Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is it Time to Break Iraq into 3 Nations?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:36 PM
Original message
Is it Time to Break Iraq into 3 Nations?
Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".

Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites


from:http://www.gungeralv.org /


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
knowbody0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. let them vote
electorally represented, and give fair share of resources.

Anglos fuck everything up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demosincebirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
2. thats the way it will probably end up,and with one Central government
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Dissagree - 3 governments, not one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redphish Donating Member (296 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. And you can bet that the Shia faction will become part of Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. If the Shia join Iran...
would the Sunnis join...Syria? Or just be allied with them?

Of course, the Kurds will want Turkey to give over their Kurdish areas to their new Kurdistan...

Still a mess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:40 AM
Response to Reply #27
34. definately
Turkey most definately would be against this solution. Anything giving the Kurds their own state would create instability in both Turkey and Iran. While I understand the Kurdish desire for a homeland, if they were to get what they want it'd open a whole new bag of worms.

As far as the Sunni Iraqi's joining Syria or Jordan, I doubt it would ever happen. Iraqi's have their own identity and multiple dialects of the Arabic language that are different from Syrians. There are more differences involved in the peoples than a simliar religion can unite. Food, culture, language, dress, self-identity. Iraq may be a construct, but that doesn't mean the people are even closely identical to the Arabs in another country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #4
33. Doubtfull
The Shia Arabs don't exactly love the Persians just because they're Shia also. They might have friendly relations with them, but they're not going to become a part of Iran willingly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Could be, 3 regions with a lot of autonomy
but a weak central government, just enough that neither Turkey nor Iran would rush in to split it for them.

The last thing either Turkey or Iran want is a fully independent Kurdistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. anybody have a map of the original borders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
12. Iraq was cobbled together out of a section of the old Ottoman Empire
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 09:34 PM by mcscajun
there are no "original borders", per se. Iraq was one result of the partitioning of the old Ottoman Empire (MAP) in the 1920s.

Iraq was not an ancient nation, but rather the product of European statesmen and diplomats dividing among themselves the ruins of the vast 500-year-old Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. At its peak, the Ottoman Empire included not only what is modern Turkey, but much of southeast Europe (Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria, Rumania), almost all of the Middle East, and coastal North Africa as well.

http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2003/summer/iraq/inde...


Here's a sentence with a familiar ring to it:

When the British entered Baghdad in 1917, they insisted -- in startlingly twenty-first-century language -- that they were doing so not as conquerors or enemies, General Stanley Maude proclaimed, but as liberators.

(snip)

So three Ottoman provinces become Iraq. There was no such thing as an Iraqi people. Who lived there?
Fromkin: Along with the Kurds, there was a small Christian community in Mosul, including many refugees from Turkey. Basra in the south was populated by Shia Muslims. And Baghdad was chiefly Sunni Muslim, although the city of Baghdad itself was largely Jewish, which the British seem not to have been aware of.

http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2003/summer/iraq/inde...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Viva_La_Revolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. yep, I found this timeline....
http://www.regiments.org/nations/mideast/iraq.htm

but it's difficult without a period map to really make sense of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. One thing's clear. It can't be us who tells them to do it
Some folks miss the irony of having Americans sitting back here in the Staets planning how the next generation Iraq is going to or should look. They have to reach that conclusion for themselves, because though those lines look simple on a map, even after all the refugee relocations already caused by sectarian fighting, millions more would probably have to relocate if that type seperation happens. And it won't work if those mini states are just used as staging areas for atttacks across new borders in a continuing power struggle.

We certainly shouldn't stand in the way of it though, and it may be how Iraqis end up sorting this mess out. I will note that a hell of a lot of Sunni's don't like Hussein either, they just fear being a minority in a Shiite dominated State.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AIJ Alom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
8. Looks more like the status quo, with the no-fly zones of the 1990's
just shifted by 45 degrees. In essence, Iraq has been 3 nations since Desert Storm and the creation of UN no-fly zones. So with this current debacle in Iraq, complete with needless death and civil war we will accomplish the status quo + Al Qaeda terrorists who will no doubt remain to muck the things up long after we leave, if we ever leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. I've heard it mentioned more and more recently. Partition just
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 08:55 PM by pinto
has such a bad history, it seems a poor choice, among equally bad choices.


India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Ireland.
Germany.

