Biden: Split Iraq Into 3 Different Regions

[ECH1969]

The senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed Monday that Iraq be divided into three separate regions _ Kurdish, Shiite and Sunni _ with a central government in Baghdad.

In their essay Monday, Biden and Gelb wrote: "It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor."

http://www.mwcsun.com/feeds/apcontent/apstories/apstorysection/D8HARPH00.xml.txt/resources_apstoryview

[DanCa]

1. It's too early for me to come up with anything funny about Joe.

I can't think of anything funny to say about Biden. Oh wait he's hair plugs scare me. I have this recurring nightmare where am watching Biden on tv, and his hair plugs become giant squid tentacles. And then they grab me and suck me into tv land.

[shain from kane]

15. Maybe he has a new plan for parting his hair, too. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

44. Here's an un-funny but true sentiment

Joe, STFU until you decide to represent the Average Hard Working American. Try voting against the Bankruptcy Bill the next time around?

Realize ole' boy that many of us are just trying to make ends meet, NOT concerned at how sweet our voice sounds nor how well their surgical implanted hair plugs look.

Joe, my boy, you're seriously out of touch with the people of this country. :(

Split Iraq into three sections is about as brilliant as the Omaha School board separating districts by race. It's a non starter. :puke:

[saltpoint]

2. The PNAC boys and girls would resist the idea because it makes oil

more difficult to manipulate if the north fields are controlled by one new entity and the south fields by another.

But PNAC's long-promoted plan for Middle East conquest has long since been discredited. So I'm not sure anyone should be listening to anything anybody from PNAC has to say about Iraq, or about Iran, or about anything else for that matter. These folks are bad news.

No quick fix is available, so I'd take the Biden and Gelb proposal seriously. Absent an iota of innovative or resourceful management of the region by Rumsfeld et al, it may wind up the most stable option.

Some of Biden's votes in the Senate are less to my liking than other senators' votes, but he's no slouch on foreign policy.

This option deserves a listen.

[karynnj]

17. The main thing is this should happen only if it's Iraq's solution

It is also true that the three parts don't really split that easily - there are both Sunni and Shite neighborhoods in Baghdad. A concern expressed in the past is that a seperate Kurdistan will be destabalizing to both Iran and Turkey which have their own Kurd populations.

This could be a possible solution - but it really should come from the Iraqis - possibly in some Dayton Accord like conference.

[saltpoint]

20. Hi, karynnj. I hear you on destabilization, but it seems as if everything

this administration touches results in some degree of calamity.

I agree with you also that it's going to take some sort of Dayton-like accord and that Iraqis have to be seen as bringing it together. I'm not sure yet what "Iraq" is, though. I think the Kurds believe "Iraq" is one thing and at least two other groups believe it's something else.

And here again, we have Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State, and frankly I'm not sure I'd put her in charge of a tag sale.

[karynnj]

25. I agree with you

If Clinton were still President or if Kerry or Gore were President, I think it would be far more likely to work. I assume that Biden too would want the various Iraqi factions and the neighbors involved as well.

With the Kurds, I doubt they would settle for anything less than the autonomy they had for most of the 90s. The whole problem in the middle east goes back to the lines drawn by the British in the early to mid 1900s. The borders for India,Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Israel etc were all drawn without really looking at the underlying cultures. We run the risk of repeating this. Do we anticipate the migration of thousands as happened with the India/Pakistan division on the basis of religion.

[saltpoint]

31. Good question. It would feel a lot more answerable if competent,

learned people were in charge of our State Department.

[The Stranger]

49. A divided Iraq is EXACTLY PNAC's plan.

In this way, each of the mini-states can be played against each other.

[PsychoDad]

3. Then Iran and Turkey....

Can split up the newly formed Kurdistan...

What a can of crap we have opened up in that part of the world..

Peace.

[Oversea Visitor]

4. Nooooooo

One Isreal/Palestians problem in Middle East enough.
Noooooo
Dont keep torturing the region with perpetual instability.
Look longterm dont sweep dirt under carpet.

Todays Middle East problems cause by Isreal/Palestian issues.
Dumb solution after world war did not work cause people just sweep dirt under carpets.
See what happening today all this killing

Nooooooo no more easy fix and longterm pain

STUPID STUPID STUPID.

