I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Break Iraq up. It’s one of many post-colonial Frankensteins which should have never been created in the first place. Iraq as a country has only existed since 1918 when it was taken over and consolidated by the British after WWI. Before, it consisted of three separate provinces. Even the name “Iraq” is a British creation which comes from the Arabic word “araqa” meaning “deep rooted.”
As the site which contains a more detailed map notes:
The territory that was to become Iraq was to be made from three distinct and separate Ottoman provinces (vilayets) with many diverse ethnic and tribal differences; predominantly Shi’ite Muslim Basra in the south, Baghdad in the middle and largely Sunni Muslim Mosul in the north. In the north and central west are a large minority of Kurds. This unnatural union would prove difficult to hold together.
Wikipedia also notes the same with more history of course. This is what “Iraq” really looks like (note Kuwait hadn’t been created yet):
There are a number of reasons why I believe Iraq should be taken back apart. They are:
1. The Kurds already have a stable, relatively peaceful and well-functioning state. Even if the other 2/3rds of Iraq go to hell, we can at least take credit for partial success. It would also help contain the insurgency.
2. Iran would love to be left the only viable regional power in the Middle East. This would hand it to them on a silver platter and also be a huge bargaining chip. You want to be the big dog in the area? Done! Now let’s talk enrichment.
3. The US and Coalition forces probably won’t outlast the insurgents. With the pressure to withdraw growing daily in the US, it seems unlikely that the next administration will be able to resist doing so, especially as this will be a key election issue. The insurgents are fighting a 4GW struggle, all they have to do is not lose. Yet, the Anti-Coalition Forces (ACF) are themselves made up of many different groups who’ll immediately begin fighting each other once the US withdraws. We can break Iraq up on our terms or on theirs.
Unable to provide security and basic services to its citizens, the central government has lost the loyalty of much of the country who’ve reverted to their primary ones. When the coalition leaves, they’ll fight along those lines.
Let me emphasize that I don’t find this an ideal solution nor should have been done earlier. There was a window of opportunity after we took down Saddam where everyone was willing to just go along with things. After we failed to deliver, the guns came out. It was at that point the idea of one Iraq died. Some states which were cobbled together by the Europeans have worked out such as India (albeit with initial violence), others such as Iraq perhaps could have, but whose post-colonial experiences have made impossible. Even in the Balkans where NATO intervened, the situation still isn’t settled and a decade later, Montenegro and Kosovo are breaking off anyway.
So, as Curzon mentioned, returning Iraq to its original parts would present some serious geopolitical problems, not to mention internal ones. Internationally,Turkey could invade Kurdistan. The Iranians could have a puppet state in the Shia south (though this is very unlikely) and Iraq’s neighbors would do a bit of squabbling over the Sunni state.
Domestically, Iraq is nevertheless a mixed country which after division would leave a lot of citizens outside their respective ethnic/religious state. This could lead to more bloodshed in various forms. Oil would be the biggest issue but this could be resolved in creative ways such as forcing the Kurds to share oil revenue with its two new neighbors for a fixed period of time, say 25 or 50 years until they get on their feet, or even permanently such as the Kurds passing along a smaller percentage for good. Enforcement would have to be via some international organization, preferably a coalition of the willing since the UN doesn’t have a good track record with regard to Iraqi oil.
Just as Jews flocked to Israel from all over the world after the war in 1948, so too could Kurds from Turkey, Syria and Iran. If the Kurds have a state, the PKK’s main reason for being would essentially be deflated. Sure, they could argue about this piece or that piece, but the Turks can simply say they have a country now, they can stay in Turkey or go to Kurdistan. The Kurds would have to officially renounce claim to any part of Turkey, Iran and Syria. Despite initial angst, Turkey, Iran and Syria would be happy to export their Kurds for good and have one less problem.
Additionally, a southern Shia state could encourage separatism is Khuzestan, Iran’s small oil rich state on the south western border with Iraq. This would be a nice way to stick it to them, especially since the Arabs, having lost Kurdistan, may seek their piece of the oil pie. On the other hand, that could lead to an Iranian invasion and occupation of southern Iraq. A new Sunni state could be a terrorist haven as well. But, no matter how messy it may or may not be, at some point we have to start thinking about inevitabilities, not possibilities. Instead of looking for the good option to choose, we have to choose the lesser of the evils. If that means messy population transfers and a little instability, it’ll still be better than civil war or foreign invasion. The US cannot pull out without having a stable Iraq or Iraqs. Its simply not an option.
