Should Iraq be split up?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

yes. it's the only solution.

If you honestly think the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds will ever get along I'll have some of whatever you're on. We've tried putting groups of people who don't like each other into one state before, it's called Israel. We've seen how well that's working.

[J-Mann]

yes. it's the only solution.

If you honestly think the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds will ever get along I'll have some of whatever you're on. We've tried putting groups of people who don't like each other into one state before, it's called Israel. We've seen how well that's working.

I read a very convincing article a few months back that advocated splitting the area into states made up of the North, South, and the Baghdad regional area.  It's really a pretty good argument.  The Kurds could probably handle the north alright.  A split may well end up happening before too long.

[Cashcow]

We'll see. This split may occur by itself through civil war, unfortunately.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I think it's also worth pointing out that historically Iraq is not a "real" nation. It's boundaries have no historical significance, they were just carved that way to set up British territories. There is really no reason for Iraq to exist with its current boundaries. The only way Iraq has been stable is by having a brutal ruler, like the British, their puppet monarch or Saddam. A democratic and stable Iraq can not exist in its current shape.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Iraq is likely to go the way of those other Versailles creations, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.  However, the Kurds are one reason why everyone wants to keep it all together.  An independent Iraqi Kurdistan creates problems for Syria, Turkey, and Iran.  The reason why the Saudi's dodn't want us going to Baghdad in 1991 no longer pertains.  The Shiites are on top, and they aren't going to be dislodged.  I don't think the Shiites are going to go for a Iranian-style theocracy.  They've seen the limitations of that, and I think Sistani and company are wary of the internal pressures that are building up in Iran.  If Iran were more successful, then there would be a danger of South Iraq going that way.  The ral problem is what happens to the Sunni Arabs.  A swap of Sunni Iraw for Kurdish Syria might make sense in the abstract, but ...  Baghdad is the powerkeg that causes all the problems.  Like multi-ethnic Sarjevo before it, it may need to be destroyed by a civil war before peace can happen.

[Beet]

The real nation is an Arab nation that encompasses Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, the U.A.E., Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and any other peninsular nation that I left out.

All those nations should be merged into a single state.

[The Duke]

yes. it's the only solution.

If you honestly think the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds will ever get along I'll have some of whatever you're on. We've tried putting groups of people who don't like each other into one state before, it's called Israel. We've seen how well that's working.

Actually, Israel is hardly a state built on multiculturalism.  It is a Jewish state built on ethnic identity.

The United States has varied regions, religions, skin colors, and the like, and i holds together fine.  The idea that ethnically varied nations cannot hold together or do well, is without much merit.  Germany is another example, where a Catholic south adn a Protestant north came together in spite of religious differneces and a lack of cohesive history and they dominated central Europe for 70 years.

Besides, have you even considered the fallout of a Kurdish breakaway?

[J. J.]

Besides, have you even considered the fallout of a Kurdish breakaway?

I have, a rather nasty war involving Turkey.

[MODU]

While I like the thought of Iraq being broken up, it would need to be more like 3 counties in one state rather than 3 individual nations.  There were discussions regarding the location of the large oil fields some time back which made the idea of splitting the nation up into 3 nations as been the foundation for a nasty war.  That's why just separating them internally would be a better bet . . . though not perfect since there are many areas where there is blending of the 3 major groups.

Best option would be them just getting along and accepting each other.

[Silent Hunter]

I think not, but I seem to have accidentally voted yes.

Regarding Versailles, Hungary and Austria are getting on quite well, as are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

[Jens]

While I like the thought of Iraq being broken up, it would need to be more like 3 counties in one state rather than 3 individual nations.  There were discussions regarding the location of the large oil fields some time back which made the idea of splitting the nation up into 3 nations as been the foundation for a nasty war.  That's why just separating them internally would be a better bet . . . though not perfect since there are many areas where there is blending of the 3 major groups.

