US expert suggests partition of Iraq

The Times of India ^ | TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2003

[mikeIII]

WASHINGTON: US shouldn't stand in the way of partition of Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite majority states, and the same applies to Turkey and Iran where Kurds may want separation, says Ralph Peters, a retired military officer and author of Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World.

"Certainly, our efforts to rehabilitate the region would go more smoothly were Iraq to remain happily whole within its present borders. What if, despite our earnest advice, the people of Iraq resist the argument that they would be better off economically and more secure were they to remain in a single state? What if the model for Japan's future were Yugoslavia after the Cold War, not Japan or Germany after World War II?" Peters writes in an article in the Washington Post.

Reason does not always prevail in the affairs of states and nations, says Peters. Passion rules.

Kosovo, Macedonia and Bosnia remain dependent on foreign donations, black-marketing and debt for their survival. But none of this, matters to those who could not bear the arbitrary borders imposed on them by diplomats whose concerns did not include the popular will.

Iraq's Kurds, Shiites and numerous minorities, he says, have suffered under the rule of Sunni Arabs from the country's middle. Having caused so much change, Washington dare not insist categorically that nothing else may change.

"Above all, we should champion the Kurds, who have earned the world's respect. A long-suffering people divided by cruel borders, they seemed to pose an insoluble dilemma, given the strategic dictates of real politik."

As for Turkey, he says that the US needed bases in Turkey and Ankara would not countenance a Kurdish State. Turks, Arabs and Iranians all insisted the Kurds must remain divided, poor and powerless.

"Now Turkey has betrayed us, while the Kurds fought beside us. In a decade of de facto autonomy in Iraq's north, the Kurds proved they can run a civil, rule-of-law state. Cynics point out that 'free Kurdistan,' surrounded by enemies, would lack access to the sea. But the Kurds would have oil, and oil can buy access. Furthermore, regime change in Iran is only a matter of time."

[mikeIII]

This will ruffle Turkey's feathers, for sure!

[johniegrad]

Hard to argue with. It seems that international borders have less relevance in this part of the world than anywhere else (no snide comments about our borders now!). It would be interesting to see how it would be partitioned out and how the oil resources would fit into the scheme.

[Publius]

This is a trial balloon intended to function as a shot across Turkey's bow. See if this is echoed by other more influential people in DC and the media.

[Jim Noble]

Our guarantee of "Iraqi" frontiers was hubristic and foolish.

I hope we didn't mean it.

[js1138]

Seems like there could be an economic union with states based on cultural differences.

[pgyanke]

I actually sent an email to President Bush on this topic and I haven't yet heard a similar idea discussed anywhere.

Why not states? Give the Kurds, Sunnis, Heshamites and Shiites self-governance under a united representative government. It could be modeled after our ORIGINAL model with states' rights pre-emptive over federal authority.

The end result would be a synergism of national power with ethnic and religious pseudo-autonomy held together by the rule of law.

[kinghorse]

This would involve a massive ethnic cleansing to succeed. Non-violent cleansing whereby the Turkmen would have to be re-settled. Ditto Baghdad Shias. Southern Iraq Sunnis.

Why on earth would the USA be in favor of more state-lets. We need less states, not more. One super Arab state running their govt like Turkey would be a huge improvement in my humble opinion.

[palmer]

Non-violent cleansing

Cleansing is violence, see Yugoslavia for example.

[faithincowboys]

Did we set back the cause of the democratic, secular forces in Iran by toppling Saddam? It appears that a large swath of the Iraqi Shia crave an Iranian style Ayatollah run failed state. Odd that so many people desire abject misery, and that their desires threaten so many decent people. I pray we have not strengthened the Iranian clerical fascist state and weakened its' opponents.

[faithincowboys]

If it happened, how would the Kurds get their oil to the Gulf, if the Shia fundamentalist nutcases in the South run Umm Qasr and port access?

[johniegrad]

And if they couldn't, would there be anything for the Shi'ites to ship?

[faithincowboys]

Yeah, there are Southern oil fields as well.

[Shermy]

Seems like there could be an economic union with states based on cultural differences.

There is a geographic logic to Iraq, or most of it. The valley of the two rivers...Deserts to the west...Persians to the east...Turks to north.

[zeugma]

This will ruffle Turkey's feathers, for sure!

LOL! You betcha!

I actually don't think it's a terrible idea. From what I've observed of the middle east, and what passes for culture and civilization there, they probably couldn't handle a republican form of government. They are too eager to kill their neighbor because he has a different last name, worships a different God, or has a hairstyle that is out of fashion by a century or two.

A republican form of government probably wouldn't have worked out well in 12th century europe either, which is about where the arabs are on an emotional/developmental level. Maybe we can build a wall around the place for the next 500 years and see if they grow up....

[somedaysoon]

You hit the nail on the head.

[gcruse]

This will ruffle Turkey's feathers, for sure!

Great image!  Kurdistan for the Kurds.  They earned it.