DIVIDE INTO TWO, NOT THREE:

A constitution drenched in blood (Pepe Escobar. 3/03/04, Asia Times)

A united Iraqi nation resisting the massive presence of US and other foreign troops in its territory, even after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, would be a troublesome prospect. So no wonder articles have already popped up in the New York Times and the French daily Le Figaro calling for a partition of Iraq. The argument is that the unity of the Iraqi nation is a mirage: the country can only be governed by brute force (Saddam Hussein-style, but without the massacres). Over the years, Washington figures from many sides of the political spectrum have consistently voiced the same opinion.

According to the British imperial maxim of "divide and rule", three small states - Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite - would be much easier to control than the Iraq construct put together by the British themselves. The operation would also fulfill neo-conservative dreams of deporting Palestinians from the West Bank to a putative Sunni mini-Iraq. Defenders of the idea mention Yugoslavia as a successful example of a modern partition. [...]

Iraqi Kurdistan will remain autonomous until an elected parliament and a legitimate government are able to decide its future. Shi'ites and Sunnis also anticipate the possibility that three regions anywhere in the country may decide to form a federation. Among the 18 Iraqi regions, three have a Kurdish majority, three have a Sunni majority, nine have a Shi'ite majority and three are an ethnic patchwork.

The bit about exporting Palestinians to Iraq is especially precious--the Sunni refugee flow will be headed out of Iraq. There are only going to be two states: Kurdistan and a de facto Shi'astan.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 3, 2004 8:13 AM