Best option would be them just getting along and accepting each other.

Well said, MODU
Just because Iraq contains 3+ groups that identify themself differently there is no reason to split the country. Nations are not something forever defined and Iraq has a decent change of becoming a country where differences are respected. What is important is that the Americans don't prioritice one group and try to use them as proxy rulers, but include all gruops into the attemp on creating  a democracy - but it will take time and money lots of money - nothing that can create turmoil like economic dissatisfaction

[Tory]

Yes, that's what I've said since the war started.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There should be an independent Kurdistan

[Sam Spade]

There should be an independent Kurdistan

An independent Kurdistan would cause war between Kurds and Turks, because a great part of eastern Turkey is dominated by Kurdish people.  War would last at least three to five years, imo.

Ron Paul, a few months ago, advocated a federal solution (a la the original American constitution) to the Iraq problem.  In other words, there would be three states, one Kurd, one Sunni and one Shia within the larger Iraqi framework.  A central government would be located in Baghdad, but each region would have its own separate "state" government to handle more localized issues.

I find this to be the best solution, personally.  Nonetheless, as of right now, the government will be Shia-dominated.  The danger in this for America is the Shiites deference to Iran in the past.  We'll see whether that continues.

[John Dibble]

I agree that  a federal system would probably work best. Independent nations will result in problems for foreign nations, and as things stand there are problems internally.

[Michael Z]

A federal framework is definitely the best solution. Independent states on their own will only cause more harm than good; as described above, an independent Kurdistan would eventually (but inevitably) find itself a war with Turkey - right on the EU's doorstep. That the Sunni and Shia states could coexist in harmony is doubtful either; they may be at war with each other at some point as well, dragging Iran and Saudi Arabia with them in the process and causing a conflict that could span across the Middle East. It is the worst case scenario, but one which isn't all that unlikely.

[Erc]

To go along with what the other posters had said, a federalist system needs to be had.  However, considering that the upcoming elections for a Constituent Assembly (ie one drafting the Constitution) is being held on an entirely popular-vote basis, the Shias will dominate the Assembly by force of numbers.  And if the Sunnis continue their little insurgency in Mosul, Talabani & Barzani up north will continue to see the Sunnis as their greatest enemy, and may vote with the Shias (continuing the Unholy Alliance of Kurds and Shias).

Of course, the Sunnis know they're going to be outvoted so they have little faith in the democratic system...leading to more problems and more insurgency (which just angers the Kurds and Shias more).  Note that the recent character of the insurgency has been much more directed at Shias (in the south) and Kurds (in Mosul--where the police force, one would assume, is overwhelmingly Kurdish).

The root cause of this problem is that we essentially sold out to the Shias (to stop Sadr and get the support of Sistani).  While, in the circumstances, it was the right thing to do (although the situation in the Sunni Triangle may have been improved somewhat, losing the support of the Shia areas would have been much worse)--it's going to cause major problems.

Of course, people won't be voting along completely ethnic/religious lines come January 30 (a lot will, but not all), so the Shias will need some support from key actors:  namely Allawi (who won't be too hard to get) and the Kurds--Talabani and Barzani.  Remember that the Kurds are used to a heck of a lot of autonomy (they've been de facto independent since '92) so they are likely to support a Federalist system.  However, if one side or the other gets a significant majority of the Kurdish vote, the loser may take a weird position to undermine the other [heck, Barzani allied with Saddam in '96 when Talabani was doing well].  In short, it's likely that the Shias will get enough support (due to conflicting agendas elsewhere) to get their agenda through the Constitution.

The instant American troops leave (or are severely dwindled), the Sunnis will launch a major uprising.  The Kurds and Shias won't like this, and the Unholy Alliance will march on Baghdad, and they won't be afraid of little things like civilian casualties.  Behold the real de-Baathification.

Iraq will stay together in the end, if only because the Kurds and Shias, ironically enough, can't afford it not to.