[w4rma]

5. Whatever gets the U.S. out of Iraq. (nt)

[salin]

6. Sen. Biden, please remember this fiasco and your statement

when the ratcheting up of war talk hits high gear per Iran.

[Minnesota Libra]

7. Please correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Iraq once divided..............

.....in three parts anyway or were they just thinking about dividing it up.:shrug: I think it was combined sometime around WWI or WWII by the allies. Am I wrong??

[DRoseDARs]

12. Correct: British took Iraq from Ottoman Empire WWI; independance came 1932

eom

[Media_Lies_Daily]

16. Here's a geographic history of Iraq....

....looks like Iraq has had the same basic borders since 1920 0r 1924:

<http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/arabworld/haxiraq.html>

[Minnesota Libra]

33. So we screwed their country up for them in the first place and now........

....we are screwing it up even more!!:wtf: Why is it I feel so ashamed to be an American right this minute??:cry:

[Xithras]

55. "Iraq" is the combination of three old waliyah.

Ok, here's the story in a nutshell. The Ottoman empire was broken into "waliyahs", the rough equivelent of a modern US state. The "Waliahs" were generally created according to geographical and ethnic boundaries, and were largely self-ruling. Because the Ottoman Empire was so large, they grouped the states into administrative zones. Think about the way we break the US into "midwest", "south", and New England, and now imagine that those states were subservient to that government.

Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers were three waliyahs, the Baghdad, Mosul, and Basra states. Because they covered a large area, they were jointly overseen by the Irak Arabi regional administrator. It's important to note that this was NOT a central government, but a taxing district.

When the Ottoman Empire was broken up, the British had a field day creating new nations. In some of the regional administrative zones, like Anatolia, they combined the waliyahs back into a single nation (Turkey). In other areas, Waliyahs including Syria and Lebanon were given their independence and permitted to become a state. When it came to Irak-Arabi, however, the British had a problem. They wanted to ensure that oil and water flowed freely in the old area, and decided to combine the two more southerly waliyahs into a single territory they called Mesopotamia (yes, the pulled the old name out of the Bible). The northerly territory of Mosul Waliyah and the Kurdistan Waliyah were left alone.

When the British finally got around to finalizing the borders, they decided that since Mosul Waliyah had been in the same Ottoman taxing district, they'd include it in Iraq too...completely ignoring the fact that its history was completely seperate. A small part of the Kudistan Waliyah to the north was also pulled into Iraq, and the remainder was invaded and absorbed into Turkey later.

This is a very compressed version of the history and a lot of details are skipped, but that's how modern Iraq came to be. It's basically the creation of a bunch of 1920's British diplomats. While there is some national unity that's developed since, there are still many people who disagree with the fact that they were merged while their neighbors in Syria weren't. The problem at this point is that the areas are so economically interdependent that seperating them would be devastating to all three. Despite that, they do have different national and cultural identities, different histories, and different religious practices.

[rucky]

8. This is what I've been saying all along!

it's inevitable.

[leesa]

22. Um...it's THEIR country, or have you forgotten that?

[rucky]

28. Why do I always get some smartass response to everything I post.

I feel I'm back in Junior High.

Do I really have to preface everything with "we should never have invaded in the first place"?

[iconoclastNYC]

32. There are three different groups

The kurds definitely want Independence and the shias and the shiites probably wouldn't mind it if there weren't oil fields to worry about.

We used to have a strong man to keep these groups in line....we got rid of him and now these old conflicts come back to the foreground. I don't think another brutal strong man is the answer and they parties don't seem willing to work with one another so maybe it should be divided into highly autonomous regions.

[kurth]

9. Sounds like a peaceful solution, therefore not acceptable

Bush likes war and killing. Perpetual civil war is the best.

[Blaq Dem]

10. Why don't they name one of those regions the "F###ed Up Zone"

Daily mayhem. I hate to see the people suffer like this every day.

[twiterpatted]

11. lets call it { TRIraq }

[Media_Lies_Daily]

13. It's increasingly clear to me that Biden is a NeoCon enabler.

[Spider Jerusalem]

14. Of course. This should work.

Partition in the Middle East worked for the British in the 1920's, after all, right? Oh, wait...