I'd support partition, if Iraqi factions choose it - up front and openly - as a viable option, decide on the partition lines and what relationships, if any, three regional states would maintain. A buy in from neighboring Arab states, as well as Iran and Turkey, would be a huge benefit.

I don't really think this is our call after all that's happened. We need to realistically pull back. If this Administration won't do it militarily, at least stop the sham of a central government that has no real control outside the American OZ - the Green Zone, and help muster some real discussion for the region about what happens next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. As others have said, it's not our call, but it doesn't have to be all
bad.

Yugoslavia didn't break up quietly (Kosovo, Milosevic), but it has resolved into independent entities after considerable strife, but each through their own democratic referendum to choose independence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. You have a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pork medley Donating Member (262 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. you're right! there IS a bright side to ethnic cleansing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #18
25. Now get Real! You KNOW that's NOT what I meant.
Ugh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nickinSTL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #13
28. and the Soviet Union broke up fairly quietly
with a few exceptions, like Chechnya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #28
29. "Fairly quietly" is not anything I said.
Edited on Tue Oct-10-06 09:16 AM by mcscajun
I said "didn't break up quietly", which has a whole other meaning.

I don't dismiss the problems of either the former Soviet Union or the former Yugoslavia at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
36. I think we should offer it
at least
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. I've seen a few such maps.
I'm always surprised that there's the unspoken assumption that any Arab population in an area means it must be considered Sunni Arab.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. how does the oil distribution overlay look?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. Sunnis would hardly have any oil... the maps need oil reserves in key
You would immediately see why the Sunnis would not like it. The Kurds and the Shiites would have nearly all the oil.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catzies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
23. Google image search reveals this:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:01 PM
Response to Original message
16. I think it's the only..
... proposed solution that has a snowball's chance of working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Sushi Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ButterflyBlood Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. The thing is, there would be a serious problem with each new state:
The Sunni areas don't have any oil. It'd be an economic disaster.

The Shiite country would almost certainly end up becoming a puppet state of Iran.

The Kurdish state would almost inevitebly go to war with Turkey, and possibly Iran and Syria as well.

I think the best solution is something similar to the Dayton Agreement that partioned Bosnia, yet still kept it a unified country legally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivisions_of_Bosnia_and...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
20. There is NO such think as an Iraqi, not at all
These are tribes with no loyalty to other tribes. Saddam was able to control most of them but never controlled Northern Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #20
35. I'll have to tell that to my relatives
The hundreds of them (shia and sunni) who consider themselves Iraqi and don't belong to any tribe.

There IS such a thing as an Iraqi. There are plenty of Iraqi's who don't belong to a tribe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
21. The Sunnis would revolt immediately due to having no oil
Add that the bigger cities in Iraq have both Shiites and Sunni neighborhoods... not likely that there wouldn't be violence there either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:35 AM
Response to Original message
24. The Iraq map with overlay of oil refineries, deposits and pipelines
I was curious, so I grabbed from another graphic and superimposed to the other graphic. The Kurds and the Shiites would have most of the oil and the coasts, hence making this plan really not working for the Sunnis.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
26. It's not our decision. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LynneSin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #26
30. It's not our decision but that's what I see could happen
These people do not want to share the same government and were forced under the same roof. The only problem I see with the 3 governments is the fact that everyone wants a share of those oil fields - can they also be divided up fairly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
31. No, it is time we got the hell out of there and let the Iraqi people
Determine their own future. Is this going to mean violent, bloody, civil war? Yes, it's already going on, and it will continue to rage no matter what we do. Dividing the country will simply exacerbate the situation. What the US needs to do is march the troops onto the carriers, pack up the bases, and head home. And along the war, pay massive reparations for destroy their country, and apologize profusely to eacha and every Iraqi.

We have meddled to much in others' country and society. It is past time that we stopped doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrCoffee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
32. why not? it worked really really well for India and Pakistan...n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
warrens Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:05 PM
Response to Original message
37. If you want 50 years of non-stop war, sure
Only one of those "countries" would have significant oil reserves. And no matter what the deal is, it will be violated so the Shia can keep control of all or most of the oil. There's no way this can work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
38. It's time to break this administration up into three pieces ...
all destined for the dustbin of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conscious evolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
39. Any idea of James Baker is a bad idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 26th 2014, 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC