Kurdistan: The Other Iraq? The Iraq that Iraq Could Be?

Politics International Politics
21

Actually I do … and I would not even call it an illusion. IF the third world needs anything then it may be a redrawing of the artificial colonial borders of centuries ago. Problem is it will need a Fred to spin it that this was always on the agenda and an ingrained part of this highly successful plan called “Iraqi Freedom”.

If it would exactly be the job of the US to bring such a balkanization about is an entirely different matter though. Because of the blame attached regarding the shoot outs that go hand in hand with such break ups I’d say no. I mean, why should the US rush to become the convenient scapegoat in a messy decolonization process? Someone the locals can always point at and say “it was them who fucked this up” when they like to distract from the fact that the locals themselves love nothing better than giving the other clan just beyond the next hill a thorough do over.

Oops … too late. :blush:

22

[quote=“spook”]What’s this ‘the Iraq that Iraq could be’ nonsense? Kurdistan has no intention of being a meaningful part of an Iraqi nation and, if given the choice, the remnants of Iraq would devolve overnight into Shiitestan and Sunnistan. The only thing keeping that from happening now is the sheer willpower of George W. Bush.

The ‘Iraq that Iraq wants to be’ is an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s either one 'stan dominating the other two or it’s a fragmented, permanently unstable balkanization of the heartland of the Middle East.[/quote]

Do you support a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine?

23

[quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]What’s this ‘the Iraq that Iraq could be’ nonsense? Kurdistan has no intention of being a meaningful part of an Iraqi nation and, if given the choice, the remnants of Iraq would devolve overnight into Shiitestan and Sunnistan. The only thing keeping that from happening now is the sheer willpower of George W. Bush.

The ‘Iraq that Iraq wants to be’ is an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s either one 'stan dominating the other two or it’s a fragmented, permanently unstable balkanization of the heartland of the Middle East.[/quote]

Do you support a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine?[/quote]

Yes, because it’s nonsensical to think the secular, multicultural solution along the lines of the South African or U.S. model has any chance of being successfully implemented. On the other hand it’s evil to support the expedient solution, which is subjugation and expulsion.

That leaves only the realistic solution – which is the two-state solution.

I also, obviously, am left with supporting the three-state ‘solution’ in Iraq as the only realistic alternative.

I don’t have any illusions though that these divisions into statelets are going to be stable, conflict-free divisions, particularly in a region of the world which contains the most sacred sites of the world’s three main religions as well as the bulk of its oil supplies. Balkanization is just the only viable alternative to quagmire.

24

[quote=“spook”] [quote=“gao_bo_han”][quote=“spook”]What’s this ‘the Iraq that Iraq could be’ nonsense? Kurdistan has no intention of being a meaningful part of an Iraqi nation and, if given the choice, the remnants of Iraq would devolve overnight into Shiitestan and Sunnistan. The only thing keeping that from happening now is the sheer willpower of George W. Bush.

The ‘Iraq that Iraq wants to be’ is an all-or-nothing proposition. It’s either one 'stan dominating the other two or it’s a fragmented, permanently unstable balkanization of the heartland of the Middle East.[/quote]

Do you support a two-state solution for Israel/Palestine?[/quote]

Yes, because it’s nonsensical to think the secular, multicultural solution along the lines of the South African or U.S. model has any chance of being successfully implemented. On the other hand it’s evil to support the expedient solution, which is subjugation and expulsion.

That leaves only the realistic solution – which is the two-state solution.

I also, obviously, am left with supporting the three-state ‘solution’ in Iraq as the only realistic alternative.

I don’t have any illusions though that these divisions into statelets are going to be stable, conflict-free divisions, particularly in a region of the world which contains the most sacred sites of the world’s three main religions as well as the bulk of its oil supplies. Balkanization is just the only viable alternative to quagmire.[/quote]

The Sunni Arabs would never accept that. That would leave them with very little oil, potable water sources, and arable land. I think it would be difficult to convince them the Shi’as and Kurds will share their resoruces. Plus, Baghdad and several provinces are heavily mixed. Balkanization would require mass migration, and that always results in high unemployment, lawlessness, and violence (think of the seasonal displacement of the Kurds in Turkey).

I really don’t think balkanization is the way to peace, at least not south of Kurdistan (which is not very mixed). The Shi’as and Sunnis are just going to have to learn to live together. In fact I think they can live together just fine. But a terrorist group will bomb a mosque and the whole community is up in arms, not just against the terrorists but against their entire religious group.

