It ain't Vietnam, it's Yugoslavia

[Guaranteed]

There was a fascinating interview on NPR during my drive home with Peter Galbraith. He was saying that Iraq effectively has split into three different countries, with independent governments and armies. The cultural differences are too much. He suggested that we forget about keeping the country united, since we forced out of power the dictator who was able to effectively employ the sufficient, hardcore fear and force to keep the country together, and instead begin working on an amicable settlement between the three ethnicities, so that we might not see the massive ethnic wars and cleansing that we saw in Yugoslavia after 1991.

What he was saying reminded me of "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." Who was it that wrote that...oh, yes. Now I remember. Thomas Friedman.

Did I mention that Friedman is an idiot? HE WROTE THE FUCKING BOOK.

Here's Galbraith's interview:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5041373

(not all that aptly titled- it's not really what he said)

[quaoar]

1. It is absolutely Yugoslavia

A country cobbled together by outsiders and held together by the ruthlessness of an authoritarian leader. Remove the repression and the whole thing flies apart.

The only peaceful solution to Iraq is partition.

[Guaranteed]

2. Yup. Should solve the problems, as long

as we get the conflicts over territory and such worked out.

What to do with Baghdad?

Oh yeah...thanks again, Bush.

[quaoar]

9. Baghdad

would be the capital of the rump state of Iraq, which would be Shiite controlled.

[bryant69]

3. Won't happen.

For one thing, we'd be betraying Turkey who doesn't want to give up their Kurds and whose airspace we needed before the invasion. Secondly the Sunnies and Shi'ites will probably resent losing land to people they really don't like.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Guaranteed]

5. Right, that's the other problem.

But they'll just keep fighting.

I dunno- I think we'd better start buttering up the old Turks.

[quaoar]

7. That's easy

We withdraw to Kurdistan and recognize it as an independent nation with the stipulation that they renounce any claim to territory outside of Iraqi Kurdistan and agree not to provide sanctuary or support to Kurdish separatists in Turkey. We leave about 20,000 troops there on a permananet basis.

[Sufi Marmot]

11. This is my favorite option also...

Except it would be really hard to get Turkey to go along with this. I've often wondered whether they would do it if they were given in exchange a guaranteed fast-track into the EU, along with NATO assurance of military support should their own Kurdish population resume terrorism within Turkey. I wonder what percent of the urban Kurdish population living in Turkey (particularly those that fled Saddam's Iraq) would consider repatriating themselves to an independent Kurdistan created out of Northern Iraq.

-SM

[da_chimperor]

4. There is a catch to that.

The predominately Sunni area, oil wise, is poor compared to the predominately Shi'ite and Kurdish areas. I'll do a bit of digging and see if I can come up with a link in the morning. It's late over here.

[quaoar]

8. The Sunni Triangle area

would either have to be given sovereignty over some opf the oil fields of southern Iraq or it would have to be annexed to Syria or Saudi Arabia.

[Elwood P Dowd]

6. Marshall Tito held it together

and thumbed his nose to the Soviets at the same time.

[Xithras]

10. The Sunni will never allow that to happen.

Religious reasons: The Sunni will pursue civil war at all costs if that happened. Why? Because fundamentalist Sunni don't consider Shia to be Muslims, and granting them autonomy would be akin to forging an infidel nation in the middle of the Islamic homeland.

Economic reasons: On top of that, you have a HUGE resource issue. The Shia in the south would control exports and hold the most productive agricultural areas. The Kurds in the north would have control over the dams and hydro energy. The Sunni portion of the country, the actual nation of Iraq that existed under the Ottomans, was fairly poor in its own right because its area is resource poor. Throughout history it only achieved wealth by subjugating its neighbors and taking their wealth.

Political reasons: The Shia south would undoubtably ally politically with Iran. The US would never allow that. The Kurdish north would be militarily opposed by both Iran and Turkey, who have both fought extensively with their own Kurdish populations over the independence issue.

"Iraq" is a European creation that completely ignores the political, social, and cultural realities of the region it encompasses. It was created strictly to ease the process of getting oil out of the region and without any regard for the feelings of the people that lived there, so in many ways it's probably true that the Iraqi people would be better off if the country was broken apart. The only problem is, there's no way to do that without sparking several wars, both external and civil.

[Mr_Spock]

12. I heard that - was interesting...

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

13. A similar outlook offered in "Iraq: The Reckoning"

(in which Galbraith is interviewed)

Basically there will be Kurdistan, a theocratic south allied with Iran (which it already pretty much is) and a return of the Baath party to stomp down on Sunni fundamentalism. (Plus the fact that the Mahdi army runs Sadr city with the tacit approval of the US.)

Download or stream link:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/11/1785055.php