Mark Pfeifle’s op-ed at Time, a recapitulation of a proposal made by then-Sen. Joe Biden who’s since been frequently lauded for it, is an example of an argument I’ve been having for more than a decade. He wants to divide Iraq:
Joe Biden, it seems, was ahead of his time.
In May 2006, then-Sen. Biden and foreign policy writer Leslie Gelb proposed a plan to divide Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions along sectarian lines. At the time, many dismissed and derided the proposal. Now, a long, deadly decade later, the next American president would be wise to embrace it.
Here are the problems with the proposal. First, other than the Kurds the Iraqis don’t want to divide Iraq. The Kurds are fine with it. The Turks reject a Kurdish state. The Shi’ite Arabs and the Sunni Arabs would be pleased with a division that grants each of them the greater part of Iraq’s oil. Any reasonable division would result in two-landlocked states.
In the absence of Iraqi acceptance of division, how does Mr. Pfeifle propose that the partition be accomplished? If he proposes that we dictate a constitution to the Iraqis that’s more to our liking, why stop there? Why not dictate a constitution that guarantees minority rights while we’re at it? How will that constitution be enforced?
The proposal requires long-time occupation of Iraq, something the American people have never supported. Even in 2003.
I wish Mr. Pfeifle the best of luck with his proposal. I wonder if he knows how to use an M-16? There are some who never tire of war. I can’t help but wonder if it’s because they don’t feel its cost.
Iraq has been a de-facto divided state since 1994 and there’s little to suggest anything will change in the future. So there are really three questions going forward:
1. Where will the borders be between the three areas?
2. When will the rest of the world recognize the division (either as a fact or politically)?
3. Can the three rump states agree to some kind of federal model that preserves “Iraq” as a meaningful political entity?
As for our role, we can’t impose #1, should wait-and-see for #2, and work diplomatically for #3. It’s what we are doing in “Somalia” which has seen some very limited success.
BTW, the link does not go to the referenced op-ed.
Thanks. Fixed.
The only reason the Kurds did not leave before was because we were occupying the place and didn’t let them leave. Agree that the would be happy to go out on their own. The Sunnis and Shia already act as though they are separate states, but not sure if they really want to split. I kind of think the Shia still want to run the whole place and suspect vengeance is important.
Steve
I think that Iraq and Somalia and possibly many or most of the countries in MENA are lacking in the fundamental requirement for a republic: the willingness to compromise. I’m beginning to wonder about the United States in that regard as well.
I disagree w/ Andy about de-facto divisions, but IMHO the argument is most strongly expressed as the region of Kurdistan having the potential capability for economic and security independence to form a state. Its just that such a state would cross several national borders, and presumably locate new borders in the middle of oil fields. Its not sufficient to have cohesive borders for a landlocked country; it would need the support of friendly neighbors, which is hard to imagine developing after their territory has been “stolen.”
Other than the Iraq War having implanted a pro-Israel puppet, the fracture was the hoped for outcome by The Lobby and favored nation of Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz.