May 09, 2006Don't Purposefully Partition IraqI'm still more with Anthony Cordesman than Gelb/Biden/Galbraith on this issue. He's got a succinct piece in today's NYT. Key quotes: The first problem is that Iraq does not have a neat set of ethnic dividing lines. There has never been a meaningful census of Iraq showing exactly how its Arab Sunnis, Arab Shiites, Kurds and other factions are divided or where they live. The two elections held since the toppling of Saddam Hussein have made it clear, however, that Iraq's cities and 18 governorates all have significant minorities. Regular readers know the specter of population transfers, and what to do about places like Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk, have always made me extremely skeptical about the 'loose confederation' idea. Cordesman is right that our efforts to build a unified, multi-ethnic army would likely come to naught as well, were the Gelb/Biden plan adopted. Of course, one can argue that preserving a unitary state is just shy of impossible, and that partitioning Iraq is more in tune with reality. I guess I'm just not there yet. Comments
How would we go about partitioning iraq? I mean, in detail. Ever since the "handover" when Bremer gave iraq to Allawi, we've been saying that iraq lhas a sovereign government. Are we going to decide that the sovereign iraqi government has no say in where it's borders are? In a legal sense partition is no longer our decision to make. Of course we could be indian-givers. We could take the country back and partition it and set up three new governments. Nobody's going to tell us we can't do that. We're the 800 pound gorilla in iraq, we can sit anywhere we want to. If we say there's no iraqi government then there's no iraqi government. But if we felt some need to explain it to anybody, what would we say? Oh. yeah. This idea is just moronic. Posted by: Chris at May 9, 2006 09:03 PM | Permalink to this commentI don't understand why people think that partition is some sort of magic solution. Look what it did in the case of India and Pakistan: five million slaughtered, 50 years of hostility with four wars and a nuclear arms race, and an on-going separatist insurgency in Kashmir. Partition can work in some cases, like Checkoslovokia, where there is some real agreement, but such cases are rare. Actually, I think the one thing that gives some hope for Iraq is that the parties know they have no alternative but to develop some sort of shared government. They know that they can't break up, and they also know that no party has the strength to dominate the other two, and so they have to figure out some way to get along. If it weren't for that fact, the situation would have blown to pieces a long time ago. Posted by: Les Brunswick at May 10, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink to this comment "Of course we could be indian-givers. We could take the country back and partition it and set up three new governments. Nobody's going to tell us we can't do that. We're the 800 pound gorilla in iraq, we can sit anywhere we want to. If we say there's no iraqi government then there's no iraqi government. But if we felt some need to explain it to anybody, what would we say?" We'd be the 800 pound gorrilla fighting several tons of guerrillas, so to speak. At that point everybody would be attacking us. Posted by: Barry at May 10, 2006 01:29 AM | Permalink to this commentare biden et al really calling for partition? IIUC they still envision a soveriegn Iraqi state with control over the army. and some redistribution of oil revenue. It would be very heavy autonomy. Not that different, and possibly better for the Sunnis, than whats in the current "draft" Constitution. Depending on how its implemented. IIUC the centralizing approach now advocates creating two autonomous regions, not three. Kurdistan, and Rest of Iraq, sharing a weak central govt - but ROI govt would be strong and centralized. This would solve problems of Basra, Baghdad, Hilla, etc but NOT Kirkuk or even Mosul. Posted by: liberalhawk at May 12, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink to this comment |
About Belgravia Dispatch
Gregory Djerejian, an international lawyer and business executive, comments intermittently on global politics, finance & diplomacy at this site. The views expressed herein are solely his own and do not represent those of any organization. More About the Author Email the Author Recent Entries
Lunch w/ the FT...
Robert Strange McNamara Biden on Israel/Iran Mea Culpa (Part II) Something of A Mea Culpa Search
The News
Financial Times
New York Times Wall Street Journal The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation Real Clear Politics Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder American Footprints The American Scene Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Washington Monthly James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Marc Lynch Josh Marshall Progressive Realist Obsidian Wings George Packer Gideon Rachman Andrew Sullivan Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy Steve Walt James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog Seeking Alpha The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Think Tanks
Security
Books
American Scholar
LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street Arts & Letters Daily TNR's The Book The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice Epicurean Corner
Archives
|
|||