Let Iraq Become Three Seperate Nations

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by americanexpo, Jun 12, 2004.

  1. americanexpo
    Online

    americanexpo Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Now this is a great idea, because frankly, it would help fix a historic injustice (the kurds), show America respects the differences of Islam (giving Sunnis their own nation, capital Baghdad) and further make inroads with the majority friendly Shia (their government is hostile, but not the Iranian people) of Iran by giving the Shiittes in the South their own nation as well. This is a must read, an excellent idea that might help America out a lot.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5191422/site/newsweek/

    Redrawing the Map
    For long-lasting Mideast peace, Iraq should be broken into three nations

    Brennan Linsley / AP
    WEB EXCLUSIVE
    By Col. Mike Turner
    Newsweek
    Updated: 6:06 p.m. ET June 11, 2004June 11 - I’ve been trying for weeks now to be positive, to figure out how to apply the Powell doctrine in a way which can lead the United States out of this mess in Iraq. The other day, I hit upon what I think may be a long-term solution.

    Until now, our premise has been to reshape Iraq as a single, democratic nation within the British-imposed boundaries of 1918. But that is, frankly, an impossible task. Anyone who has studied the region and who sees the predictable jockeying going on now for a seat in the U.S.-imposed government knows such a solution will never work. The real opportunity we have, having deposed Saddam, is to allow the three nations that comprise what we call modern Iraq—the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites—to shape their own futures in a manner which coincides with the more natural evolution of their cultures. What if, rather than imposing our Western notion of a modern Iraq, we embraced, instead, a more regional, pragmatic notion of three separate states. Yes, I know. The pundits are shaking their heads right now thinking, “This guy can’t be serious.” But think through the likely outcomes.

    The Kurds would quite happily form their own independent Kurdistan in the north. They’ve been trying to do it for decades. In a very real and measurable way, the Kurds are closer to the ideal outcome sought by the Bush administration, a functioning, capitalist democracy. They love Americans, and they are thriving in the north. The Turks wouldn’t be happy, but their displeasure would be manageable. We would have to establish a U.S. security force across the narrow gap in the north leading from Turkey into northern Iraq, but that would be relatively easy. Turkey would never risk its standing in NATO by attacking U.S. troops. American soldiers could then be withdrawn from elsewhere in Iraq and used entirely in the north to protect the new Kurdish state. They would be welcomed by the Kurdish population with open arms. Plus, the Kurds would have the major oil-producing city of Kirkuk to feed their economy.

    The Sunnis in the center could have Baghdad and form their own government, which is what they want anyway. Gulf access would be problematic, but workable. The new state, with its former Baathists, would be a major security concern, but a separate Sunni state could easily be supported by a modest international security force sanctioned by the United Nations. And that U.N. force would have no U.S. troops.

    And what about the Shiites in the south? They’re very likely to climb into bed with Iran anyway, either with or without our attempts to stop them. It’s a loss to the United States, but a rump Shiite state aligned with Iran would not significantly shift the regional balance, especially with a flourishing Kurdish state in the north also on Iran’s border.

    Taking this scenario one step further, suppose the three states formed a loose federation—the Federation of Iraqi States—with oil as the common link. Such an arrangement might go far to restrain the more extremist Shiite elements in the south, particularly since that population is probably less than eager to march a 1,000 years backward in history as Iran has done.

    By redefining our political objective and limiting it, we would be able to limit our military mission to one supporting a population that would welcome us, the Kurds. We would cut our losses in the south and, who knows, maybe the Shiites would actually think more favorably of a United States that let them go. Then again, maybe not. But so what? We’re not going to impose our will on the south anyway, and we’re going to destroy all chance for success anywhere else in the country if we try. The Shiites will simply not be constrained by the U.S. notion of a greater Iraq.

    It’s a radical solution, I know, but it makes real sense. It’s only a partial win for the Americans, but it’s a win just the same. And it’s the Powell doctrine at its best. An achievable political end state, a limited military objective in the north, an easy exit strategy and a virtual guarantee of international support. It’s amazingly simple, and it could give the Bush administration a way out. Not that this White House deserves one. But our troops do.


    _____________________________________________
    Retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner was a personal assistant to Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf and served as the air-operations briefing officer in the war room in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, during Desert Storm. From 1993-1997, Col. Turner worked as a Middle East/Africa politico-military policy planner on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon, working for two years for then Lt. Gen. Wesley Clark. He is currently a consultant at TheSynerGGroup in Colorado Springs, Colo.