25

" . . . But three factors – the political fragmentation in Iraq, the growing stress on our military and the constraints of our domestic political process – are converging to make it almost impossible for the United States to engineer a stable, multi-sectarian government in Iraq in a reasonable time.

Few Iraqi leaders are willing to make sacrifices or expose themselves to risks on behalf of the type of unified Iraq that the Bush administration had envisioned. In contrast, many Iraqi leaders are deeply invested in sectarian or tribal agendas. Even if U.S. negotiators found a way to forge a political settlement among selected representatives of the major factions, these leaders have not shown the ability to control their members at the local level. . . ."
– Sen. Richard G. Lugar, 25 June 2007

“Kurdistan” is de facto partitioning of Iraq. Likewise the only evidence I’m seeing is that the “political fragmentation” of what’s left of Iraq is only gaining momentum.

It’s just hard to imagine Sunnis and Shiites living together in peace for the foreseeable future given all the bloodletting going on between their communities – just as it’s difficult to image the Israelis and Palestinians living together in peace any time soon.

26

Fair enough, but the point is that balkanization south of Kurdistan is not going to work. I’m not saying sitting around hoping they kiss and make up is going to work either. Not saying I have a better idea, just that balkanization isn’t so great.

I do think Kurdistan is a little different because:

  1. It is overwhelmingly populated by one ethnicity that shares a common religion.
  2. Has been a de facto independent nation for over a decade.
  3. Has historically been a quasi-autonomous region.
  4. Has plenty of resources, including oil.
  5. Has enjoyed relative peace consistently for over a decade, despite the violence down south.
  6. Has its own defense force.
  7. Has a stable government.
  8. Has successfully incorporated the small number of Arab Sunni and Shi’as in its borders.

But south of Kurdistan I don’t see how balkanization is going to work unless the Sunnis are forced to the western desert, where there is virtually no infrastructure or resources. That would surely result in a massive number of deaths, and poverty and chaos for those who survive.

I’ve seen the whole balkanization thing mentioned various times, but I just don’t get it. If you look on a map charting Iraq’s ethnic/religious divisions, you clearly see several mixed provinces. The political fragmentation Lugar mentioned would not translate well to new borders. It just means there will be more fighting between Sunnis and Shi’as (and between Sunnis and Sunnis, and Shi’as and Shi’as, and between Coalition forces and Sunnis, and Coalition forces and Shi’as, and Coalition forces joined with mixed Iraqi forces against Sunnis, and Coalition forces joined with mixed Iraqi forces against Shi’as).

27

There’s little doubt that the fragmentation of Iraq into three separate, warring communities isn’t going to ‘work.’ It’s going to be unstable, messy and fraught with continual blood-letting as the separate communities struggle for control of limited resources. From Fred’s posted article:

"Two truck-bomb attacks by Sunni Arab insurgents in May against Kurdish government targets, including one in the center of Erbil, severely unnerved residents and the elected leadership, not only because they were so deadly — at least 69 people were killed — but because the last major suicide attack in the region happened two years ago. . . .

The Kurds are anticipating an increase in insurgent activity as the country approaches a referendum on the question of whether Kurdistan can annex oil-rich Kirkuk and a swath of disputed territory in northern Iraq, a move opposed by many Sunni Arabs and Shiites. The Constitution calls for a vote by the end of the year, but no date has been set yet."

President Bush’s current hope for extricating the U.S. from the Iraqi quagmire seems to be nothing more or less than the Kurdistan/Israeli ‘separate but equal’ model:

"Israel model for Iraq, says Bush

. . . Speaking at the US Naval War College, Mr Bush . . . suggested Israel as a standard to work towards.

"In places like Israel, terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. “The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it’s not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that’s a good indicator of success that we’re looking for in Iraq.”

28

We can’t leave Iraq spook. Yeah, it’s a hell hole. But if we leave now, the regional powers will throw their weight around and we’ll have a full scale civil war. I would say it would be bad for Israel…but maybe that’s what you’re hoping for?