Something tells me that Senator Biden needs a few history lessons.

[chopper]

45. well

the british fouled up because they didn't partition places like iraq according to ethnic/cultural boundaries, which is the plan biden's talking about. apples and oranges, my friend.

in truth, this idea isn't his, it's been knocking around for a while. current wisdom is that a 2-way split is better than 3, with the sunnis and the kurds in one bloc and the shiites in another. of course, there are lots of problems with the idea. then again, its not like a unified iraq is looking that great.

[Mass]

18. Withdrawal by 2008? Biden must be joking!

Biden and co-writer Leslie H. Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote that President Bush "must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest)."

And we still must have troops over there after 2008 to "keep the neighbors honest".

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Someone needs to tell Biden

to put the Kool-aide down.

For a smart man he sure is stupid.

[Phony Doctor]

52. I think Joltin Joe is onto something

... or maybe on something

I think we should divide the entire Middle-East into about 1,000 countries each the size of Kansas, erect HUGH fences between them and give each country exactly one nuclear weapon.

[leesa]

21. Does Biden think he's British now? What happened to the democracy bit?

Oh right, we knew that was a scam from the get-go.

[Zorra]

23. Republicans start a war to in order to get the economy moving,

rich folk make a bunch of extra cash, and leave a mess for whoever comes along after them.

I believe that I have found the key to defeating republicans in elections: Study Child Psychology.

Republicans are all Id, meaning we basically have small children in adult bodies in charge of the government.

Even republican voters would take an immediate, instantly self gratifying $100 tax cut over their own continued security and prosperity. They are just like small children.

So Joe might be onto something here:

"It is increasingly clear that President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. Rather, he hopes to prevent defeat and pass the problem along to his successor."

[wysiwyg]

24. Any real solution will have to wait

There is absolutely no chance a real solution will come out of this administration. In order for the US to broker a successful end to hostilities our government would have to act in good faith. The Bush administration has shown itself to always act in the interests of those who thrive, either financially or politically, from this war.

Since the current administration would never let anyone else have a say in Iraq's fate we'll have to hope for a Democratic administration in 2008 to clean up this mess.

Even impeaching Bush would just be symbolic since there wouldn't be any real change in the leadership or direction of this administration.

[GodlessBiker]

26. Who are we to propose how Iraq govern itself (if it doe so at all)?

[rodeodance]

29. Some of the leaders of Irag have proposed this but WH wants the 'unity"

model. Who is to say it will not work-

[Pithy Cherub]

27. Biden the latest imperialist with a dumb idea.

:eyes:

[ECH1969]

30. So we are just going to tell the new Iraqi government

with its own Constitution to split into three? Is that what we are going to do Biden? What a moron.

[madmark]

34. biden writes about his idea-du jour; hurray. What he forgets is

that its up to the Iraqis to determine the future of their state; not anyone else including us. So Biden wants to preside over an externally driven partition? What an assclown. How about this. We exercise the get the fuck out now option; and let the Iraqis determine if they are going to partition or not.

[David Zephyr]

35. Biden Points to the Inevitable. I Suggested This 2 Years Ago at DU D

Joe Biden is on the right path to resolving the mess that Bush created. I suggested the very same thing here in May of 2004. You don't have to be a fan of Biden (I'm not) to acknowledge that partitioning or breaking of the artifice of Iraq into three stable, self-governed and policed states is the only "solution" after Bush broke Saddam's iron reign there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1635616

"Divide Iraq Up Into Three Nations Now Before It's Too Late." May 20th, 2004

The only solution left for what's left of the Old Iraq and that may still work at this late point is a quick move to begin the division of the nation of Iraq into geographic "pieces". This is not such a radical idea, for the truth is that "nation" Iraq was an invention of the British anyway...sort of like South Vietnam was an invention of the Pentagon in the early 1950's.

The Past is Prologue:

After declaring war on the Ottoman Empire in 1914, the British invaded and occupied Mesopotamia including Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk and Mosul.