NOTE: I finished this article a few days ago but have held of posting it to make room for other posts and not to flood readers with too much. In that time, more articles on this subject have popped up. The first is in the Seattle Times which discusses a breakup of Iraq and next by Juan Cole who draws on that article and proposes his own plans for keeping it together in a “soft breakup”. Both worth a read. Hafez of Arabia also copies and pastes the most recent Stratfor article on Iraq which is long but, as alway, worth the read.
Two questions:
First, do you think we should also break up Afghanistan?
Second, do you think that all ethnic and national groups who want independence from their colonial / local powers should get it (Kurds, Tajiks, Chechens, Native Americans (I mean in S. America, as ours are more or less gone), Uyghurs, etc.)? What I mean is- do you think this is a good move specifically for Iraq, or would it set the right precedent as well?
Elizabeth: Wonderful questions. With regard to Afghanistan, I have a map of how Central Asia “should” look. I’ll have that up in a few days and will discuss your question more. In short, ideally yes, realistically no. The problem with Afghanistan is although it really shouldn’t exist, breaking it up would seriously destabilize the entire region, most importantly Pakistan.
In my opinion, it’s more likely to succeed with with Iraq because it wouldn’t have significant effects on its neighbords territory (the Kurds don’t have that muchc laim to Turkey, Iran and Syria, just small parts which they could be made to renounce in return for all of N. Iraq.
Breaking up Afghanistan essentially is breaking up Pakistan too and that I don’t think we can risk. As for setting a precedent, its hard to say. But it’s definitely VERY valuable in terms of looking at current and future conflicts mostly with regard to former USSR republics (Chechnya, Azerbaijan, NK, Central Asia etc.). Just like the period of decolonization brought major changes to the world map, I think we’re beginning to head down Decolonization 2.
The first stage was shaking off their colonial masters, the second will be dealing with the aftermath, i.e. establishing real viable states, whether inside their current borders or outside. It’s a topic for a book, but an exciting one!
Which one do you think is easier:
* Creating a federal system for a unified Iraq?
* On top of insurgency, dealing with 2 border disputes, an even _more_ disaffected Sunni “middle”, and the relocation of countless ethnic enclaves located on the wrong side of the line?
YH: Creating that federal system hasn’t been very easy so far nor is it even clear whether it will last without US forces if it can barely function with them. I don’t see the border disputes being much of a problem, hence my using old Ottoman boundaries. Besides, the Kurds are essentially already there. We could turn their part over to them completely and concentrate in the Shia and Sunni states.
I’ve thought for a while that breaking up Iraq is probably the easiest and least deadly solution.
I do have a minor quibble with this line though:
“Some states which were cobbled together by the Europeans have worked out such as India (albeit with initial violence)”
Have you forgotten that the former single territory of British India has actually split into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and still includes the heavily disputed Kashmir? If anything, India is yet another example of how colonial Frankenstein states can’t help but break apart.
Mutantfrong: You’re absolutely right and I knew that. I was referring to India itself as it exists now. It’s also not a real state either. Half of the Punjab is in Pakistan for example.
1. The Kurds already have a stable, relatively peaceful and well-functioning state.
Something which is not regarded with favor by Turkey.
Expect there to be tough measures out of Ankara to counterweight any talk of actual independence for Iraqi Kurdistan.
Self-determination, anyone? The break-up of a nation by an occupying power is no improvement on the artificial boundaries drawn by a former colonial power. Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis split themselves up after the British left. With Iraq sitting on so much oil, there is no way the Iraqis would be allowed to have a full-fledged civil war to sort things out. Hence, the occupation shall continue for an indefinite period.
I would worry about the ability or desire of the surrounding states to absorb the non-Kurdish population expelled from Kurdistan. Another group of dispossesed people nursing grievances about lost/stolen land is not what the region needs.
While Kurdistan may eventually develop, I think that the Kurds will remain a diaspora people. Even with an ethnic homeland, many are deeply rooted where they are, and they would likely stay there unless pressured by the states they currently reside in. After all, many misrahi jews remained outside of Israel until life became intolerable.
Regarding the Balkans…yes, the final pieces of the former Yugoslavia are seperating, but they also have a larger trans-national government to (eventually) absorb them. Nothing similar exists in the M.E.
Pingback: Guerras Posmodernas » Blog Archive » Y dicen que el petróleo es caro
Sonagi
“Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis split themselves up after the British left.”
Bangladeshis, yes. Pakistanis- sort of. There are many people who believe that the Pak project was instigated in part by the Brits who were hoping either to divide to continue ruling, or something else.
