December 30, 2003
END THE FICTION:
Forging One Nation From Three Agendas: What's the best way to bring Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds together under a cohesive democracy? (Stanley Reed, 12/29/03, Business Week)
Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator who left a legacy of mass graves and damaged survivors. He did, however, manage to hold together a fractious country through the force of his personality -- and some of the most violent repression the world has ever witnessed. Even before his capture on Dec. 13, his removal from power had unleashed a wave of chaos and criminality. Now the greatest challenge facing the U.S. and the Iraqis is to craft a new, democratic government that can bind Iraq's long-divided religious and ethnic groups together. The U.S. has agreed to turn over power to an Iraqi authority by July. But forging a consensus among Iraq's disparate communities could prove far more difficult than rounding up the cagey Saddam.Post-Saddam Iraq is a country without a defining national identity, and over the long term that's a situation potentially more dangerous than the threat currently posed by the insurgents. Cobbled together by the British in the 1920s, Iraq resembles three countries more than one; it was kept together by strongmen rulers even before Saddam. The Kurds in the north, the Sunni Arabs north and west of Baghdad, and the Shiite Arabs of the south and center inhabit vast swaths of territory. There has long been tension where the communities overlap, such as in Kirkuk and Mosul. As if all that weren't enough, the various groups are far from united themselves. Many secular Shiites want no part of bans on alcohol and other strictures favored by their more observant coreligionists. Likewise, the Sunni community ranges from the educated elite of academics and former bureaucrats to the thugs who served as Saddam's spies and enforcers.
Why try to make it one country? Why not Kurdistan, Shi'astan and the Sunni minority in the latter can stay or go? Posted by Orrin Judd at December 30, 2003 10:35 PM
Well, the experience of India's partioning didn't work that well. I suppose that that's an argument against it.
Posted by: John Thacker at December 30, 2003 11:21 PMThe title and author have slipped my mind, but there was a book published a few years ago on the experience of partitioning countries, arguing that the record is dismal.
Posted by: PapayaSF at December 31, 2003 1:53 AMIndia was not partitioned far enough--it's not a country, but a remnant of empire.
Posted by: oj at December 31, 2003 2:03 AMThere is this wonderful piece by C. Hitchens -
"The Perils of Partition" in The (March 2003) Atlantic Monthly:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/03/hitchens.htm
The Turks would never tolerate a Kurdistan.Creating one would eventually mean war.
A Shiastan would sooner or later come under the economic and probably theological influence of Iran and Sunnistan under the influence of Syria(even if we depose the Ba'athists there).
Put simply,there are no good choices.
Posted by: M at December 31, 2003 8:59 AMThe Turks have no choice and though it seems unlikely that the Persians would tolerate so many Arabs in their state, a greater Shi'astan would be no problem. The Sunni don't get a state.
Posted by: oj at December 31, 2003 9:41 AMThe Turks do indeed have choices,OJ,especially if Kurdistan caused instability in kurdish areas of Turkey.Maybe not good choices,but choices.
I didn't say "incorporated into" but "under the influence" of Iran,which is quite different.
Given the choice of Shia dominance or joining their fellow Sunni's in Syria,which do you think they'll pick?
Posted by: M at December 31, 2003 10:13 AMInertia more than anything else will insure a single Iraq state. It is not in the US's interest to be the agent of partition in Iraq. Besides setiment from the Kurds, we'll get no benefits and a lot of heat in foreign opinion. Better to leave Iraq with it intact, and if civil strife divides the country afterwards step in later to negotiate with the factions and come out with a Nobel Peace Prize.
Posted by: Chris Durnell at December 31, 2003 10:48 AMWhile I don't know whether partition would be the best plan, it does seem to be a good one. A full-sized Iraq could threaten its neighbors as easily as before - more so with a more meritocratic officer corps and the ability to buy weapons openly. Two or more partitions of Iraq would result in smaller threats rendered smaller still by the need of each partition to protect against other partitions.
I guess the argument against this is that, as "M" argues, Kurdistan would be a threat to nearby states with significant Kurdish populations, like Turkey. It seems to me that Kurdish Iraq is already somewhat autonomous, and the question for Turkey is, do they prefer a small Kurdistan or Kurdistan as part of Iraq?
I mean, do you think Castro likes having the Cuban community as an electoral bloc to pander to in Florida? What if Cubans were an actual majority in Florida? What if they were most of California's population? California is 10% of the US, while Kurdistan is 12-13% of Iraq.
Posted by: Kevin Colwell at December 31, 2003 1:08 PMI thought partitioning Germany was great. Too bad we didn't stick to it.
Beats me why Orrin is so hot on people who spend their leisure hours chanting "Death to America." They could be watching pro football.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at December 31, 2003 4:51 PM