The Iraqi Army No Longer Exists

[Torie]

So says this MIT professor. So what do we do now?  The country really needs to be partitioned in some manner. Joe Biden was right on this one.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A partition would be tempting, but would result in a) massive ethnic cleansing b) a new Iran client state and c) a completely lawless Sunni state.

[Cory]

A partition would be tempting, but would result in a) massive ethnic cleansing b) a new Iran client state and c) a completely lawless Sunni state.

We already have those things. At least a partition could possibly bring some form of stability to the area.

[Torie]

A partition would be tempting, but would result in a) massive ethnic cleansing b) a new Iran client state and c) a completely lawless Sunni state.

Without a partition, the Shia militias, in lieu of any Iraqi army, if they advance into Anbar, will presumably do ethnic cleansing. I think Bagdad is mostly ethnically cleansed of Sunnis anyway, so  at this point, Shias, Sunnis and Kurds are mostly physically separated, and partition would just recognize that separation.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A partition would be tempting, but would result in a) massive ethnic cleansing b) a new Iran client state and c) a completely lawless Sunni state.

We already have those things. At least a partition could possibly bring some form of stability to the area.

Yes, but it would codify them. At least ISIS should we wiped out before we start talking about partitioning.

[Torie]

A partition would be tempting, but would result in a) massive ethnic cleansing b) a new Iran client state and c) a completely lawless Sunni state.

We already have those things. At least a partition could possibly bring some form of stability to the area.

Yes, but it would codify them. At least ISIS should we wiped out before we start talking about partitioning.

Well we cleansed Anbar of the bad guys once, and left, and see what happened? So what now?  The Shia militias go in with US help, and commit their own atrocities, or do we just try to contain ISIS, while they kill of all their opposition (e.g. the tribal leaders), or does the US does it all over again at the cost of more lives and money, and if the latter option, after the US does it all over again, then what? Maybe the US should demand that Iraq partition itself effectively, before the US does anything at all, if then.

I really think at this point the US has no choice but to recognize the bad guys will control real estate in the region (of many different hues), and we are left with the rather unglamorous policy of containment, and selective bombing, and so forth. There are just too many crazies around there, to do anything else.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Remember when notorious beheader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, and that was seen as the beginning of the end for the Al-Qaeda-inspired groups in Iraq?

2006 - those were the days.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Spend another $1+ trillion making the situation even worse, of course.

[Cory]

Yes, but it would codify them. At least ISIS should we wiped out before we start talking about partitioning.

Okay I guess we'll just wait for that to happen then. So I'm guessing you are willing to support the Assad Regime? Because that's the only realistic way for ISIL to be defeated. If Assad falls then Syria is lost.

Basically we ("the West") have been outmaneuvered on a grand scale. If ISIL is to be defeated that means Iran becomes the dominant power with a "Shia Crescent" spreading from Iran through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. There is literally no realistic mechanism by which ISIL is defeated without Iran being the ultimate winner.

Spare me the delusions about the "Free Syrian Army".

[Hnv1]

Had John McCain demanded  'boots on the ground' yet?

[anvi]

It's hard for me, firstly, to see how as a practical matter Iraq could be partitioned.  Neither Shias nor Sunnis would give up Baghdad in such a "deal," nor will either easily hand over Kirkuk to the Kurds, and surrounding neighbors will come to the aid of both sides, and Turkey would freak out at a Kurdish-controlled North, even though such an independent northern state is itself practically implausible, so they'd throw in their lot too.  Different regions are interdependent in terms of infrastructure and travel too, and economically separating them as a partition would may easily bring incredible hardship on lots of places in the country.

And in general, I think partitions tend to be disastrous anyway; the India-Pakistan partition was a nightmare, and the way the middle east was carved up in the 20th century is an ongoing one too.  Plus, despite all the sectarianism in the country, communities of different groups in different regions have been living together for decades, and there are Shia-Sunni intermarriages and hence family ties in Iraq.

