You Three, Break it up!

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.