    © 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I can see a logic to the 3 nations, but I think all you would be doing is creating border wars instead of civil war.

    From 'inside' they may see it a bit different:

    http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/

    EXCERPT:

    And in the midst of this clamor, one sentence seems to be dominating the speeches of the Arab regimes' campaign for keeping their kingdoms far from the reach of democracy:
    "Democracy can not be imposed on a nation from outside. Our people will never let foreigners tell them how to lead their countries"

    Establishing a democracy, in my opinion, is not a matter of addition, on the contrary; it's a process of removing restrictions off the will of a nation's people. And in our case, these restrictions are enforced by the governments and absolutely were not chosen by the people and this explains the Arab governments fear from the reformation plans because they (the plans) form a direct threat to the heads of those governments among whom no one came to power by the people's will.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And with a historical perspective, to be cont'd:

    http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
     
  3. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    Possibly 3 states within a nation similar to the USA. One central government in Baghdad that controls defense and other national needs. But 3 separate state governments that control laws within each state or province whatever you want to call them. People wouldn't have to move from where they are now but they then could have the choice to if they felt the other state would better financially or religiously. The point is, they would still be Iraqis and not have to change nationalities.
     
  4. menewa
    Offline

    menewa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    474
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Denton, Texas
    Ratings:
    +13
    It's really not fair forcing Iraqis to use the current borders, because the current borders were imposed on them by the Brits. The Brits took over the land ater defeating the Ottomans in World War I. One reason for so many brutal civil wars in the African continent today is because many nations were just arbitrarily drawn out by colonial powers. These colonizers could not understand(or just didn't care) about the complex relationships of the many different tribes there, some with violent pasts, and they would just lump together into one new country. Today, many slaughters and genocides in Africa can be attributed to the lineage left by the European colonists and their imposed borders on the once free tribes of Africa.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I agree with your take on the imperialism of the 19th and 20th C. Still got to deal with things as they are today.
     
  6. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    3 different iraqi states part of a larger iraq won't work. I don't think the 3 nations would be able to get along for the country to be able to function.

    3 seperate nations is a possibility, but dividing up the country will cause major problems. For instance, the kurds want Kirkuk to be part of Kurdistan b/c it is rich in oil, but Kirkuk has a kurdish minority, so it would become part of a Sunni nation, so the kurds would presumably go to war with the sunni over it.
     
  7. nbdysfu
    Offline

    nbdysfu Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    Messages:
    829
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +29
    I can think of two reasons not to divide Iraq, and their names are Iran and Syria. It would be like bisecting a cow and throwing it in between two sharks.
     
  8. Avatar4321
    Offline

    Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2004
    Messages:
    70,537
    Thanks Received:
    8,161
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Ratings:
    +12,152
    I have to completely agree here. The Iraqi neighbors would never accept three new nations. Im surprised they are accepting Iraq as it is.

    Besides, we need to show the world we can get these three groups working together and united in a common purpose. Because unless we can unite the people for the cause of freedom we will never defeat the terrorists.
     
  9. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    From http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/ :

    Sunday, June 13, 2004

    I think those who wonder what might be the Arab people response to the big ME project and the demand for reforms in the ME should listen to the Arab people, not the Arab governments or Arab press. Trying to offer as much as I can in this respect, I've translated some of the responses I found in the BBC Arabic forum and although they may not be viewed as very promising, they are no way consistent with what we hear in the Arab media. As expected the most welcoming replies came from Iraq and the worst from Palestine and in between those extremes, came the replies from other Arab countries. The only thing that surprised me was that many posters from Saudi Arabia were optimistic and showed much better understanding and acceptance than the rest of the Arab countries. Here are some of these posts:


    It's understandable that the Arab rulers would refuse the reforms in a western style (although I'm sure they refuse reforms in an Arabic style, if there's anything like that) but what is not understandable is that the Arab citizens would refuse the reforms just because they come from the others. I think the Arab people refuse the reforms that come from outside just because their rulers made them accustomed to look negatively to whatever comes from there, and I think the only ones who lose from rejection of the reforms that come from outside and that is mixed with rejection of the reforms from inside too, are the Arab people.
    As for Bush, I think he has thrown the ball in the Arab governments' court (in his press conference) when he said that he believed that the reforms should suit the culture of the people. So do you think that any Arab government will be serious in making any change without the American pressure?! I doubt it, and I think the USA in her call for reforms in the Arab world is like someone trying to carve in a solid rock.

