of Iraq any time soon, and that means the US won't.

Regardless of what "solution" the US tries to impose, it will be resisted, and there will be more chaos, destruction, violence, unrest, and slaughter.

The Shi'ite leaders will probably try to resist a break-up, because that denies them power, as will the Iranians, for similar reasons. The Turks would hate the creation of a Kurdistan. The Sunnis would probably get caught up in it all.

It could happen, perhaps it might even succeed, but it would be difficult, and next to impossible without Iraqi popular support, which isn't going to be reached if it's a US-imposed division.

Bush has left us with no good options.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Yep.

Trying to make a turd salad out of a turd. It's not as easy as it sounds!

[Paragon]

35. WORST. "PLAN". EVER.

See: "two state solution" in Israel/Palestine. Add one more state.

Hilarity ensues.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

43. I wasn't aware that 2 states ever existed in transJordan.

Perhaps you can point out to me where a Palestinian state failed. The funny thing is is that you're really pointing out the failure of a 1 state solution. That's the one with all the "hilarity."

[Beatrix]

36. Should we have a white america and a black america?

It saddens me to see people promote ideas like this.

First of all - muslims I have spoken with don't really give a damn about shia/sunni/whatever. They don't mind living in peace with others at all. This is also what I heard from interviews with "person on the street" in Iraq and other ME nations. They are not going to go out and kill the other. Similar to how protestant people can live next to catholic people here and not kill each other.

Now are there extremeists who will? Sure. Will they get the non extremeists to go with them? Possibly. Best way to solve this is to have a SECULAR government. The same people who have no problem living with sunni/shia/christian/etc should continue to have no problem so long as the government is not advocating/mandating/influenced by a certain religion.

Anyway - you can seperate people all you want. But this is a conservative position, and is the easier way out. People are going to HAVE to learn to live together eventually. Take racial tension in this nation. Could we have split in two - one half black and one half white? Sure in theory. So today we could be living with a white nation and a black nation next to each other instead of being pretty well intergrated today. Does that bother anyone else?

If so - why would you seperate other people when we ourselves fought such seperation in the past? I bet if you asked 99% of the people in 1800s if they thought there would ever be a day when there was no racial segregation ANYWHERE (except in certain groups...), no slavery, african americans holding elected office, african americans voting, equal protection, etc they would call you nuts and NEVER accept that as even being remotely possible. And they would have been wrong.

Anyway - we shouldn't be working to divide Iraq (or any place else), but rather uniting it. Just because it may be difficult does not mean you shouldn't try to achieve it. The civil rights people in this nation never quit despite the odds, and it paid off in the end.

BTW: Are there any other final fantasy fans here?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

45. America evolved over a period of time. The civil war to stop

separation was fought from within. Iraq was created by British Imperial power, from without. Big difference.

As I state elsewhere, I'm not trying to foist this plan on anyone. It is subject to approval by the Iraqis themselves. We know that the Kurds want their own state. What the Sunnis and Shia want is up to them.

[Minstrel Boy]

37. Should the US be split into 3 independent states?

Given the fact that peace in Iraq seems impossible given a united American state, I think it's the only solution.

The Old Confederacy still chaffes at being ruled by Washington. Southerners still point out the mass graves and scenes of battle of their last uprising. New Englanders have their own ancient traditions, language and set of beliefs. Midwesterners want their own theocracy.

And when you consider the restless Hispanic populace of the South West, the Alaskan Innu's right to self-governance and more, perhaps three states won't be enough.

Let's face it, the United States is an artificial construct that doesn't do justice to natural, ethnic division. For the good of its many different peoples, once the Iraqi militias have pacified the urban areas, the process of breaking up this accident of history once and for all should begin. I see no other answer.

/sarcasm off

I just don't get it. There is a national consciousness in Iraq. There is a national pride. There is no civil war. Does none of this mean anything?

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. Many presume a special role for their country in the world, and its entitlement to decide the fates of other peoples, to redraw borders and erase nations, which would appear mad and bizarre in someone else.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

42. I'm not demanding that we implement a 3 state solution over the

objections of the Iraqis. I'm going under the assumption that this is something that each party wants.

First off, there is zero doubt that the Kurds want their own state.
Second, I can't imagine that the Sunnis would want to submit to majority Shi'ite rule. I could be wrong. If so, then it becomes a 2 state solution.

There is no civil war. Yet. The Sunnis and Shi'ites are focused on a common enemy for the time being. In the vacuum presented by the absence of "coalition" troops, what then?

The funny thing is, over a year after the fall of the government, the Iraqis still haven't been asked what they want. We know what the Kurds want. Are the Sunnis and Shias willing to share power? I don't know. I'm basing the 3 state solution on my assumptions that the Sunnis are frightened of the prospect of Shi'ite rule, particularly after the brutal repression by Hussein, a Sunni. I think it's pretty fair to assume that it would be payback time.

Are you saying that the Kurds don't want to break off? How sure are you about the positions of the other parties? Your guess is as good as mine.