29

Let’s be honest and no joking this time. WE are not going to leave Iraq under this administration and we are not going to leave it under the next. We are going to be there in some form for 60 years no matter who says what to get elected. We may draw down the troops but the levels are never going to fall much farther than 35,000. Maybe these will be stationed in Kurdistan but there will be a base (and a long enduring one) near Baghdad. No Iraqi government would want it otherwise no matter what it says either. The only debate that is really going to take place and have any effect on US forces in Iraq is whether we decide to give up on stabilizing it. Maybe we will let this ethnic cleansing and infighting run its course. Could take 8 to 12 years. BUT we are not going. Not today. Not in 10 years. This is not Somalia in 1993 or Beirut in 1985 or Afghanistan after the Russians left.

30

We can’t leave Iraq because it’s a quagmire, not because we have any choice in the matter.

31

Well, then by that standard Korea and Germany and Japan and Turkey and every where else that we are would be quagmires as well. These terms are loaded with Vietnam analogies and they are not going to be appropriate here. We learned from Vietnam. We will not make the same mistakes. We will make new ones. We are learning. We are advancing.

The central issue always comes back to… Do you believe that we have a problem with Islamofascism or don’t you? Did you believe that Saddam was a problem or didn’t you? Do you think that Iran with nuclear weapons would be an even greater problem than it is now or don’t you? Do you think that Pakistan is a problem or don’t you? Are we to continue our efforts in Afghanistan or aren’t we? Are failed states like Somalia and Sudan problems or aren’t they? Many seem to think that these are all choices sort of like taking brush painting rather than singing in the choir. I do not. I think that the modernization and liberalization of the Middle East (whether it wants to come willingly or not is beside the point) is a central issue for the entire civilized world. This not about protecting Israel. This is about dragging a bunch of underperfomers into the real world. The Middle East needs to be plugged into the world. There is no going back to the 7th century. Destroying us just so the people there do not have to face this reality is not acceptable to me. I will not allow this to happen out of some misguided attempt to appear “sensitive” and “tolerant.” Fuck that. I am going to fight back and we all have a stake in this. Pretending like many leftists do that this is all about understanding is bullshit. Pretending that we also can retreat behind our borders and “just leave those people alone” is not a solution either. We are in this whether we want to be or not. This is not an elective. The only positive factor is that we could be dealing with a lot more of this violence. Thank God, those who live in the South Pacific Islands, subsaharan Africa and even some of the Caribbean Islanders do not have the levels of hatred, violence and ambition to start targeting us with the same levels of terrorism. That is the sad fact. Much of the world is a shithole and the only real solution is Nation Building: Read Neocolonialism. The other sad fact is that no one is willing or able to take on the Burden, which is no longer the White Man’s alone. The Chinese and other East Asians. The Indians. Even some of the nations of Latin America are waking to the reality of how much they benefit from the global system that has delivered such amazing technological and economic advances. They are willing to contribute. Sadly, the Europeans are ever more unwilling to get their hands dirty, preferring instead to hold conferences at five-star hotels where they “discuss” these things and then “set up programs” to help to assist to foster to cultivate to develop to enhance (blah blah blah) on to infinity.

32

What’s the average monthly U.S. casualty rate in Korea, Germany, Japan or Turkey? How many civilians are dying there in communal violence?

As far as Saddam Hussein goes, why not ask the Iraqi people what they prefer, the life you’ve advocated giving them or the one they had before?

BBC News World

"For those who listen to us on a regular basis, you’ll know Lubna. She oftens calls and texts us from Baghdad. She contacted us this week to ask what hopes she could have for the future in Iraq as she turns 21 today. Three of her friends have been killed in the last few weeks, and the once-optimist Lubna now doesn’t really know what she has to celebrate. Last night I chatted to her at length, she dictated a letter to me over the phone expressing her feelings on the eve of her birthday…you can read it below. Lubna will be on today’s programme - send her your messages or leave your number if you’d like to speak to Lubna tonight. Here’s her letter…

"Actually, I make so many interviews with the BBC and I was always the optimistic Iraqi girl…I was always optimistic about the future. But you know, it’s just like I tell you, we have no hope completely in this country. We need complete chaos……those guys who were supporters of Saddam need to get back to rule in order to make things stable in Iraq. Democracy, freedom of expression… err… free elections…put those phrases aside, Victoria.

Saddam Hussein was able to hold this country with a firm hand. And he was killing everyone who stoned in his face….We all knew what we had to do…we had to stay aside from Hussein. Just leave Saddam alone. Let’s go on with our life. And everything goes well. Those guys need to get back to rule again….with an American support, without American support, I don’t know. If we go on with this, free elected governments, international unity governments …what, whatever expression I listen to. We are not going to get any further. We will just lose so many lives, so many Iraqis will die, so many Iraqis will travel abroad……and the only thing……you know . . . ."

