More on Autonomous Regions
Senator Biden and Leslie Gelb propose a Bosnia solution for Iraq. That is, a very loose federation of three big ethnic enclaves.
They seem to just surrender Kirkuk province to Kurdistan and don't seem aware of the Turkoman population as a factor there. There are on the order of 750,000 Turkomans, and they have been adopted as protectees by Turkey, and they are not going to accede to Kurdistan. There could easily be a Kurdish-Turkey war if a settlement is not made with the Turkomans.
My own proposal, yesterday, for the formation of provincial confederacies, is based on discussions among Iraqi politicians. I do not see them as autonomous as Biden and Gelb propose, and, indeed, I have argued that the federal government should parcel out petroleum income to them in such a way as to bind them to the central state. Biden and Gelb want to use US foreign aid (which is miniscule) as a carrot, but do not talk about the potential for Iraqi petroleum itself to play this role.
In contrast, Anthony Cordesman warns against partition. He points out that Iraqi populations are mixed, and partitioning the country into three zones would produce massive ethnic cleansing and other dangers.
He does not bring up another issue. The Arab world would never forgive the United States if it broke up Iraq. You would never be able to convince them that it hadn't been done primarily for the benefit of Israel. Iraq in the late 1970s was a comer as potentially the most powerful Arab country. To see it broken and in fragments, supine before imperial and regional powers, would be heartbreaking to Arabs and would certainly provoke anti-Western sentiments and attacks in retaliation.
Bush's response, via Scott McClellan, was to say that the US is committed to a united, federal Iraq with a strong central government. Saying that is not very useful, however, unless you specify how you will overcome the obstacles to reaching it. Biden has to be praised for taking the bull by the horns and proposing something! From Bush we just get an ostrich act.
In other Iraq news:
The FT reports on Iran's firefights with the radical Marxist Pejak faction of the PKK, which has carried out sabotage and terror attacks in Iran. Iraqi Kurdistan seems to be giving both PKK and Pejek safe haven. There are said to be 5,000 PKK fighters in Iraq, who fled eastern Turkey. This problem of Iraqi Kurdish leaders allowing their territory to be used to attack tarkets in neighboring Turkey and Iran has produced both Turkish and Iranian shelling into Iraqi Kurdistan in recent days. Somehow the Turkish attacks are ignored or read as understandable, but the Iranian ones are unsupportable. A policy of Kurdistan encouraging autonomy for other regional Kurdistans inevitably leads to bloodshed.
And it is one of the problems with the Gelb fascination with dividing up Iraq-- that will also divide up the rest of the Middle East, in ways that are not good for anyone.
Guerrilla violence killed 8 on Monday.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/02/2006 12:17:00 AM
|
Facebook
11 Comments:
"He does not bring up another issue. The Arab world would never forgive the United States if it broke up Iraq. You would never be able to convince them that it hadn't been done primarily for the benefit of Israel. Iraq in the late 1970s was a comer as potentially the most powerful Arab country. To see it broken and in fragments, supine before imperial and regional powers, would be heartbreaking to Arabs and would certainly provoke anti-Western sentiments and attacks in retaliation."
Muslims of all stripes would take offense. Not just Arabs...
That's a whole lot of people, let me remind you.
Not to mention countries like India, which hold large Muslim populations and have been traditionally in the Muslim sphere. They will definitely take notice and become a MORE militant country officially and otherwise, as a result of the partition of Iraq.
You know, I must say... Britain is largely responsible for all of this.. after all, they taught the whole world how to break countries apart.
Whether it is Hindu-Muslim or Sunni Muslim-Shia Muslim strife or something else, divide and rule is an old policy of the Brits.
While the British empire has fallen, its shadow still looms wide over this earth.
"The Arab world would never forgive the United States if it broke up Iraq. You would never be able to convince them that it hadn't been done primarily for the benefit of Israel. Iraq in the late 1970s was a comer as potentially the most powerful Arab country. To see it broken and in fragments, supine before imperial and regional powers, would be heartbreaking to Arabs and would certainly provoke anti-Western sentiments and attacks in retaliation."
Very very true.
I imagine that the Arab constituencies in Iraq would also have something to say about giving up Kirkuk province.
Could we get some of those Iraqi troops to start training the Americans? This story is from the Washington Post. We could learn a lot from the Iraqis. What if every soldier from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California refused to serve except along the border with Mexico?
BAGHDAD, May 1 -- The graduation of nearly 1,000 new Iraqi army soldiers in restive Anbar province took a disorderly turn Sunday when dozens of the men declared that they would refuse to serve outside their home areas, according to U.S. and Iraqi military authorities.
