Partition Iraq
"Iraq is struggling to control....brutal Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence...."(1)
When a nation is composed of two or more hostile groups, such as Hindus and Muslims, sometimes the best solution is to partition the land into several homogeneous nations. Thus British India was split into India and Pakistan in 1947, and the Palestine Mandate was to be split into Israel and an Arab state. (2) More recently, Czechoslovakia peacefully morphed into two nations while Yugoslavia fractured into five states after a bloody civil war.
Sadam Hussein managed to hold Iraq together by military force, but the United States and Britain (plus some other coalition troops) have been unable to quell sectarian violence, even with a more powerful army. Why?
The goal of American policy since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has been to form a stable, united and democratic country. The trouble is that democracy requires a population that puts loyalty to the nation above any other loyalty. Furthermore, in a true democracy, those who lose an election accept the legitimate leadership of the winners until the next election. Neither one of these requirements pertains to the people of Iraq, which is why the country is inherently unstable.
First, about a third of Iraqis are Kurds, who want no part of Iraq at all. They want an independent "Kurdistan", and who can blame them? They are not Arabs; and unlike the Jews, who have but one state in the Middle East, the Kurds have none.
About two-thirds of the rest of the population are Shia Muslims, who share their faith with Iran. Significantly, the Shiite-led government of Iraq is now forging deeper diplomatic and economic ties with Iran. As this is written, the Prime Minister of Iraq is visiting Tehran for that very purpose.
The rest of Iraq is Sunni Muslim. Not only do they differ from Shiites in religious ritual, but they also consider Shiites to be agents of Iran, a hated enemy nation. Under Sadam, Iraq conducted a bloody ten-year war with Iran in which more than a million people were killed. The Sunni insurgency, directed against both the Shiite-dominated regime and its American protectors, is supported by Al Qaida in Iraq.
A bill now pending in the Iraqi Parliament would grant partial autonomy to three regions of the country, which correspond to the ethnic/religious components of the population described above. Sunni legislators oppose the bill, since their region happens to have no oil, and the other two do. Yet, given their minority status, the Sunnis cannot regain the control of the whole country they enjoyed under the Sadam regime by democratic means. Maybe that is why so many Sunnis have opted for a violent revolution, hoping to seize power the same way the Baathists did (3).
Thus Iraq, which has existed in its present borders only since World War I, is composed of mutually hostile groups, none of whom put the nation as a whole as the primary object of their loyalty. The country could be held together by a large enough military force, but the United States has no intention of occupying Iraq with a large enough force, and neither does anyone else. Moreover, the goal of making Iraq a democracy cannot be achieved by military force, even if all resistance could be crushed.
The Bush administration is opposed to partition of Iraq for three reasons: the Turks do not want a Kurdistan on their southern border (since they have a Kurd problem too), a Shiite Republic would be influenced (if not controlled) by Iran, and the Sunni region may become a haven for Al Qaida and other terrorists.
As bad as these consequences could be, the alternative of using American soldiers to keep together millions of people who cannot get along with each other is even worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Page 3A, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 13, 2006.
(2) Most of the land designated by the UN for an Arab state was seized by Egypt and Jordan in 1948, and taken by Israel in 1967. It is now governed by the Palestine Authority.
(3) The Baath Party seized power in 1958 in a military coup d'etat led by Col. Abdul Qarim-Qassem, during which the British-installed King Feisal II was murdered.
When a nation is composed of two or more hostile groups, such as Hindus and Muslims, sometimes the best solution is to partition the land into several homogeneous nations. Thus British India was split into India and Pakistan in 1947, and the Palestine Mandate was to be split into Israel and an Arab state. (2) More recently, Czechoslovakia peacefully morphed into two nations while Yugoslavia fractured into five states after a bloody civil war.
Sadam Hussein managed to hold Iraq together by military force, but the United States and Britain (plus some other coalition troops) have been unable to quell sectarian violence, even with a more powerful army. Why?
The goal of American policy since the 2003 invasion of Iraq has been to form a stable, united and democratic country. The trouble is that democracy requires a population that puts loyalty to the nation above any other loyalty. Furthermore, in a true democracy, those who lose an election accept the legitimate leadership of the winners until the next election. Neither one of these requirements pertains to the people of Iraq, which is why the country is inherently unstable.
First, about a third of Iraqis are Kurds, who want no part of Iraq at all. They want an independent "Kurdistan", and who can blame them? They are not Arabs; and unlike the Jews, who have but one state in the Middle East, the Kurds have none.
About two-thirds of the rest of the population are Shia Muslims, who share their faith with Iran. Significantly, the Shiite-led government of Iraq is now forging deeper diplomatic and economic ties with Iran. As this is written, the Prime Minister of Iraq is visiting Tehran for that very purpose.
The rest of Iraq is Sunni Muslim. Not only do they differ from Shiites in religious ritual, but they also consider Shiites to be agents of Iran, a hated enemy nation. Under Sadam, Iraq conducted a bloody ten-year war with Iran in which more than a million people were killed. The Sunni insurgency, directed against both the Shiite-dominated regime and its American protectors, is supported by Al Qaida in Iraq.
A bill now pending in the Iraqi Parliament would grant partial autonomy to three regions of the country, which correspond to the ethnic/religious components of the population described above. Sunni legislators oppose the bill, since their region happens to have no oil, and the other two do. Yet, given their minority status, the Sunnis cannot regain the control of the whole country they enjoyed under the Sadam regime by democratic means. Maybe that is why so many Sunnis have opted for a violent revolution, hoping to seize power the same way the Baathists did (3).
Thus Iraq, which has existed in its present borders only since World War I, is composed of mutually hostile groups, none of whom put the nation as a whole as the primary object of their loyalty. The country could be held together by a large enough military force, but the United States has no intention of occupying Iraq with a large enough force, and neither does anyone else. Moreover, the goal of making Iraq a democracy cannot be achieved by military force, even if all resistance could be crushed.
The Bush administration is opposed to partition of Iraq for three reasons: the Turks do not want a Kurdistan on their southern border (since they have a Kurd problem too), a Shiite Republic would be influenced (if not controlled) by Iran, and the Sunni region may become a haven for Al Qaida and other terrorists.
As bad as these consequences could be, the alternative of using American soldiers to keep together millions of people who cannot get along with each other is even worse.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Page 3A, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, September 13, 2006.
(2) Most of the land designated by the UN for an Arab state was seized by Egypt and Jordan in 1948, and taken by Israel in 1967. It is now governed by the Palestine Authority.
(3) The Baath Party seized power in 1958 in a military coup d'etat led by Col. Abdul Qarim-Qassem, during which the British-installed King Feisal II was murdered.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home