I would also note that India at least had the Mughals and some empires before the Brits arrived, which reasonably overlapped with what Britain took over (though obviously not completely). So I don’t think that India is a good example.
Chirol
Regarding Pakistan’s instability: bizarrely, most of the Pakistan military appear to favour a strongly federal state and the breakoff of Pashtunistan. I think they believe, interestingly, that they could handle it federally, and that they would get to keep the spoils. Anyway, that’s what I’ve heard and read from speaking with Pakistanis (former and present military and semi-military).
What I think would be worse is that there remains the problem of Kabul and the Shamali. Essentially, all other wars have been fought to ensure that these remain in the hands of the controlling party. Only the Uzbeks really don’t need them as a prize- Tajiks and Pashtuns will never cease to try to get back what is “rightfully” theirs. This is why a federation is better than breaking it up. But I wonder if this is also the case in Iraq with Baghdad? Would the Sunnis really give it up? Why wouldn’t they fight until the bitter end?
Thanks for your answer. Will be mulling it over. I personally think this sets a dangerous precedent, the idea that the area of a nation-state should correspond exactly or very nearly to the residence of a particular, self-identified ethnic (wider meaning) group. This idea- that a state should be a nation- was the justification of much of the genocide in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries (as France, England, and Germany first consolidated their hold on the diverse peoples in their territory, eliminating hundreds of languages in their wake), and at present is the justification of irrational anti-immigration policies, etc.
Here’s another piece on why Iraq should break up. I’m in agreement myself, but wonder if a Sunni state would actually be viable. One answer could be to have the UN, Arab League or similar organisation hold some of the oil wealth from the Shia region in trust to support a fledgling Sunni state.
Sorry, I put the wrong link in there. This is the article.
Elizabeth: Pakistanis really think that? The danger is that Pakistan is essentially three pieces of other states, namely Balochistan, Pashtunistan, Punjuabistan and Sindhistan. If one left, what would keep the others from following suit?
Excellent point about Kabul too. I’d read about the many fights for Kabul but didn’t put it together like that. I also agree there’s no law written in stone that official state lines must coincide with the location of ethnic groups. However, I believe that in the third world, if they aren’t, violence and anarchy will just increase and continue so although it’s possible in decades or centuries W. Africa may solve its own problems or Pakistan and Afghanistan, the question that most peole ask and answer “no” to is “Can we wait that long and risk it?” since the outcome isn’t even clear.
Chirol: Well, certainly not all Pakistanis think that. But the mil / ex-mil ones I met- more educated but not more clever than average- all seemed to think it was a good idea to just absorb the whole country. Maybe I just had the misfortune of meeting Pakistani imperialists.
You seem to imply that the correlation between ethnic diversity and violent conflict is one of cause and effect. I believe that ethnicity is easy to exploit for conflict, but most states in the world are ethnically diverse (even European ones). To say that poor third world countries are more at risk for conflict when ethnically diverse is just to say that poor countries are more at risk for conflict.
I refer you to the following pages that address this point:
http://www.minorityrights.org/SWM2006/swm2006_threat.htm
http://www.upf.edu/grec/en/0405/docs/montalvo.pdf
http://kroc.nd.edu/colloquy/issue1/feature_collier.shtml
Most of these papers argue that it’s not ethnic diversity, but polarization (itself is a symptom of past conflict, rather than of diversity) that is a factor in promoting conflict or that inequality between a dominant group and an oppressed group is a predictor of conflict.
Redrawing the borders risks turning a civil war into an international one with enormous forced population movement as people lose their homes and property and livelihoods permanently. It’s worth being 100% certain that separating the groups will have the desired effect.
I find it curious that a bunch of Westerners are discussing the feasibility of breaking up Iraq. The US, er, I mean Coalition Forces, invaded, toppled Saddam, and now occupies the country. Who, then, should draw the lines of the future map of Iraq – the occupation forces, the current Iraq government, or the people through a referendum? Through UN-sponsored elections, East Timor became independent despite the fact that Indonesian forces and their collaborators terrorized the population during the run-up to the vote.
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Contra Kurdistan
You have your facts wrong. India was not “cobbled together” by the Europeans. The monarchs of India willingly chose to be part of India. If they wanted, they could have all been independent kingdoms and there could have been no India. Infact the opposite of what you said is true. It was the Europeans who actually tried to keep it as splintered as possible due to their divide and rule idea.
Sorry to say, but I’ve been disappointed by the lack of Indian knowledge I’ve been finding here recently…
Pingback: ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Changing Face of the Balkans