Proposal to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous states gains ground

[Barrett808]

Proposal to divide Iraq into semi-autonomous states gains ground
By Nancy A. Youssef, Knight Ridder Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - As Iraq begins writing its new constitution, leaders in the country's southern regions are pushing aggressively to unite their three provinces into an oil-rich, semi-autonomous state, a plan that some worry could solidify Iraq's sectarian tensions, create fights over oil revenues and eventually split the nation.

In the southern Shiite Muslim city of Basra, where the provincial government launched the campaign, signs on the streets encourage residents to support the plan. Local leaders have held several conferences to map out their proposed state and regional government.

Muhammed Musbih al Waely, the governor of Basra province, said Shiites suffered under the last centralized government, Saddam Hussein's, and that they wanted to control the development of their region.

"The next few months are going to witness a big change in the region," al Waely said.

(more)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/krwashbureau/20050524/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_usiraq_states_wa

[gristy]

1. Ah, so we shall Balkanize Iraq?

I suppose that might work out.
But I doubt it.

[NorCalDem]

3. No...

what we should have done is kept our big f**king nose outta their business. But it's way too late for that. No matter what we do, Iraq will be a thorn in the side of the next generation, if not longer. I know Vietnam didn't have as long of an effect on this country that I'm proposing, but then again, the Vietcong weren't flying planes into our NYC buildings. The amount of terrorist activity that we have spawned by running with the SNAFU in Iraq is going to haunt us for 50 years.

[Vincardog]

5. Are you saying that we have to stay in IRAQ because

Saudi Arabian stooges of aWoL flew planes into the WTC before the CIA imploded it? What is the cause/effect there?

[LynnTheDem]

9. WHAT????! So you think IRAQ flew "planes into our NYC buildings"????!

UMMMM HELLO!!!

WAKEY WAKEY!

[Zhade]

21. "the Vietcong weren't flying planes into our NYC buildings"

NEITHER DID IRAQ! NO CONNECTION TO 9/11!

[MADem]

2. The Arab Tito falls, and Iraq becomes the former Yugoslavia

...of the fertile crescent...

[Journeyman]

4. But what does Turkey say about an autonomous Kurd state. . .

on its southern border? The Turks have been adamantly against any such entity, for fear of the effect it may have on their own ethnic Kurds. Be interesting to see what Turkey has to say about this plan. . .

[DrDebug]

24. Indeed the reply I was looking for as well

The moment the Kurdish states get declared, the Turks will march in. And they do have WMDs!!

[LynnTheDem]

6. Oh great. CIVIL WAR! With TURKEY and IRAN involved!

Should be fun.

:sarcasm:

[Charles19]

26. Saudi Arabi and likely Egypt would be on the side of the Sunni's

Turkey would go to war in the North basically to occupy it. Iran would come in to protect the Shiite's and Saudi and Egypt would back the Sunni's to get back control of the whole area.

That would be an AlQaeda utopia (well, even more than it already is).

[daleo]

7. BFEE thinks it can swallow Iraq in three bites, instead of one.

It will be toxic either way.

[FlemingsGhost]

11. Yup ... (n/t)

Flem.

[wakeme2008]

8. IMHO this is the only thing that will work today

With the Kurds and other parties at the brink of civil war, this would pretty much settle it.

But having said that, Bush's Oil friends would not like it.

[LynnTheDem]

10. You do know that the minute this happens, TURKEY will attack the Kurds,

yes?

This is THE WORST thing to do.

Well, unless you're bush and WANT a few hundred thousand more deaths.

[wakeme2008]

13. I am not sure they would

I think Turkey would push all the Kurds from Turkey into the new Kurdist state. Just IMHO..

[LynnTheDem]

15. I'll take bets on that; my bet, Turkey will attack. Iran will side with

the Kurds, of course. HUGE war, HUGE death toll.

And US troops caught smack in the middle.

[wakeme2008]

17. You just proved Turkey will not attack

If the US troops are there, they will be attacking the US. Not a smart move on Turkeys part.

[LynnTheDem]

19. Turkey doesn't seem to give a shit, considering that not only have they

already wanred the US they will attack the Kurds, Turkey is already massing their troops along Iraq's border.