The graduation ceremony at Camp Habbaniyah, a base about 45 miles west of Baghdad, had been going well. The 978 soldiers, most of them Sunni Muslims, had just finished nearly five weeks of military training and were parading before a review stand to the sounds of martial music. They took an oath of service while U.S. and Iraqi officials delivered speeches hailing the event as an important step toward the formation of a national army.
Then some soldiers started tearing their clothes off to demonstrate their rage . . .
(I think better reporting would have been to write that they started tearing off their UNIFORMS . . .)
Re: Biden's proposals to partition Iraq, yeh, that worked so well in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh that we should try it again.
I'm a little confused as to this discussion about radically changing Iraq's infrastructure. Why are US senators and international bloggers discussing this issue? Do we plan to enforce our ideas on Iraq ... again? Isn't this something that Iraqis should decide? They already HAVE a government, and albeit they have different means, they all want a unified Iraq.
Its akin to Iraqi parliament members discussing how to break the US into "The West, the South, and the East". Sure people can discuss it all they'd like, but no one has enough authority to tell us how to run our country. Similarly, we don't, and should not, have the authority to tell them how to run theirs.
Isn't the Biden/Gelb "Third Way" actually the Wolfowitz/Perle "First Way"? How is this "Democrat" plan so different from the initial neo-con Republican plan?
For more discussion of this, see my post. http://profcutler.com/wordpress_blog/?p=51
Juan,
The problem with federalist proposals is that they assume that the US is acting alone without enemies that are strategic. In my opinion Syria and Iran have digested your earlier assay that the best that the US can do is achieve an honorable exit from Iraq. A federation could facilitate such an exit. However, it seems to me that Syria and Iran would want to get something for facilitating an honorable exit. Any proposal must address how the US will pay the piper.
Juan Cole said:
"In contrast, Anthony Cordesman warns against partition. He points out that Iraqi populations are mixed, and partitioning the country into three zones would produce massive ethnic cleansing and other dangers.
He does not bring up another issue. The Arab world would never forgive the United States if it broke up Iraq. You would never be able to convince them that it hadn't been done primarily for the benefit of Israel. Iraq in the late 1970s was a comer as potentially the most powerful Arab country. To see it broken and in fragments, supine before imperial and regional powers, would be heartbreaking to Arabs and would certainly provoke anti-Western sentiments and attacks in retaliation."
Seiff mentions this in the 6th paragraph though it's not clear if he's speaking for himself or paraphrasing Cordesman:
"Major, moderate, pro-American Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Morocco and the Gulf emirates are likely also to be furious at the Untied States if it partitions Iraq. Baghdad was the seat of the Sunni Muslim Caliphate during the most glorious era of its history and Iraq in modern times too has always been seen as Arabs their most powerful military nation and the one that guards the eastern flank of the Arab world. Partitioning Iraq could therefore give an enormous boost to anti-American passions from Morocco on the Atlantic coast to the Gulf States and Oman by the Indian Ocean."
"The Arab world would never forgive the United States if it broke up Iraq. You would never be able to convince them that it hadn't been done primarily for the benefit of Israel."
I'm sure Biden, given his political ambitions, ran his proposal by appropriate representatives of Israel's "Lobby" before coming out with it. That's standard practice for any experienced hands in Congress.And of course the proposal does very much advantage Israel, which already has tight links with the Kurds. Which brings us back to Walt and Mearsheimer. From whatever side they come, ME foreign policy proposals will benefit, or at least not threaten, Israel. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up with Biden's proposal, not yours, Juan.
"In contrast, Anthony Cordesman warns against partition. He points out that Iraqi populations are mixed, and partitioning the country into three zones would produce massive ethnic cleansing and other dangers."
What is happening now?
The United States shouldnt be the "one" to do any dividing. The US in my opinion really doesnt have credibility after so much of the reasons for war have been shown to be untrue or exaggerated. Perhpas some neutral group of outside petroleum intrests could begin a bidding process with the most reasonable and sane of Kurdish /Sunni?? statesmen and start developing "economic zones". a known oil reserve is selected for development - local customs are followed concering existing property concerns - the land is then bid upon - high bidder wins - drilling, not bombing begins. additional investment in these areas will link theses zones. over time, bennifitting regions. So, a 'Kurdistan', formed within the current Iraq boundary can begin as simply a development project. Linking zone to zone. To share in this prosperity, other zones will want to join up. Voila!!! Kurdistan!! Some friction at first, sure...but as the work begins this will likely subside as opportunities increase.
Post a Comment
<< Home