Two views of the Iraq elections:
Ron Bailey calls for partition as a form of rough justice.
Christopher Preble considers why the prospect of rough justice might drive people to fight the vote.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 4:02pm | #
Big Fan of Ron's approach.Break that sumbitch up and let a Jeffersonian Federal gov't puppet them on a world stage.
gaius marius | January 28, 2005, 4:11pm | #
Partition in Iraq could forestall a bloody civil war like the ones that wracked former Yugoslavia and Ethiopia for years. In both cases, partition occurred only after hundreds of thousands of casualties. Of course, the bloody partition of India and Pakistan shows that things could get messy even if an agreement for partitioning Iraq is somehow reached.precisely. balkanizing iraq stands to make a very long-term problem out of an issue that is now an intermediate-term problem. large loss of life is an attendant probability in both scenarios.
i think that, attractive as it may seem on cursory examination, once you consider the example of the balkans it really isn't an option at all. then consider the inevitable turkish invasion of kurdistan.
a third view of the election: lawrence kaplan's, who's already calling it a tragic failure, clearing the ideological way for continued enlightened despotism.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 4:20pm | #
i think that, attractive as it may seem on cursory examination, once you consider the example of the balkans it really isn't an option at all. then consider the inevitable turkish invasion of kurdistan.It would be much easier to get nobody's business but the Turks to back down that it would be to hold Sudan, part deux together.
gaius marius | January 28, 2005, 4:54pm | #
it could be iran's invasion, then, if you like. or the turks and iranians partitioning the duty, a la hitler and stalin.the thing to realize, imo, is that an independent kurdistan is an american state if it is going to live longer than six months -- and, if it survives, it may well ignite civil wars in kurdish regions of turkey and iran.
Still, Iraq could be divvied up along ethnic lines. Kurds in the North make up 20 percent of Iraq's population
this also ignores the reality that there is no boundary. iraq's ethnic groups are marbled together inextricably. there is no right place to draw a line. basra is shia; tikrit is sunni -- but in between there is a large zone of intermixed ethnicity. and it ignores other ethnicities like assyrian christians who were afforded protection in secular dictatorial iraq.
hold Sudan, part deux together.
i think, mr goiter, that the civil war that's coming is going to come regardless of anything we try.
if the choice is between a years-long winner-take-all civil war and a decades-long balkan powerkeg constantly going off, which do you prefer?
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 4:57pm | #
if the choice is between a years-long winner-take-all civil war and a decades-long balkan powerkeg constantly going off, which do you prefer?Well, I reckon that I prefer the year long civil war but between the three independent states.
Russ D | January 28, 2005, 4:57pm | #
gaius,Does a civil war really imply winner-take-all, or could it imply 3 autonomous areas? I don't think anyone really knows, though historically it was partitioned until relatively recently.
gaius marius | January 28, 2005, 5:04pm | #
I don't think anyone really knowsneither do i, mr d. you might get the worse of both worlds -- civil war, followed by balkanization.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 5:06pm | #
though historically it was partitioned until relatively recently.Partitioning seems to work most everywhere else, I suspect that Lieutenant Lowercase is fearing some Hobbesian outcome to partitioning.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 5:08pm | #
Hrm. It just occurred to me that withdrawing, partitioning, followed by the Iranian invasion is the current administration's dream scenario.It allows them them an excuse to invade Iran.
thoreau | January 28, 2005, 5:12pm | #
Partition could mean peace, but it could just as easily mean war. It depends on whether partitioning leads to disputes over territory. And just how fractal the actual ethnic boundaries are. A multiethnic region might be a model for integration in a united Iraq, but a bone of contention between Kurdistan and Sumeria, or whatever you want to call the new countries.Then again, a multiethnic region could be a flashpoint in a united Iraq as well.
What I do know is that these matters should be resolved by some sort of internal consensus, and that if there is a consensus in favor of division then border regions should be able to vote on which side they'll join. It shouldn't be decided by foreign mapmakers.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 28, 2005, 5:14pm | #
It shouldn't be decided by foreign mapmakers.Rochambeau it is then.
