BREAK UP IRAQ NOW!

New York Post ^ | 7/10/03 | RALPH PETERS

[kattracks]

July 10, 2003 -- PRESIDENT Bush consistently has done the right thing by ignoring the nay- sayers before, during and after Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet he's in danger of making the same mistake his father did at the end of Desert Storm - doing only half the job.

[Glenn]

Makes sense to me.

[Support Free Republic]

How we have, and can, change the world

History of Free Republic

Click The Logo To Donate

[AntiGuv]

Sounds great to me! I've thought this should've been the ultimate blueprint all along..

[AntiGuv]

Except for one thing. On the off-chance that this idea takes off, I don't think the boundaries should be arbitrary or imposed. I think they should have provincial referenda much the same as was done for British India at the end of colonial rule.

[Glenn]

I think they should have provincial referenda much the same as was done for British India at the end of colonial rule.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn't that what produced Kashmir?

[AntiGuv]

Not precisely. When British India was partitioned, the princely states did not hold plebiscites but rather via the monarch's discretion.

The Muslim prince of Junagadh signed instruments of accession to Pakistan despite its Hindu populace. When forced to flee by Indian forces, a plebiscite was held which overwhelmingly endorsed accession to India.

The Islamic nizam who ruled the mostly Hindu state of Hyderabad attempted to declare his kingdom's independence, but was invaded and deposed by the Indian military after internecine warfare broke out.

Similarly, the Hindu maharaj of Jammu & Kashmir refused to accede to either India or Pakistan which induced a rebellion by his Muslim people. As his regime's defeat appeared imminent, he signed accession to India and naturally permitted the Indian forces entry to defeat the rebellion. Pakistan sent forces to protect the rebel held region of Azad Kashmir, and eventually the Armistice Line was negotiated under the auspices of the UN.

There's little doubt that Kashmir would've chosen accession to Pakistan had a plebiscite been authorized by the British Partition Act or permitted by the Maharaja Hari Singh Bahadur.

[AntiGuv]

To be clear, the British administered provinces held plebiscites while the princely states were permitted to sign accession with either Pakistan or India - at the discretion of the monarch. Those three monarchs whose religion differed from the majority of their kingdom's populace created the conflicts at partition - including the Kashmir standoff which has persisted to this day.

[Glenn]

Thank you for that most lucid recap. I have a better understanding of what you argue.

[AntiGuv]

I should mention that I did have to look up the specific details at these two sites:

Global Perspectives: South Asia - Kashmir

The Legacy Events Project: India-Pakistan Partition

The info was not anywhere near the tip of my thoughts.. ;^)

[Jim Noble]

I have been saying this for more than a year.

America is a revolutionary power. We have no business guaranteeing the sanctity of British and French colonial borders, nor the results of their "victory" over Turkey.

The political order in the Middle East should be made to conform to our needs, which at the moment are the suppression of Islamic radicalism and cheap oil.

I was all for giving Kurdistan to Turkey until they screwed us. Now, I would be OK with an independent Mosul.

I don't care what happens to the Shi'a except that they may be a useful tool to beat the Tikritis with.

As far as the Baghdad-Tikrit axis, I myself would turn it over to Abdullah (the Jordanian one), but occupation and repression is OK with me as well.

There is no "Iraq". That, at least, is a reasonable place to start.

On to Africa!

[WL-law]

I made this EXACT same argument during the war period, for precisely the same reasons, and was roundly criticized here on FR for suggesting it. I still think its a great idea, and the only stumbling block is Turkey and its fear of an independent Kurdistan. But there are ways of managing that risk, using aggressive diplomacy. And, by the way, the existing tension with Turkey all flows from Turkey's anticipation that the 3-state solution will come to the table.

[LN2Campy]

The dead hand of Versaille still at work.

Dividing Iraq into three states along Kurdish/Sunni/Shia lines certainly has its appeal, and invariably leads to the question of dismantling ALL the Sykes-Picot inspired arbitrary borders in that area. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and the plethora of Gulf emirates are almost all fictions carved out of the corpse of the Ottoman Caliphate -- it's difficult to know where to redraw the lines. The only clear winner is an intact and largely homogeneous Iran.

[WL-law]

Here's my earlier post:

We've Already Won? A Way to Declare Victory and Defeat Saddam's Strategy
self | 3-28-03 | WL-law

Posted on 03/29/2003 4:32 AM PST by WL-law

Urgent message to our political/military planners -- here's a way to defeat Saddam's "rope-a-dope" strategy, where he gives ground, awaits to bloody us inside Baghdad, all while using CNN to turn world opinion in his favor.

Saddam is dangerous and powerful because, PRIMARILY, that he can use Iraq's vast oil wealth for nefarious purposes.

OK, then let's consolidate our victory in all the area south of Baghdad, which includes all the southern oil fields.

Let's announce that, henceforth, this is a new independent state, and allow the Shiite majority to announce a self-government.

Likewise in the north, let's get rolling with the Kurds, and roll the retreating northern Iraqi force back to Baghdad, which is where they intend to retreat to in any event. That means the northern oil fields are also secured.

Similarly, we allow the Kurds to announce their independence, and announce the formation of a new government.

This would, in essence, finish Gulf War I in the manner is should have. We would have two new allies, and Saddam in a box. If some people in Iraq really love Saddam, let them travel to the new Saddam mini-state -- why we could even have a contest here on FR to give it a name. Suggestions?

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

Stop worrying about Shi'ite extremism. If we mean what we say about democracy, the Shi'ites should be free to choose whomever they want as their leaders - even fundamentalists. Although the odds of theocratic rule emerging or enduring in southern Iraq are lower than the media imply, the Shi'ites, who long have been oppressed and persecuted, should be free to determine their own future.

Democracy means letting people make their own mistakes. We've made a few ourselves. The only thing upon which we should insist is strict supervision to ensure an honest vote.

Constitutional government is far more important than voting. And we cannot permit the Iraqis to vote Islamists into power with no restraints on that power. Iraq needs a constitution which limits the power of the state, with institutions to enforce constitutional provisions. Once a constitutional framework is in place, then and only then can the Iraqis be permitted to vote for their leaders.

[thoughtomator]

Turkey/Iraq ping

[joesnuffy]

Looks good on paper

[Prodigal Son]

And we cannot permit the Iraqis to vote Islamists into power with no restraints on that power.

Nope, we sure can't. If Iraq ever emerges from this as a self governing nation, it has to be a model to the rest of the region or else all our sacrifice there would have been for naught.

[Utah Girl]

Ping

[abu afak]

Is Peters' 9 months ago suggestion making more sense than ever?

Looks like it.

The Shias in the South would certainly be happy with a religous state there... and it's Oil.

And The Kurds, our only real friends in Iraq and non-Arabs, have deserved a state for 50 Years.. one in which we'd be welcome (probably even bases etc)..
and one which would also have the Northern Oil fields and be viable.

As to the Saddam Symapathizing Sunnis and Central Iraq?
Give them a state too.. No oil. .. or chuck them in with the Shias.