Should Iraq Be (Soft) Partitioned?

C

CarbineCaleb

New member
Things aren't going smoothly over there. :rolleyes: There is frequent and intense debate over US troops - more troops/less troops, pull 'em now/pull 'em later... And yet, by all accounts, there is no military solution possible - it requires a political solution. However, no one even ventures there.

Well, almost no one. For the last year, Senator Biden (and no, I am not pushing him for Prez), has been promoting a plan for a loose Federation of Iraqi states, organized along basically sectarian/geographical divisions (which are increasingly converging to be one and the same). The central government would have only limited responsibilities, for example maintaining a national guard and distribution of oil revenues. Since there is *still* a federal government, it is not a "hard partition", but a "soft partition".

Personally, I think the idea has merit, and may be the most practical route forward from where we actually are, rather than from some dreamworld where we wish we were. I also think Senator Biden deserves some kudos for actually using his head, and for sticking his neck out on an issue where virtually everyone else is just ducking and blending in with their party. It is a bipartisan plan, expected to come to a vote next week.

See:
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070922/NATIONAL/709220334/1006/NEWS
http://www.joebiden.com/issues/?id=0009

What do you think???
 
Last edited:
Iraq is already "soft partitioned", for all intents and purposes. The Kurds have their own patch of it up north, and the Sunnis and Shiites wasted no time running each other out of their respective majority neighborhoods in Baghdad. The provinces that were majority Shi'a before the war are now almost exclusively so, and the Sunni areas likewise.
 
Iraq is already "soft partitioned", for all intents and purposes.
Click to expand...
I agree that increasingly, the ethnic partitioning into segregated geographic regions is happening anyway.

The question is, should a political soft partitioning be endorsed as a formal solution, with accompanying political structures to make it work? Or, should we continue to try to make a centrally governed, homogenous nation of it?

Obviously the Iraqis would need to buy into it, but the people themselves would probably go for it, since they seem to be voting with their feet as it is...
 
Iraq is already "soft partitioned", for all intents and purposes.
Click to expand...

In a recent interview, the de facto and de jure leader of the Kurds got asked about partitioning. He said nope.

There may be ulterior political motives behind the "no," but the reasons he gave were pretty convincing. So long as the Turks mind their manners.
 
In a recent interview, the de facto and de jure leader of the Kurds got asked about partitioning. He said nope.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong about this, but the question may have referred to "hard partitioning". Hard partitioning would mean completely breaking Iraq into 3 separate countries.

The "soft partitioning" solution still retains Iraq as a single country, just one with a limited central government and strong regional governments. It represents a compromise between where we are now, which is IMO, simply not working, and a complete disintegration of the country.
 
Caution - long post - the plan outline

  1. Establish One Iraq, with Three Regions
    • Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three largely autonomous regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad
    • Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
    • Form regional governments -- Kurd, Sunni and Shiite -- responsible for administering their own regions
  2. Share Oil Revenues
    • Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
    • Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, which would attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure
  3. Convene International Conference, Enforce Regional Non-Aggression Pact
    • Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders
    • Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it
    • Create a standing Contact Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments
  4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops
    • Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by the summer of 2008
    • Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces
  5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program
    • Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs
    • Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries
 
The shortened version of the whole mess: The Sunnis and Shiites hate each other and the Kurds just want to be left alone.

Unless the Sunnis and Shiites start to put up with each other things are going to stay a mess.
 
Although a good idea it wouldn't solve it....

NO matter what they are gonna fight and squabble among themselves.

BUT,...... If the Kurds asked for freedom I would give it to them. I got to give a lot of credit to them. Tough little farts and they deserve it. PLus they are isolated (More) than shiites and seuni's and they might be able to hold onto stable country.....

My thoughts.
 
I LMFAO! Give the carret to the Kurds! They Just want to be left alone!. They are the ones that Hussein hit with gas artillery! Killed like some 5-7 thousand of humans. They have since trenched themselve in, limit access to the people they like and just look at what they have! Power, Water, Commerce, Major building projects financed by out side funding!

I think and hope they end up with there own country by DEFACTO!!!

The Turks, don't , much like the Idea but are going to be SHuush under the light of the over all scheem!

If the others had half a brain, the would try the same.
 
Me thoughts exactly.. Besides Israel, the Kurds get #2 spot on
"TOugh Little-----s that you dont wanna mess with" list.
 
I think and hope they end up with there own country by DEFACTO!!!
The Turks, don't , much like the Idea
Click to expand...
Yes, the Turks have a pretty large military presence right across from their border with Iraq, precisely for this reason. If a fully independent Kurdistan is ever declared, the Turks will almost surely invade within days.
 