Clandestinely, the British, along with the French, in 1916 had drawn up the very imperialistic "Sykes-Picot Agreement" dividing up the old Ottoman empire. By 1919, Britain had created the current national borders that the world recognizes today as "Iraq". The following year, the "League of Nations" dutifully sanctioned and granted British control over the new nation of Iraq.

So, the unfortunate, yet popular understanding that the current borders of modern day Iraq are some sort of sacred and cultural extension of the ancient Persian Empire is simply wrong. The borders of Iraq are mere pencil marks from a British pencil less than a century ago.

Here's How to Divide Up Iraq Now and Possibly Spare A Holocaust in Civil War:

1.) Establish either an independent Shi'a Islamic Iraq which will probably meld into Iran within two years --- or fast forward the inevitable and cede the Shiite territories now to Iran. Since the Americans must always "save face" and have "peace with honor", the former is more probable, but the latter is inevitable.

2.) Establish a Sunni Iraq with Baghdad as the Sunni Capitol.

3.) Establish a new national state of Kurdistan.

4.) Cede some of the northern Iraqi territory to Turkey as a trade-off for the establishment of Kurdistan. Turkey currently has oil leases in Northern Iraq and this would be the quid pro quo and would finally deal with the business left undone after the break-up of the Ottoman Empire.


The Saudis and The Israelis Will Just Love This:

The Balkanization of the current nation we know as Iraq as I have prescribed above will have the further benefit of pleasing both the Saudis and the Israelis who would prefer having smaller, less powerful neighbors in the Region than the former, unpredictable Iraq. Imagine that: the Israelis and the Saudis nodding approvingly at the splintering of their old nemesis.


Make Certain That The New States All Have Oil Fields of Their Own:

One of the greatest sources of friction between the world's predominately Islamic Nations has been this: some have oil resources and others don't. The solution I've described above begins to address the uneven distribution of petro-wealth in the Muslim world.

Certainly, the ability of Saudi Arabia to lord its proud purse over Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians (Muslims without oil) and over the poor in Pakistan and Afghanistan (Muslims without oil) has been at the very root of so many of the world's problems. Indeed, Osama bin Laden's initial appeal in the poorer Islamic world was made possible by his Saudi petro-wealth, wasn't it?


The Nations Out of One Keep Osama Out of All:

With the Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis truly independent and having their own states; and with allowing Turkey to "get a little of the goodies" in return for good behavior, Osama bin Laden and his crowd will have to go hunting for another scab to pick for they would hardly be welcomed in either of the three new nations.


Little Time Remains For Dividing Iraq Before Civil War Begins:

Let's face it. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are now advocating exactly what they had crowed against: Cutting and Running. The arbitrary date in June of the facade of turning over the government of Iraq to the Iraqi people will be the beginning of the upcoming bloodbath between the distrustful Kurd, Sunni and Shiite camps. Why wait until thousands are thrown into the nightmare of Iraqi Civil War?

If the British could divide up the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century for Imperialistic motives, why can't we, along with the United Nations, finally address the elephant in the living room and now divide up Iraq without bloodshed...before it divides itself up, pretty much as I have described, but only after a horrific bloodbath?

--D.Z.

[Penance]

40. Splitting is a bad idea

It's not as simple as that. An independent Kurdistan will cause war in the region, and it will be even worse if the Kurds get full control of the oil-rich Kirkuk region. Turkey has brutally suppressed Kurds in eastern Turkey and is already building up their military on the border. Ceding territory from Iraq is a non-starter from both sides. Iran and Syria also have significant Kurdish populations that will want to join the new Kurdish state and their respective governments will not be happy about it. Saudia Arabia, which has had its own problems with Shiites near southern Iraq, won't like an independent oil-rich Iran-allied partition on their border. That's a bad thing for the US as well, whether you're progressive or not. The ethnic cleansing will go on or possibly even accelerate. Remember that each region is far from homogeneous. I don't think Iran wants southern Iraq. Iranian leadership is ethnically Persian and speaks Farsi while southern Iraq is predominantly Arab and speaks Arabic. It's like France wanting to annex Ireland simply because it's Catholic.

[David Zephyr]

47. An independent Kurdistan is something Americans should support.

What is your solution for the Kurds?

