Iraq splitting up

ballz2wallz · 10-24-2006, 02:52 PM

So apparently Russia is now reporting that Iraq is on the verge of splitting up. What's the big deal if it does? What was it a US general said a while ago; something along the lines of 'we're just undoing what the British did 60 yrs ago'.

If they were split up before, I don't see what the big deal is if they are split up again. Were they stable back then?

Publius · 10-24-2006, 02:58 PM

The modern world obsesses over stagnant, stable national borders... The idea of a nation splitting apart makes modern world leaders lose their lunch for some reason, even if it makes complete and total sense.

WickedLou9 · 10-24-2006, 02:58 PM

Possibly because at least one of the resultant states would side with Iran, giving Iran more of an influence in the region. Something we really don't want.

WickedLou9 · 10-24-2006, 02:59 PM

I think a system like our old confederacy would probably work well for them.
Some sort of less powerful centralized government with 3 mostly independant states. Suni, Shiite, and Kurdish.

ballz2wallz · 10-24-2006, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Possibly because at least one of the resultant states would side with Iran, giving Iran more of an influence in the region. Something we really don't want.

It seems that would simplify things.

ethyl · 10-24-2006, 03:13 PM

Calls for a de facto partition have come from within Iraq, including one on Tuesday from the largest Shiite Muslim political grouping.

Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), told supporters that a federal system with only loose central control would prevent the return of dictatorship.

"Federalism will guarantee that the injustice of the past will not revisit our children nor our grandchildren," Hakim said in a speech for the Eid al-Fitr holidays marking the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

Iraq's post-Saddam constitution, passed by referendum in October 2005, describes the country as a "democratic, federal, representative republic" but a decision on what kind of federal system to use has yet to be taken.

Sounds like a federal system is what they've had in mind... it's the splitting up of the oil money and resources that will be a huge problem, right?

ballz2wallz · 10-24-2006, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by ethyl

Sounds like a federal system is what they've had in mind... it's the splitting up of the oil money and resources that will be a huge problem, right?

It would only make sense that they get in return something that correlates to what they provide, right?

lew · 10-24-2006, 03:18 PM

I agree with Bill Maher and Pat Buchanan on this one, when they said that it should be divided up into like 3 or 4 different states.

DosEquis · 10-24-2006, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It would only make sense that they get in return something that correlates to what they provide, right?

there are two regions of Iraq that have significant amounts of oil. seperating them into three would leave one of them high and dry. That would go over like a lead balloon.

ballz2wallz · 10-24-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

there are two regions of Iraq that have significant amounts of oil. seperating them into three would leave one of them high and dry. That would go over like a lead balloon.

Then it looks like someone is going to need to make friends.

Diesel66 · 10-24-2006, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

So apparently Russia is now reporting that Iraq is on the verge of splitting up. What's the big deal if it does? What was it a US general said a while ago; something along the lines of 'we're just undoing what the British did 60 yrs ago'.

If they were split up before, I don't see what the big deal is if they are split up again. Were they stable back then?

Well two major issues I see.

One is the Kurds will want to create a kurdistan which will include land currently owned by Turkey. Nothing like trying to decide who to back in that war

Two is the Sunnis in the middle of Iraq would own little to no oil. Wonder how long it will take for a civil war to start so they can have some type of economy.

JaJae · 10-24-2006, 07:39 PM

I think them splitting up is a cure to many problems the US is facing. But it wouldn't stop the killings and power struggles. And undoubtably some will end up with all the oil and the others will all starve to death on UN assistance.

RMNIXON · 10-24-2006, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Possibly because at least one of the resultant states would side with Iran, giving Iran more of an influence in the region. Something we really don't want.

kinggovernor · 10-24-2006, 09:00 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

Possibly because at least one of the resultant states would side with Iran, giving Iran more of an influence in the region. Something we really don't want.

that is 90% of our problem in Iraq right now, we would love to hand majority control over to the shiites but we don't iran to make a power grab.

garbagemanlb · 10-24-2006, 09:05 PM

If a system for equal distribution of oil profits/resources was set up, then this would be an idea that could work.

avsp · 10-26-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Well two major issues I see.

One is the Kurds will want to create a kurdistan which will include land currently owned by Turkey. Nothing like trying to decide who to back in that war

the desired 'new nation of Kurdistan' would also include part of what is currently Syria

No (non-kurd) faction within Turkey could maintain any appeal by agreeing to ceceeed (sp?) any land to the Kurds. Its runs totally counter to all factions central mythos'

Two is the Sunnis in the middle of Iraq would own little to no oil. Wonder how long it will take for a civil war to start so they can have some type of economy.

Again correct IMO.

The idea of having 3 states & one oil industry & splitting the revenue whilst it has logical appeal to us just isnt going to wash in Iraq. Although the majority arent violently-minded sectarian bigots enough people are to ensure that no such compromise is going to work, ..., not least coz various people are seeking power by expressly exploiting such hatred.

Further any boarders are going to provide future points of conflict, ..., not least coz some may ensure that they are drawn that way for precisely this reason.

OTOH given all the alternatives the 3 state iraq may be a 'least worst' option

The idea that Iran can be prevented from having enormous influence in any new stable arrangment in Iraq is probably pie-in-the-sky. Indeed such worries were a good enopugh reason not to destabilise Iraq in the first place.

It may be possible to counter increased Iranian influence with an increased Syrian one, ..., but this is the exact opposite of the original point of the war & hardly seems fair on those in Iraq who crave democracy/freedom

Alternate solutions along similar lines include breaking it up into as many as 30-40 mini-tribal/clan states, ..., this may have a greater chance of working in a 'federal', or sort-of-commonwealth kind of way

Scrum · 10-26-2006, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I agree with Bill Maher and Pat Buchanan on this one, when they said that it should be divided up into like 3 or 4 different states.

Some people have been calling for this for quite a while only to be told that we are "staying the course".

DosEquis · 10-26-2006, 01:32 PM

I remember Joe Biden being one of the first to offer up such a plan.

Scrum · 10-26-2006, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I remember Joe Biden being one of the first to offer up such a plan.

Yep, and that was quite a while ago.