    Mohammed-Baghdad.

    When I hear terms like freedom and democracy, I feel like there's a silly play America is trying to sell, just to laugh at the Arab people, because the Arab people have known these hollow terms that don't express what they mean.

    Abdullah-Khan Yunis/Ghaza.


    During the past 50 years, the pan-Arab nationalists and the Arab monarchy have been leading the Arab world, the first saying "we are the socialist who look for Arab unity and development…" and the Monarchists made their countries their own property and both have been ruling by fire and iron fist, so enough and a thousands times enough and I wish the super powers move to save the Arab people from this nonsense.
    Tariq Abdul-Hameed-Dubai.

    What's the common thing among the Arab rulers who refuse the invitation to the G8 summit? None of them got the power through elections, therefore any initiative that may push towards democracy and justice and the basic citizen's rights must be not only rejected by them, but also considered as a danger to the state's security and peace.

    Muhannad Al-Magreesi-Tripoli /Libya.

    I think that the change should come from outside and that's because of the dictatorial nature of the Arab rulers and because they only care about their personal interests.

    Adil-Bahrain.

    America reforms the ME? And for who's interest? Is it for the interest of the Arab people? Of course not, it will be for the benefit of Israel by bringing rulers who serve Israel and America in the first place and create a spoiled generation in the region that will not care about the future.

    Shakeeb-Paestine.

    If we cannot make the change by ourselves, then why not let the others help us? Let's put the faked pride aside. It's because of our silence and fear from the change that we went through all of this, we were insulted, tortured and our women were raped by our rulers, those who surpassed everyone in destroying their own people so that the wont be able to face them "He who fears to climb mountains, will live his whole life in holes". Let's allow the others to help us climb the first rock towards the top.

    Abu-Amir Al-Abbassi-Samawa/Iraq.

    Who took away the freedom from the people? It's the regimes and they don't represent their people anywhere you go in the Arab world. They're only opportunistic minorities that live by sucking the people's blood. The change will not come from these regimes, not without strong pressures from outside. The regimes that are asked to make the changes are the main source of all the corruption so how can we expect from the disease to make a change itself in a way that brings the cure!? Here's the Saudi minister of internal affairs reply to the people who demand reforms saying, "You want a democracy that put Prince Abdullah on the shelf??" This is their attitude, so how can you expect from people who think in this way to make true reforms?!

    Saad Al-Saadi/Jidah/Saudi Arabia.

    The fact that the Arab people may refuse the reforms is a dangerous flaw. If our customs and traditions do not allow Democracy, freedom and social justice, then to the Hell with such traditions. Besides, what did the Arab governments offer to solve the Palestinian issue, for instance, so that we should wait for them to make the change now!? We should start the change now or else the number of Arabs living in western countries will be more than those living in the Arab countries and then you can feel happy with your traditions and "historical issues" in countries with not citizens!

    Mohammed Muhsin/Iraqi in Dubai.

    Those who question the possibility of a reform that comes from outside should look at Iraq now. Is there a single Arab who enjoys the same freedom we have now? Any politician no matter how high he is in position is prone to be questioned and fail politicaly if he wasn't faithful to the people, and if Iraq was spared the terror from outside, many regimes would've collapsed without the need for a G8 summit to deal with the Arab situations.

    Majid Muhammed/Baghdad/Iraq.

    The Arab people are incapable of reforming their system for many reasons:
    -The regimes that maintain firm grips on the power and who will make the same old excuses, "It's not the right time" and that they have more important issues like "liberating Palestine" which has become an excuse for every misery.
    -The so-called Arab intellectuals and thinkers have ideologies that they refuse to debate and some of them use these to defend and justify the presence of the dictators.
    -The opposition in most Arab countries is mainly from radical Islamic groups that try to drag us back a thousand years with their blind hatred.
    -The Arab street is hopeless and deceived and cannot tell right from wrong and seem to agree on one thing and that is hatred for America and wishing her downfall, sympathizing with criminals like Saddam, Bin Ladin, Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah, therefore there should be a strong pressure from outside and especially from America and Europe on the ME governments to make radical changes and these should be political, economic, social and educational.

    Mohammed Al-Khafaji/Babylon/Iraq.





    - posted by Omar @ 04:15
     

Share This Page