A Three-State Solution?

To Iraq? A solution? Really? Too bad this dude doesn't have the clout to implement anything. Anyway, I just stumbled on it yesterday while looking for something to write about, and almost picked it but I didn't have time to go that in-depth. Anyway, incase anyone gets lazy, he's basically suggesting that we divide Iraq into three autonomous states, along the ethnic and religious boarders that are pretty much already there, then going ahead and stabilizing from that point. He makes some good points, and from the other reading I did on the subject, there doesn't seem to be many good arguments against it. I mean, splitting it up and taking the easier route to stability may be a little less romantic than a nice, big, America-friendly, oil-rich, beacon of democracy in the heart of the middle east but it definitely sounds like more of a plan than just sticking it out until we kill enough of them that they quit coming. I mean face it, the Iraqi Army and Police forces aren't exactly doing well, much less the "government". Doing things this way, we wont get things stabilized for decades. Splitting the nation and letting each of these groups that are currently fighting for control have their own little nation so everyone plays nice for a while, might be the only way we can salvage any kind of middle ground between staying for 20 years and 20k casualties and "cutting and running" tomorrow and leaving them with the anarchy we created. But yeah, read the link, he explains it better than I do.


Thoughts?



PS
I ended up writing about military exoskeletons instead because I already had a bunch of info gathered and a different paper written that I could convert into a persuasive format. Turned out pretty good. This topic would have been pretty good too and I had the start of some good arguments going but it was gonna be too much work. I wish I had saved 'em for you guys though. Well, just thought I'd share....lol...

Edited by .Ryan - 15 March 2006 at 6:46pm

I thought of the exact same thing, usaf.
It may be peaceful for a while, but I think in the end the borders are just something else to fight over.

But by splitting up the land, your basicaly telling everyone "You are no longer iraqi" People fought and died for their country, they are proud of their country, they wont like that at all.

brihard wrote: Wouldn't work- they'd never get EVERYONE to agree with the borders, so there would always be trouble. There is a precedent for peaceful breakups, such as Slovaki and the Czech Republic when Czechoslovaki broke up, but they were already essentially peaceful.

Chetchnia(sp?) anyone?  I know it's not exactly the same thing, but Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and the former USSR satelites have TOO much history to just stop with an invisible boundary.  New borders are just one more rule to break, why bother?

By the way brihard, haven't seen you since you bought my story in the lasoya thread.  How've you been?l

brihard wrote: Not bad man, not bad at all. Been busy. Chechnya was decidedly NOT peaceful. The Czech Republic and Slovakia were, though. Chechnya went through a very violent insurgency that resulted in a lot of Russian military action, a lot of shelling (Grozny, anyone?) and a lot of civilian deaths. Some terrorist groups continue to this day to press the Chechen conflict. You're right about new borders just being a new rule to break... Lines aren't the answer- tolerance is.

That's the problem though.  The conflict is as old as our main religions today.  We can't believe for a second that the people of Iraq will put aside their differences for peace.  We made that mistake in Palestine, haven't we learned anything?

brihard wrote: Very true. The trouble is that the majority of the Jihadis are foreigners with no stake in local peace, who are using Iraq as their only chance to fight their Shi'a/Sunni grudge. Control the borders and the supply of foreign soldiers will dry up. The local militias are working to pacify their neighbourhoods, and they can be stood down and disarmed as government security forces expand to fill the needs.

And who will the responsibilty to securing the borders fall to?  The UN wants nothing to do with this conflict, and we sure as hell can't stay there forever.  Local militias?  There names themselves imply that they can't be trusted.  Their loyalty will always fall to their people, and their respective branch of w/e particular religion is in question.  As soon as the US and UK left, it'd be a disaster area.

Would be great if it were practical. I don't see it.

Sunni/Shiite areas aren't necessarily clumped together neatly in seperate areas of the country. Kurds would be all for it, considering they wish to form their own Kurdistan... but that wouldnt go well with the rest of the country or the non-Kurds living in the northern territories.

To think that splitting them into three seperate groups would mean peace and stabilization is asinine. People wouldn't automatically stick to their side of the border and go about their happy lives. It would simply make a "civil war" within one country, a war between two countries... or three.

There is no easy way to split Iraq up evenly. Putting religion and culture aside, look at the economics. So what do the Sunni's do if they get the Western portion of the country... when the Kurds get the oil-rich North, and the Shiites have control of all the ports of entry to the East? What do Sunnis now do for trade? What drives their economy?

And aside from that... where do you draw lines? While each sect tends to clump into groups... those groups are spread, not simply isolated to one particular section of the country. It'd be like trying to seperate whites, blacks and hispanics within my town. Yes, there are neighborhoods that have a majority of one group. But within those neighborhoods still reside members of the other races. If a seperation is made... will ALL of them be willing or able to move? People that have lived in those neighborhoods their whole lives?

It's just another "easy answer" to a problem that allows for no "easy answer".   We're expecting to create a working democracy amongst a country that doesn't know what democracy is... a country that has three strongheaded factions that each want their own way. It will not happen overnight, it will not happen peacefully, it will not come to fruition without major stumbles and falls. It took decades if not centuries for western civs to develop democratic society. Think we can somehow make it happen "easily" in Iraq?   Can't. Can't and won't.
If it even happens at all... it'll take years upon years, and blood will be shed... and in the end, there is no guarantee that it will work to our favor, or simply create another foe. The only certainty of the entire mess... is that there is no easy fix.

And if the Kurds get their own state... Turkey might actually come close to joining the whole war melee, as they have their own Kurd "problem" (seperatists) and are adamantly opposed to a Kurdish state.

ShortyBP wrote: Would be great if it were practical. I don't see it. Sunni/Shiite areas aren't necessarily clumped together neatly in seperate areas of the country. Kurds would be all for it, considering they wish to form their own Kurdistan... but that wouldnt go well with the rest of the country or the non-Kurds living in the northern territories. ... there is no easy fix.