November 1, 2006

GAME, SET, MATCH:

A TNR Online Debate: Should Iraq Be Partitioned? (Peter W. Galbraith & Reuel Marc Gerecht, 11.01.06, New Republic)

Wednesday, November 1

Dear Reuel,

Thanks for doing this debate with me. I'll get right to it: The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward. Iraq has already broken up, and partition simply reflects that reality. The Iraqis themselves endorsed this outcome when they voted overwhelmingly for a constitution that creates virtually independent regions and a powerless central government. Opponents of partition need to explain how they would get Iraq's Kurds to accept a state they hate and how they would end the civil war between Shia and Sunni Arabs. And, while critics observe that partition does not solve the problem of Baghdad and other mixed areas, they need to explain how an alternative approach might end the horrific sectarian killing that is taking place in these areas.


Heck, we'd like to hear them explain why troops shouldn't be deployed to Scotland to prevent the devolution of Britain along ethnic lines.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 1, 2006 3:23 PM
Comments

Only war justifies the existence of the state. Since the beneficence of the world government has freed the rest of the world from the necessity to make war, all states which are not the world government may wither away without harm.

Since we cannot trust the non-folk to forbear spoilation, we ourselves cannot set aside the power of the world government at any foreseeable time.

Posted by: Lou Gots at November 2, 2006 11:06 AM
« MEETING AS EQUALS: | Main | THE REAL IS EVERYTHING, THE REST IS FISHY: »