So no, actually, I have not "just proved Turkey will not attack", and if you seriously think Turkey is worried about 150,000 US troops who are Iraqmired & getting their asses kicked, then you minunderestimate Turkey & their military, and misoverestimate our worn-out, worn down Iraqmired soldiers.

[DrDebug]

25. The Turkish Military (from wiki)

Military age: 20 years of age
Fit for military service: 11,965,262

The Turkish Armed forces, with a combined troop strength of 514,850 people (Ranked 9th), is the second largest standing force in NATO after the United States. Currently, 36,000 troops are stationed in the Turkish-recognized Northern Cyprus.

Deployment is 1,000,000 and they will have a draft there as well
F16 aircrafts (thanks to Nato)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Turkey

Press freedom
According to the Reporters Without Borders report of 2004, Turkey was placed 114 out of 167 monitored countries, and the press in Turkey had a 'difficult situation'. It is notable that no other EU members or candidates have such a status.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Turkey

[necso]

12. While this

can sound ok when discussed in general, there are big problems with it in the particulars. In the first place, only in some areas are the various groups reasonably well separated. This plan looks good for the Kurds generally -- but maybe not quite so good for the populations intermingled with them. Moreover, Shia and Sunnis are poorly separated in some (contiguous geographical) areas (and not (always) under superseding tribal or other control), and this makes for difficulties.

And then there is the question of who gets to control critical resources -- and areas of religious, historical, cultural and strategic importance... not to mention issues like trust (that is, the activities of these "states" are liable to be mistrusted by other states).

This "semi-autonomy" seems a Kurdish price for making a deal, but all parties should be thinking about the consequences. (The Turks, for example, have a tough military which would not shrink from doing whatever it thought necessary in Turkish interests.)

[bemildred]

14. Don't forget who gets the oil.

:thumbsup:

[necso]

16. Oil would be a critical resource.

As would also water, arable land, (elements of) infrastructure (including roads for trade), etc.

[Barrett808]

18. Juan Cole: Downsides of Partitioning Iraq

Some readers asked me why I was so against partitioning Iraq.

It is because it would cause a great deal of trouble to us all, not least Iraqis. Iraq is not divided neatly into three ethnic enclaves. It is all mixed up. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad, a million Sunnis in the Shiite deep south, and lots of mixed provinces (Ta'mim, Ninevah, Diyalah, Babil, Baghdad, etc.). There is a lot of intermarriage among various Iraqi groups. Look at President Ghazi Yawir. He is from the Sunni Arab branch of the Shamar tribe. But some Shamar are Shiites. One of his wives is Nasrin Barwari, a Kurdish cabinet minister. What would partition do to the Yawirs?

Then, how do you split up the resources? If the Sunni Arabs don't get Kirkuk, then they will be poorer than Jordan. Don't you think they will fight for it? The Kurds would fight to the last man for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk if it was a matter of determining in which country it ended up.

If the Kurds got Kirkuk and the Sunni Arabs became a poor cousin to Jordan, the Sunni Arabs would almost certainly turn to al-Qaeda in large numbers. Some Iraqi guerrillas are already talking about hitting back at the US mainland. And, Fallujah is not that far from Saudi Arabia, which Bin Laden wants to hit, as well, especially at the oil. Fallujah Salafis would hook up with those in Jordan and Gaza to establish a radical Sunni arc that would destabilize the entire region.

Divorced from the Sunnis, the Shiites of the south would no longer have any counterweight to religious currents like al-Dawa, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and the Sadrists. The rump Shiite state would be rich, with the Rumayla and other fields, and might well declare a Shiite Islamic republic. It is being coupled with the Sunnis that mainly keeps them from going down that road. A Shiite South Iraq might make a claim on Shiite Eastern Arabia in Saudi Arabia, or stir up trouble there. The Eastern Province can pump as much as 11% of the world's petroleum.

So Americans would like this scenario why?

http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/downsides-of-partitioning-iraq-some.html

[Gloria]

20. And guess who is well-positioned in the South??? Iran.....

In fact, an article I posted a week or so ago details how Iranians are influencing much of what's going on in a large area of the South....

[bemildred]

22. Yep. But that is not "convenient" to think about right now. nt

[Roland99]

23. Did someone up here post an article on Nation States the other day?

We're seeing the results of centuries of colonialism led by bastards with big egos and large militaries.


One of these days, bastards like our current President will realize that interventionism DOES NOT WORK!