Only two problems with that. Iraq has oil and that oil is not evenly distributed geographically. Divorce is easy, it's division of the property that makes things nasty. The other problem, the countries neighbors have their own interests and they would likely do everything they could to disrupt any peaceful partition of the country (assuming that was even possible). The Turks most certainly don't want to see any independent Kurdish state come out of Iraq.
This is probably a ridiculously improbable area for Grand Bargaining but here are my thoughts. People keep pointing out that Syria is not an oil rich country. Civil wars are expensive. And not only are they expensive, but the destruction wreaked by them tends to be bad for GDP. So the costs of the war keep going up but your ability to pay for them keeps going down (unless your country also happens to be "blessed" with having various outside sugar daddies of death) So I'm guessing that without outside sources continuing to fund and arm the rebels and the government, there would be a certain logistical cap to the carnage. So, theoretically, one could sit down the various outside funders of the civil war, and get them to agree to a boycott of funding this. The problem of course is, as long as various sides think they have a real chance of winning things without making any concessions, then the funders have no more reason (other than general humanitarianism) to cut off the funding. Presumably though, the outside funders/suppliers of this war, would have greater wiggle room for negotiation. The locals are only concerned about the local politics and there is little wiggle room presently. But the Saudis, the US, the Russians, the Turks, and so on, care about more than the local politics. Hell, some of them might not even care about the local politics. Since they have more items on their agenda, there is more potential for haggling.
Note also, even if outside powers were to reach an agreement to cut off funding and supplies to all their proxies, it's entirely possible that all sides in country would continue their war by hurling stones. However, in the 21st century, reverting to Stone Age levels of barbarism, is often progress.
I agree on the political angle on this. If this wasn't about positioning Hillary in 2016, then I take it that he would have expressed his views to Obama privately.
However, what puzzles me is why after 2008 Hillary Clinton would think that positioning herself more hawkishly on Syria would actually be to her advantage in a Democratic primary or even a general election? I don't think there was a lot of difference between Hillary Clinton and Obama substantively on foreign policy in 2008. But there was difference in tone in 2008. Arguably, this hurt her, not helped her.
I would add as well that in so far as Hillary's hawkish tone in 2008 actually did win her any votes, it's probably because it was coupled with the argument that Obama was inexperience and untested in the realm of foreign policy. There's probably a certain type of voter to whom resume means a lot and a hawkish argument coupled with a thin foreign policy resume by the opponent might have an effect with them. Try working that one-two combo with Biden in 2016. It would be even less effective with him than it was with Obama in 2008.
© 2026 All Rights Reserved
Only two problems with that. Iraq has oil and that oil is not evenly distributed geographically. Divorce is easy, it's division of the property that makes things nasty. The other problem, the countries neighbors have their own interests and they would likely do everything they could to disrupt any peaceful partition of the country (assuming that was even possible). The Turks most certainly don't want to see any independent Kurdish state come out of Iraq.
This is probably a ridiculously improbable area for Grand Bargaining but here are my thoughts. People keep pointing out that Syria is not an oil rich country. Civil wars are expensive. And not only are they expensive, but the destruction wreaked by them tends to be bad for GDP. So the costs of the war keep going up but your ability to pay for them keeps going down (unless your country also happens to be "blessed" with having various outside sugar daddies of death) So I'm guessing that without outside sources continuing to fund and arm the rebels and the government, there would be a certain logistical cap to the carnage. So, theoretically, one could sit down the various outside funders of the civil war, and get them to agree to a boycott of funding this. The problem of course is, as long as various sides think they have a real chance of winning things without making any concessions, then the funders have no more reason (other than general humanitarianism) to cut off the funding. Presumably though, the outside funders/suppliers of this war, would have greater wiggle room for negotiation. The locals are only concerned about the local politics and there is little wiggle room presently. But the Saudis, the US, the Russians, the Turks, and so on, care about more than the local politics. Hell, some of them might not even care about the local politics. Since they have more items on their agenda, there is more potential for haggling.
Note also, even if outside powers were to reach an agreement to cut off funding and supplies to all their proxies, it's entirely possible that all sides in country would continue their war by hurling stones. However, in the 21st century, reverting to Stone Age levels of barbarism, is often progress.
I agree on the political angle on this. If this wasn't about positioning Hillary in 2016, then I take it that he would have expressed his views to Obama privately.
However, what puzzles me is why after 2008 Hillary Clinton would think that positioning herself more hawkishly on Syria would actually be to her advantage in a Democratic primary or even a general election? I don't think there was a lot of difference between Hillary Clinton and Obama substantively on foreign policy in 2008. But there was difference in tone in 2008. Arguably, this hurt her, not helped her.
I would add as well that in so far as Hillary's hawkish tone in 2008 actually did win her any votes, it's probably because it was coupled with the argument that Obama was inexperience and untested in the realm of foreign policy. There's probably a certain type of voter to whom resume means a lot and a hawkish argument coupled with a thin foreign policy resume by the opponent might have an effect with them. Try working that one-two combo with Biden in 2016. It would be even less effective with him than it was with Obama in 2008.