[Odin2005]

41. The Turks are the main sticking point

They are extremely, subbornly, nationalistic (Don't believe me? In several history forms I post at many of the Turkish posters bullshit about being full-blooded central Asians, when they are in reality just Islmanized Greeks and Hittites. They also try to claim the Kurds are Iranianized Turks, which is BS, Kurds are, along with Iranians, are decendents of the Ancient Persians, the Turks are just making up shit to justify thier control of Kurdish land.). They'll see an attempt to convince them trade part thier country for another peace of land as nothing more than the heavy hand of the West trying to impinge on thier national honor, so that won't go over well. They'll only let go of thier part of Kurdistan with thier cold dead hands.

[Zhade]

43. Yes, because we certainly have the right to decide the fate of the Iraqis.

What, did I stumble into www.whitemansburdenunderground.com or something?

[David Zephyr]

48. We broke the living shit out of Iraq and are allowing civil war to breed.

What is your solution for the Kurds?

Why do you believe in the artifice of Iraq in the first place?

Already, the division has begun with entire communities of Sunnis moving into tent cities fleeing their predominately Shi'a neighborhoods and with the Shi'a doing likewise.

Tent cities and evacuation of neighborhoods. It's already begun.

What is your solution to prevent civil war there? A civil war that Bush created, but that will be the legacy of the American people because our citizens put him into office...at least in 2004.

What is your solution?

[Zhade]

53. I'm not pretending I have one.

Part of the reason we never wanted this war was because of just this scenario.

My point is, I don't think it's our right to just unilaterally tell the Iraqis that we're going to split up their (yes, artifically-created-many-decades-ago) country without so much as a popular vote on the subject.

And it should go without saying that I don't feel the United States CAN solve this problem.

[David Zephyr]

56. We are on the same page.

We can't divide Iraq, but it is already dividing up this way anyway. It is an inevitability. The U.S. is the last face in the crowd that should break up the artificial, British imposed "nation" of Iraq, but the world community and especially the neighboring countries (yes, including Iran) should participate in helping what is already taking place.

Bush created the civil war that exists and is growing daily. That's the ugly fact here. Yet, as much as I opposed the war and railed against Kerry and the Dems in the Senate who voted for the IWR (see my hundreds of posts leading up to the stupid war), I also am pained at the civil violence that the poor people stuck there are having to deal with every hour now.

The "government" of "Iraq" is a fraud and is propped up by the Pentagon and our tax dollars. The officials in the new "unity government" will bail with millions of our tax dollars that they will move to foreign banks the second the heat is on them just as every propped up leader from Batista and Somoza to Marcos the Shah did in the past.

Iraq was never a nation from the moment it was created by the British. Only the cruelest dictatorial excesses by America's puppets could hold it "together".

Until a better solution than just "staying the course" or pulling out and watching the bloodbath begin (that our nation created), I think the partitioning is the most humane and reasonable thing to do.

[Zhade]

60. We definitely are.

Man, what a mess.

[madmark]

57. if the iraqis want to split and its their decision great; the problem is

with us trying to externally impose in and then having the responsibility to implement (expending lives and money to do it). Get the fuck out now, and the iraqis can decide whatever it is they want to do.

[liberalpragmatist]

58. Partitions rarely solve the said questions

Partitioning warring groups into separate countries has a long history, but it rarely results in peace or stability for either side. Consider India and Pakistan, Greece and Turkey, Israel and the Palestinian territories, Ireland, and Cyprus. Granted, in some cases, partition may have been inevitable and maybe that's what's going to happen to Iraq too, but it's hardly the outcome we should be trying to create.

For one thing, it is impractical. How are you going to draw the lines? Iraq may have been an artificial country, but the borders have been the way they are for nearly a century and the populations are hopelessly mixed. What's the largest Kurdish city? Baghdad. What's the largest Sunni city? Baghdad. What's the largest Shi'ite city? Baghdad. Where would you put the Shi'ite holy city of Samarra, which is in the Sunni middle of the country? To whom are you going to give Kirkuk, which is a heterogenous mixture of Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and Turkmen? How are you going to split the country up without CAUSING bloodshed?