Just look how well partition worked in Palestine, Ireland, and India. (Maybe we shouldn't let the British do it.)
John | January 28, 2005, 5:52pm | #
There are a lot of good idea farries out there, but Iraq should have been partitioned in the 1920s. Its too late now for several reasons.First, the Suni Arabs have been ethnically cleansing the Kurds from in and around Kirkuk for 40 years. The Kurds consider Kirkuk the heart of Kurdistan and to be a Kurdish city. They would never agree to a partition that didn't include Kirkuk. Incidentily, Kirkuk is where half the oil in Iraq is located. Kirkuk is now majority Arab, with some Turks and Caldians as well. The Sunis would never agree to a partition that left Kirkuk in Kurdish hands. For that reason alone, parition is a non-starter.
Second, we have been down this road before in the 1920s. Then, the Shiites fought the British the way the Sunis are fighting us now. It resulted in the Shia being completely shut out of government and the establishment of a Suni Heshimite monarchy. The smart Sunnis understand this and will ultimately play in a unified Iraq if for no other reason than to avoid complete marginalization.
Third, the Suni's control the headwaters of both the Tigris and the Euphrates. The Shias know this. They do not want to be stuck in an independent country totally dependent on the Sunis for their water. Its a lot better to be in one country where you are the majority.
Fourth, all the oil is in and around Kirkuk and in the south around Basra. You partition Iraq and the Sunis get no oil. Better to live as a minority in an oil rich country than have your own plot of worthless sand in and around Bahgdad.
The nitwits who write this stuff paint Iraq with too broad of a brush. Not every Suni is a Bathist and not every Shia wants a Shiite theocracy. The government is going to be a parlimentary system where minority parties are going to have a lot of power. Consequently, there is going to be a lot of strange bedfellows once the government is up and running. The dangers of an all out civil war are a lot less than people think.
Ken Shultz | January 28, 2005, 5:58pm | #
I've argued for a modified partition for a long time.America was a number of states before it united. So was the European Union. So was Switzerland. Who is to say that three democracies couldn't come to terms on oil sharing, borders, etc.?
Perhaps most Iraqis would rather remain united--what's to stop regional democracies from uniting?
Don't the Sunni Arab insurgents look like they're fighting for their own country?
I think a federal system is the answer. That is pretty much what we have, especially in Kurdistan. I am not so sure the insurgents look like they are fighting for their own country. If that were the point, they would be up terrorizing Kurds in the north or Shias in the south. Mostly they are killing other Sunis. At some point, the Sunis are going to get sick of dying. Also, the Iraqis do not like foreigners, especially Iranians and Saudis. The fact that so many of the insurgents are not Iraqis and they make a habbit of killing Iraqis is going to start to wear pretty thin at some point.
thoreau | January 28, 2005, 6:02pm | #
Ken, I think you hit the nail on the head. The choice need not be between a unitary state or 3 independent countries. Various forms of federalism are possible.The important thing is that these matters need to be decided internally, not imposed by outsiders.
If you are going to have independent states. You have to have borders. Good luck and getting the Kurds and the Sunis to decide where the Green line should be or getting one side to agree to loosing its territory forever but have an "oil sharing" agreement with the side that gets the land. Its not going to happen. The Shias, being the majority, don't want to split up Iraq and the Sunis and the Kurds stand to loose complete control of the area around Kurkuk if there is a partition. Other than the three parties who are actually involved, it looks like partitioning has broad support.
Ken Shultz | January 28, 2005, 6:22pm | #
Legitimacy, by definition, flows from the roots.Neither Sunni Arab insurgents nor the people who support them will ever accept the legitimacy of a government imposed on them by the United States.
Only legitimate representatives can negotiate borders and oil sharing agreements that will work. Until Sunni Arabs have legitimate representation of their own, there is no legitimate basis for negotiation.
...and that's regardless of whether there are three democracies or one.