33

Saddam was a threat to the Persian Gulf. I have found no serious military or political analyst who has not agreed with this assessment.

Your concern seems to be that since these enemies want to fight us with violence that this somehow becomes the major determinant in determining whether the fight is worthwhile.

34

[quote=“fred smith”]Saddam was a threat to the Persian Gulf. I have found no serious military or political analyst who has not agreed with this assessment.

Your concern seems to be that since these enemies want to fight us with violence that this somehow becomes the major determinant in determining whether the fight is worthwhile.[/quote]

The determinant for me is the principle of just war. The notion that wars of choice can be used to make the world a better place is a fool’s gambit which, if you’re really serious about being in a learning mode, should be dawning on you right about now.

35

You are confusing two separate “wars.” One was to remove Saddam. I have met NO ONE who says that Saddam was not a credible threat that should have been removed. The other is the goal to reshape Iraq and ultimately the Middle East. The verdict is still out on that one. I am confident. You are pessimistic and dismissive. I think that the fight is worthwhile; you do not. History will judge. I stand ready. But the point remains that removing Saddam was not “optional” just because the fight to remake Iraq society is running into serious obstacles.

What do you think about Iran with nuclear weapons? Should it be allowed to have them? What will you do when they are ready to make the big announcement? Should we be sitting passively by? or should we be planning military strikes? stepped up efforts to overthrow the government? sanctions that cripple the regime? a fullscale invasion?

36

I won’t bother posting all those statements by U.S. senators claiming that if they knew then what they know now they wouldn’t have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq. I won’t bother because I’m pretty sure those statements would just bounce off your skull without registering on your consciousness.

The real issue at hand is whether Iran is going to be allowed the technology to enrich uranium – whether it decides to develop nuclear weapons or not. Israel and the Bush administration will hype the issue by claiming that Iran is developing nuclear weapons but that’s purely for public consumption. Just having the ability to produce nuclear power would give the Iranians the ability to produce nuclear weapons and that’s what the Israelis really fear.

My view is that it’s impossible to prevent any country from developing the technology to enrich uranium if it wants to. To try would require endless war and civilian casualties and the end result will simply be utter chaos and increased efforts on the part of the attacked country to actually acquire the one weapon which would protect it from further attack:

"…actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us — we were 400… scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium… They [Israel] estimated we'd make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year."

– Iraqi nuclear scientists Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri

37

Politicians being politicians. Saddam has been around a lot longer than Bush, Clinton or Bush I. Strange how those who insisted on tough action all those years suddenly were “fooled.”

Hype? Well, then, you would have to entirely discount the actions and words of the Iranian mullahs to believe that there is no threat whatsoever. And I doubt that even you would do so, therefore, as with Iraq, we are in the numbers game of statistics. How much risk can you or are you willing to handle? For Cheney, it was 1 percent. What about you?

Okay. But let’s assume that the mullahs feel “emboldened” by their possession of nuclear weapons and decide to get more aggressive in the Persian Gulf. What if they decide when and how ships will enter the straits of Hormuz, maybe they will even levy a special “tax” given their control. Doubtful? Will never happen? Remember now, you are not spookster on the computer but the president of the US and you have to be able to answer to history and to the American people. What do you think that you would really do?

[quote]
…actually, what Israel [did] is that it got out the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us — we were 400… scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium… They [Israel] estimated we’d make 7 kg [15 lb] of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year."

– Iraqi nuclear scientists Khidir Hamza and Imad Khadduri[/quote]

You cannot have your cake and eat it too spook. Here you quote scientists in support of your view (I believe) that Israel’s action resulted in a much more serious problem, BUT if that were the case, then how can you pretend that Saddam was someone who could be trusted even if these actions were taken before the first Gulf War? How did anyone of us, could any of us know? for sure? 100 percent? Read Kenneth Pollack (no conservative neo or otherwise) on the subject of Saddam and even better yet read him on the subject of the Iranians. These are no win situations we are dealing with but you had better think of what it is like to be president and to have to weigh those options. This is an awesome responsibility that none of our little European friends have to ponder, hell, when even their defense ministers factor in the US as the ultimate defense against these types of threats, I guess we know just what kind of buck passing they engage in at a professional level.