How are you going to ensure that the resulting states are economically viable? Iraq may have been an artificial creation, but the countries economic networks have developed for nearly a century? Will a Kurdish state be viable when it is landlocked and when the oil fields under Kirkuk are running out? How will you create a viable Sunni state when it has no economic base? How will you prevent a Shi'ite state from becoming an Iranian client state?

Moreover, what right does the U.S. have to impose such a solution? It's true the Kurds want independence, but even among Sunnis and Shi'as, there is very little sentiment for separate states? Sectarian tensions have been low until recently. For all the talk that Shi'as and Sunnis have never integrated, mixed marriages have been extremely common. The populations are extremely mixed. Millions of Iraqis are the products of mixed marriages, even with Kurds and Turkmen.

Juan Cole has written of the problems with partition. Check out his website: http://www.juancole.com. Cole also notes that the Arab world never forget the U.S. for splitting up Iraq. It is true that Iraq was initially an artificial country, but most countries have arbitrary boundaries and most countries are multiethnic. Iraqis have lived together for nearly a century and that counts for something too.

I do think the idea of dividing the country into autonomous regions is probably the best. For better or worse, the ethnic demon has been let out of the bag and has to be acknowledged. But a full-scale separation into three separate states would ultimately be disastrous, would cause as much as bloodshed as keeping the country together, and would result in instability and warfare for years.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Biden should be drawn and quartered in 3 parts

He is as much a PNACer imperialist as Wolfofwitz, which proves that there is no difference between a neocon and a neolib.

[bemildred]

54. I like it. And then the kerosene ...

(To quote Mr. Dylan.)

[CHIMO]

37. So How

Should America be divided?

Guess that we haven't come to that point yet. But we can always call on the Corporations to have their say.

[BattyDem]

38. We have absolutely NO RIGHT to make that decision for the Iraqis!

Hey Biden ... it's THEIR country, not ours! We caused enough trouble. It's time for us to get out and let the Iraqis find their own way. I don't want to hear that that we can't leave because the country is not stable, not secure, etc. Let's face facts ... we've been there for three years and we've done nothing but kill people and make matters worse. We're not helping them - we're hurting them and we're creating more and more hatred as the days go by. It's time to go.

DAMN! A US Senator thinks that WE should split up someone else's country! This is American arrogance at it's highest level. No wonder the whole world hates us! :eyes:

[killbotfactory]

39. This would have made sense, about three years ago

Of course, a lot of things made sense three years ago, like not invading Iraq in the first place. Failing that, not doing it on the cheap and committing to few troops. Failing that, not disbanding the army who wasn't loyal to Saddam anyway (as we saw in both Gulf Wars).

the list can go on... It's too late now. Put up our presence in Iraq to a vote by Iraqi's, if they want us to stay and help, fine, if they don't, fine. Either way we should let them solve their own problems and run their own nation.

[magellan]

42. And who's going to partition Iraqi families?

Anyone who reads Riverbend's blog, Baghdad Burning (just updated BTW), knows Iraqi Shiites and Sunnies have been intermarrying for a long time. Is Biden willing to go and oversee the partitioning of wives from husbands, grandchildren from grandparents, cousins from cousins?

When are political types in Washington going to stop punishing ordinary people for their own ghastly failures?!?

[cassiepriam]

46. Imperialist America at work. Would we want someone to come in

and divide America into three separate countries??

Actually that might not be a bad idea.... put me in
the blue one....

[stepnw1f]

50. Fuck Biden

Look "plastic Man", WE AMERICANS had enough... Got it? The Iraqis have had enough... Generals have advised for a pullout.

MESSAGE TO BIDEN: YOU WILL NEVER BE OUR PRESIDENT!

[brentspeak]

51. This idea has been tried before. They called it "Yugoslavia"

And we all know how that turned out.

[98geoduck]

59. How about 50. They can call it US of Iraq

[jsamuel]

61. that will NEVER WORK and would cause 100 X the destruction and loss of lif

e as what has already happened.

It would be like telling all the minorities in the US to move to California while the rest of us stay here. Indian reservations anyone???

Sure the Kurds have a geographic base, but the Sunni's and the Shia are mixed together and would be impossible to separate without a massive land war after a break up. A REAL civil war would ensue.