Partition?

We're seeing a renewal of talk about partitioning Iraq, with the London Times reporting that the Baker commission likes the idea. Kevin Drum and Juan Cole vote "no." I think there's a very fundamental problem with this policy, namely that Iraq isn't our country to partition. "We" simply aren't in a position to decide whether or not this should be done, you'd need a real Iraqi consensus in favor of the idea and it would need to be negotiated out by Iraqi political leaders.

Nick Kristof offers up a more appealing suggestion -- listen to the Iraqis and do what they want, commit to leaving the country in a relatively near future. This could very well generate a mess, but it is what Iraqis want to see happen, and any alternative is essentially guaranteed to generate a mess under circumstances where Iraqis want us to leave.

Comments

Minor question: who/what are "the Iraqis"?

Oops - not so minor a question after all.

Quick followup: what is the eventual role of the Sunnis in whatever becomes of Iraq?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | October 8, 2006 1:51 PM

I'm not sure there's ever been a 'real consensus' in favour of any partition of a state territory.

I assume that partition here means recognise Kurdistan as a sovereign state and let the Shia put the Sunnis to the sword. This comes in its 'loose-confederation-for-the-moment' and 'apocalpse now' variants.

For my mind, an prohibition on entertaining the possibility of partition has been an essential prerequisite for civil peace in many times and places. Those - like Galbraith - who have shopped this idea around are raising the likelohood of a bloodbath.

Posted by otto | October 8, 2006 2:16 PM

This is the sort of thing that will put the Kurdistan problem in stark relief. The Kurds have lots and lots and lots of oil. As long as they're part of Iraq, Iraq gets the revenue. If they're partitioned off, Iraq doesn't get their oil. Does anyone really think the Arabs (of either Muslim sect) will go for this?

Moreover, the divisions aren't neat or clean in any way. As this map shows, there's a lot of bleed. And Baghdad is in one of those bleed-over areas.

I'm not suggesting it's wrong to allow the Iraqis to guide any partition that occurs, but I am suggesting that it's going to be next to impossible to get such a partition from sitting down at a conference table. Those overlap regions are going to be very messy.

In the end, it seems to me the U.S. government is going to oppose a partition for more than just face-saving reasons. The Iraqi Shia would have very little reason not to get openly and closely involved with Iran if the Sunni were no longer part of their country. Rightly or wrongly, that seems like a scenario the U.S. would bend over backward to avoid.

Posted by jhupp | October 8, 2006 2:32 PM

"[L]isten to the Iraqis and do what they want..."

Oh Matthew.... that's crazy talk!

No, seriously, very good point. Although I think the general assumption may be that the impetus toward partition is strong enough that without the US trying to hold things together, it will be the ultimate outcome. Taking your finger out of the dike doesn't mean the water belongs to you, but it does have a very good chance of leading to flooding.

Posted by Equal Opportunity Cynic | October 8, 2006 2:48 PM

MY said:

"... I think there's a very fundamental problem with this policy, namely that Iraq isn't our country to partition. "We" simply aren't in a position to decide whether or not this should be done, you'd need a real Iraqi consensus in favor of the idea and it would need to be negotiated out by Iraqi political leaders."

Actually this is wrong, we could draw lines on a map and say everybody on the wrong side come 2007 would be forcibly moved. You can argue we don't have the right to do this but we do have the power.

Posted by James B. Shearer | October 8, 2006 4:06 PM

We can do whatever we want in Iraq. One thing we do not want is to partition the country. So it will not be partitioned. Britain set it up and we see no reason to undermine this original bad idea. Plus, an Iraq in turmoil is really in our interest. A country divided against itself cannot threaten others. A partitioned Iraq is a threat against those of its former unity and against other coutries.

Posted by Savin H. Woodss | October 8, 2006 4:33 PM

Well, the important thing is to leave. If a partition will make the relevant parties more likely to get us out, then maybe it's best option. It's not like it really matters in the end anyway - once we're gone, the Iraqis can put the country back together again if they'd like.

Posted by JP | October 8, 2006 6:55 PM

"We" simply aren't in a position to decide whether or not this should be done...

really? we already removed the existing government once and replaced it with one (in form at least) more to our liking, without so much as a by your leave from anyone. what would prevent us? not common sense in this administration for sure.

Posted by supersaurus | October 8, 2006 9:37 PM

We (meaning we here) are in no position to make our OWN country do what we think is right. What makes you think we can even begin to decide what's right for an islamic country half a world away? That's just crazy.

George Bush has declared that our army will stay in Iraq for the remainder of his presidency. I have no reason to doubt him on this. I have no reason to believe anyone is going to be in any position to change his mind. I have no reason to believe that the US will be leaving Iraq until, at the earliest 2009. I can't begin to imagine what kind of disasters await us in Iraq over the next two years.

Iraqis must decide for themselves how to run their country.
Iraqis will decide for themselves how to run their country.

Posted by tweez | October 8, 2006 11:08 PM

Kurdistan was already an independent country in all but name before 'regime change'. I don't see any prospect of its independence being reversed. Unless that changes, international recognition is only a matter of time.

Arab Iraq is in the process of partitioning itself, into at least two parts and possibly more. With half a million troops the U.S. might be able to impede the process, and impose the sort of 'unity' that now prevails in Bosnia. Doing it with 150,000 is a daydream.

For the U.S. to decree a partition would save face by making a virtue of necessity. (Two cliches for the price of one.) The downside is that it would give bin Laden and company the biggest confirmation yet of their 'War on Islam' narrative. That might be just what our own extremists want.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 8, 2006 11:11 PM

The partition rumors have gotten big play on Fox News. That's some evidence the administration intends to do it, or at least want's the world to think it's under serious consideration.

Posted by David Tomlin | October 8, 2006 11:14 PM

I figure that Kurdistan is going to make a bid for independence anyway, so it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to try and get out early and try and manage it. Problem is, it'll take all kinds of delicate diplomacy to convince Turkey and Iran to not go balistic. Good thing that this administration is so good at diplomacy.

Posted by daveNYC | October 8, 2006 11:29 PM

What form of partition happens in Iraq is sort of beside the point. The real underlying issue is distribution of oil revenues. Until that issue is settled, any talk of partition will only exacerbate existing tensions. To a large extent, this applies to the withdrawal of American troops as well.

Of course the U.S. can’t and shouldn’t impose a settlement on the Iraqis. However I doubt that the Iraqis will be able to come to any sort of lasting agreement on these issues on their own; the current institutions of the Iraqi state are just too fractious and weak. The best hope is probably some sort of internationally brokered agreement, with had the involvement of the U.N., the Arab league, and the Iranians.

Posted by RC | October 9, 2006 1:52 PM

I'm staring to think that Iran having so much influence over Iraq may convince Turkey that an independant Kurdistan is in their best interest. What is worse in their view than an independant Kurdistan controlling all that Oil? A Shia majority basically in Iran's pocket controlling it.

Posted by Eric K | October 9, 2006 2:28 PM

Kurdistan was already an independent country in all but name before 'regime change'. I don't see any prospect of its independence being reversed. Unless that changes, international recognition is only a matter of time.

Or perhaps not. Recognition of Taiwan would likely be pretty shitty. A Kurdish 'Taiwan', independent in all but name, might be the best of several bad results.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 10, 2006 12:57 AM