What is really needed is a government in Baghdad that is not hell-bent, as it has been for the past decade, on marginalizing and brutally suppressing Sunnis, but the guys running the show there don't have that kind of wisdom.  It's going to be a very bad mess in that country for a long time, and the U.S. is most definitely incapable of "fixing" it and shouldn't try to be in that business anymore.  The more equipment and weaponry we leave lying around or distribute in the region, the more of it will will be picked up and used there.  And, rhetoric aside, no president or Congress is going to agree to send the massive military resources there that would be required if our goal were "eliminating" ISIL.

The best thing we can do now, for my money, is really reflect on what a profoundly misguided  catastrophe our military and geo-political adventurism has been and change our own ways.  As painful, and incredibly unfair, as it is, Iraq will be a very difficult place for people to live in the foreseeable future, and our enemies are going to have some measure of power there for a while.  But there are also lots of other powerful balancers in the region, so no single one of them is going to hold uncontested sway.  What we need to do is resist the ever-nagging temptation to intervene further and make things even worse.

[Simfan34]

Direct rule?

[dead0man]

Partition for the Kurds, I don't care how pissed off this makes the Turks, the Persians or the rest of Iraq.  The Kurds deserve it, being completely surrounded and repressed by assholes.  Support them fully.  Screw everybody else (unless they play ball).

(I know there are issues with this and fully admit it may not work, but since nothing else is working and nothing short of a miracle would work, we should at least try to help the (mostly) nice guys trying to get along in a neighborhood full of jerks that all hate each other.)

[Silent Hunter]

Basically we ("the West") have been outmaneuvered on a grand scale. If ISIL is to be defeated that means Iran becomes the dominant power with a "Shia Crescent" spreading from Iran through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. There is literally no realistic mechanism by which ISIL is defeated without Iran being the ultimate winner.

Is that really that bad a thing?

[© tweed]

US imperialism sure can f'ck the world up for a lot of people - especially for those who survive.

[politicus]

Basically we ("the West") have been outmaneuvered on a grand scale. If ISIL is to be defeated that means Iran becomes the dominant power with a "Shia Crescent" spreading from Iran through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. There is literally no realistic mechanism by which ISIL is defeated without Iran being the ultimate winner.

Is that really that bad a thing?

It is better than the realistic alternatives.

[anvi]

Basically we ("the West") have been outmaneuvered on a grand scale. If ISIL is to be defeated that means Iran becomes the dominant power with a "Shia Crescent" spreading from Iran through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. There is literally no realistic mechanism by which ISIL is defeated without Iran being the ultimate winner.

Is that really that bad a thing?

I'm just curious how the quoted passage above became mine when it was Cory's.   

[Silent Hunter]

Basically we ("the West") have been outmaneuvered on a grand scale. If ISIL is to be defeated that means Iran becomes the dominant power with a "Shia Crescent" spreading from Iran through Iraq into Syria and Lebanon. There is literally no realistic mechanism by which ISIL is defeated without Iran being the ultimate winner.

Is that really that bad a thing?

I'm just curious how the quoted passage above became mine when it was Cory's.    

Coding mistake; I removed the heading that said it was his. My apologies.

Part of me is wondering if it wouldn't be easier in the long run to set up one big confederation for the Shias, one for the Sunnis, have Israel for the Jews and Christians, then pay the costs of moving everyone around. Then I realise that large transfers of population never go well and I wonder why people just can't get along...

[Yelnoc]

Because partitioning a country into smaller ethnic states has a really great track-record....

The best solution would be to unite Syria and Iraq into one confederation. Ethnically there would be a rough balance between Sunni and Shia, so there's no possibility of a minority oppressing or being oppressed by a majority. If the state was confederal in nature, the decentralization could help lesson tensions and provide some of the benefits of the division plans without sparking even more widespread ethnic cleansing. And finally, the resulting state would be big enough to stand on its own and not be a battle ground for proxy wars.