If the Iraqis want wanted a partitioned country I feel certain they would make come apart like a cheap watch. It hasn't despite the best efforts of certain outsiders. What is happening now is the political sausage making we call democracy. The issue is money and source is oil. They will figure it out in spite of air bags like Biden.
 
It could work, and I think that is the biggest problem with the plan. It's not politically correct to suggest that some people might be better off living with others who have similar beliefs rather than those they consider to be enemies. After all, we can't all live in peace and harmony unless we are all doing it in the same place, right?
 
Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues
Click to expand...

Probably should throw interstate commerce into the mix. Or maybe not.

Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable
Click to expand...

But you're asking Sunnis to expect that a Shiite controlled government will keep track of the revenues and hand them their share in a fair and honest fashion. Fast forward a few years, and some Sunni does something horrible to some Shiite, and the Shiites in the government say, "wait a minute, this piece of paper says we have to pay those guys, but I don't think we really do..." They would be right, of course.

With that said, I think the plan outline is the best I've seen. Reconstruction after our Civil War was a trying time, and it will probably be worse for Iraq.
 
While I do think the Biden plan still poses risks, it is to me, much better thought out and realistic than what has gone on to date. Interestingly, it is also consistent both with options in Iraq's current constitution, as well as with historical precedent. Right now, there is on paper strong central control with responsibility for virtually everything, but the reality is that the government is paralyzed with pressures from sectarian violence, as well as accompanying sectarian competition. By offloading many responsiblities to regional governments in more homogenous regions, this could alleviate the paralysis. Whether or not Biden gets credit for this, I think it is a likely outcome, just from the organic pressures inside Iraq - which the plan is aligned with. You can consider the plan to be a recipe for managing these pressures through a political solution to a constructive end. If not this, another likely possiblity is a complete disintegration driven by the violence, which wouldn't be good.


Here are some more aspects of the Biden plan (his words, not mine):
  • The Plan is not a foreign imposition - it is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which already provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. On October 11, Iraq's parliament approved legislation to implement the constitution's articles on federalism. Prior to the British colonial period and Saddam's military dictatorship, what is now Iraq functioned as three largely autonomous regions.
  • The Plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the sectarian militia - It offers a realistic albeit interim solution. Realistic, because none of the major groups will give up their militia voluntarily in the absence of trust and confidence and neither we or the Iraqi government has the means to force them to do so. Once federalism is implemented, the militias are likely to retreat to their respective regions to protect their own and vie for power, instead of killing the members of other groups. But it is only an interim solution, because no nation can sustain itself peacefully with private armies. Over time, if a political settlement endures, the militia would be incorporated into regional and national forces, as is happening in Bosnia.
  • The Plan is an answer to the problem of mixed cities - Large cities with mixed populations present a challenge under any plan now being considered. The essence of the Plan is that mixed populations can only live together peacefully if their leadership is truly satisfied with the overall arrangement. If so, that leadership will help keep the peace in the cities. At the same time, we would make Baghdad a federal city, and buttress the protection of minorities there and in the other mixed cities with an international peacekeeping force. Right now, the prospect for raising such a force is small. But following a political settlement, an international conference and the establishment of a Contact Group, others are more likely to participate, including countries like Saudi Arabia which have offered peacekeepers in the past.
  • The Plan is in the self-interest of Iran - Iran likes it exactly as it is in Iraq - with the United States bogged down and bleeding. But the prospect of a civil war in Iraq is not in Tehran's interest: it could easily spill over Iraq's borders and turn into a regional war with neighbors intervening on opposing sides and exacerbating the Sunni-Shiite divide at a time Shiite Iran is trying to exert leadership in the Islamic world. Iran also would receive large refugee flows as Iraqis flee the fighting. Iran, like all of Iraq's neighbors, has an interest in Iraq remaining unified and not splitting into independent states. Iran does not want to see an independent Kurdistan emerge and serve as an example for its own restive 5 million Kurds. That's why Iran - and all of Iraq's neighbors -- can and should be engaged to support a political settlement in Iraq.
  • The Plan is in the self-interest of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds - The Sunnis increasingly understand they will not regain power in Iraq. Faced with the choice of being a permanent minority player in a central government dominated by Shiites or having the freedom to control their day-to-day lives in a Sunni region, they are likely to choose the latter provided they are guaranteed a fair share of oil revenues to make their region viable. The Shiites know they can dominate Iraq politically, but not defeat a Sunni insurgency, which can bleed Iraq for years. The Kurds may dream of independence, but fear the reaction of Turkey and Iran - their interest is to achieve as much autonomy as possible while keeping Iraq together. Why would Shiites and Kurds give up some oil revenues to the Sunnis? Because that is the price of peace and the only way to attract the massive foreign investment needed to maximize Iraqi oil production. The result will be to give Shiites and Kurds a smaller piece of a much larger oil pie and give all three groups an incentive to protect the oil infrastructure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top