Posted on 09/06/2007 9:12:16 PM PDT by Bean Counter
It took political Washington a good six months to catch up to the fact that something significant was happening in Iraq's Anbar province, where the former-insurgent Sunni tribes switched sides and joined the fight against al-Qaeda. Not surprisingly, Washington has not yet caught up to the next reality: Iraq is being partitioned -- and, like everything else in Iraq today, it is happening from the ground up.
1. The Sunni provinces. The essence of our deal with the Anbar tribes and those in Diyala, Salahuddin and elsewhere is this: You end the insurgency and drive out al-Qaeda, and we assist you in arming and policing yourselves. We'd like you to have an official relationship with the Maliki government, but we're not waiting on Baghdad.
2. The Shiite south. This week the British pulled out of Basra, retired to their air base and essentially left the southern Shiites to their own devices -- meaning domination by the Shiite militias now fighting each other for control.
3. The Kurdish north. Kurdistan has been independent in all but name for a decade and a half.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
One of the original objections to partitioning was because Turkey would never accept liberated Kurds in the North and that the Sunnis would end up with Syria in the West. With the Shiites in the South under the dominion of Iran, how in the world can this be considered an option at all?
Be like putting three rats in a cage with only one piece of cheese (the oil).
Did Bush not state in 2001 one of the strategies was to turn the terrorists (Islamics) against each other? What makes you think the Sunnis go to the Syrians? I recall Jordan was the favored Nation to absorb the Sunnis. What makes you think Shiite Arabs will join with Shiite Persians? The fall back position of a federated Iraq is the partitioning into Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis.
With an eagle perched over all of them!
Should of been done in the beginning. 5 years under direct military Governor, 5 years with legislature body and military Governor, then they could vote on combining back together in a Federal state. Gen. Powell and State Dept. screwed that all up. He wanted a rebuilt unified Iraq right off the bat.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Sort of like when the borders of Iraq were drawn in a parlor in England, and a puppet monarch was installed by the British puppet-masters?
As if those who have mastered Shia, Sunni, Kurd haven’t learned a thing since the first day. Too simplistic.
The point is that the borders of the nation of Iraq aren’t sacrosanct, they’re arbitrary, and we shouldn’t let inertia about a bad decision made in 1913 get in the way of solving the problem at hand.
Partitioning Iraq is sheer stupidity dreamed up by old Boy Washington “Realists” desperate for some easy simple answer that would allow them to retreat back into their comfortable 09-10-01 world. It would be an utter disaster.
Dividing Iraq in 3 would require the US Military to stay in Iraq forever both to enforce the partition and to keep Iraq’s oil supplies out of the hands of it rapacious neighbors.
This “Partition Iraq” is an idiots dogma sung by mindless fools who are just desperate for some simplistic easy answer on Iraq. There is just no nice way to say it. This “Partition Iraq” dogma of the Know Nothings is total idiocy.
Partition Iraq and you force the US military to stay for decades policing Iraq.
One can argue that we should not be so dependent on ME oil, what cannot be argued is we are not depended on it. Like it or not, the free flow of oil from that part of the world is a vital US National Security Interest. Our economic well-being, and thus our national security, depends on it.
Iraq sits on anywhere (depending on whose figures you use) from the second largest, to the fifth largest, oil reserves in the world. No US Administration is going to be able to walk away from Iraq. That is just reality.
Too bad the Dincons simply cling to their failed obsolete theories instead of trying to deal with the real world.
It is not up to us. Furthermore there is no movement in this direction in Iraq. 1913 was a long time ago, and many armchri nation builders overdo ethnic differences.
“Old Boy Washington”?
Want to clarify specifically who that might be?
Partition Iraq and you force the US military to stay for decades policing Iraq.
No US Administration is going to be able to walk away from Iraq. That is just reality.
Since - as you say - the US will be 'in' the Middle East guaranteeing the flow of oil, the question is "why not in Iraq?" We don't have reliable basing rights in Saudi Arabia, AFAIK.
“Kurdistan, Shiitestan, and Oilistan”?
Partitioning was the right thing to do from the very beginning. Iraq was an invention of the Brittish after world war one. A reward to the Hashemites for helping out. Like yugoslavia, the austro-hungarian empire and other “multicultural” states it is bound to eventually break apart.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.