I disagee. I think the people who support the insurgents will accept a government once they realize that the only other choice is complete marginilization. People are not as stupid or as crazy as we like to think. People support the insurgency now because they think they can get the Americans to go home and take back over again. Once it becomes apparent that that is impossible, the support for the insurgency is going to lag. Sure, there is still going to be foreigners who are there to kill Americans and couldn't careless what the government is and a few deadend Iraqis who continue to fight because they have no other future, but the majority will stop supporting the insurgency once it becomes apparent that they have no other choice.
Ken Shultz | January 28, 2005, 8:01pm | #
"I think the people who support the insurgents will accept a government once they realize that the only other choice is complete marginilization.They're already completely marginalized and they're likely to remain marginalized in a democratic government dominated by their enemies.
"People support the insurgency now because they think they can get the Americans to go home and take back over again."
al Sistani would never allow Sunni Arabs to reassert control over the areas in which Shiites predominate, and the Sunni Arabs who support the insurgency must know that. Likewise, they must know that the mullahs in Iran wouldn't sit on their hands and breathe through their noses while Sunni Arabs reasserted control over their Shiite brethren.
If Sunni Arabs who support the insurgency know that they can't reassert control over the Kurdish and Shiite portions of Iraq, then for what are they fighting? I suspect the answer is that they're fighting for control of the areas in which they predominate.
"Once it becomes apparent that that is impossible, the support for the insurgency is going to lag...but the majority will stop supporting the insurgency once it becomes apparent that they have no other choice."
We are losing. You don't seem to understand that. The people who support the insurgency aren't going anywhere. We're bugging out as soon as possible.
Time is on their side, not ours.
Gary Gunnels | January 28, 2005, 8:03pm | #
John,Your statement presumes that there isn't another choice.
I spent a year in Iraq from 2003 to 2004 and my experience is that we are not loosing. The Iraqi economy has grown over 50% in 2004. The vast majority of Iraqis I met in the middle of the suni triangle didn't support the insurgency and were glad to see Saddam gone. The fact is there were people who benifited under Saddam. A large number of them in raw number if a small percentage of the population. Those people are fighting to regain control over their own territory to the extent to have the freedom to terrorize the population and regain their privilaged status. I ask you again Shultz, if they are fighting to regain the territory for Sunnis why are they not killing Shias and Kurds, but Sunis? The answer is that they are not fighting for the Sunnis they are fighting for themselves and for their right to terrorize the population. The same way leftover Nazis did in occupied Germany. Just becuase they can pull of one car bomb a day in a country the size of Texas, doesn't mean they have the support of the populace at large. Al Quada managed to kill 3000 Americans on 9-11, does that mean they are secretly supported by a majority of Americans?
A sunni dominated government could absolutely, reasert control over the Shia areas. You don't think they would get the support of every government in the area outside of Iran, all of whom have Shia minorities whom they oppress and are scared to death of? A Shia run Iran is a nightmare for the Sunni countries around Iraq. If the Americans went home, its very possible to see the Sunnis back in control over all of Iraq.
John | January 28, 2005, 8:26pm | #
Further, Shultz,Please explain to me exactly what the insurgents are fighting for? Its not self-determination, they have that. Their are not communists like the Viet Cong. They are nothing. They are gangsters and left overs from the Saddam era. What they want is the same thing the Cosa Nostra wanted in Italy. The ability to control small areas and extort and terrorize the population. All of your posts assume that they are popularly support ideological or nationalistic insurgency. They are not. That is why they are doomed to loose. They can't maintain momentum forever. You also don't understand that Iraq has always had a problem with tribalism and gangsterism. Saddam couldn't control Falujia anymore than we can. They hung the bathist mayor there in 2002. Ramadi is the same way. For the new Iraqi government, its going to be a long hard slog getting rid of them, but no worse than say Columbia has with the FARC or Peru had with the Shinning Path. No one wanted to break up those countries or declare their governments untenable, neither should anyone do the same with Iraq.
Ken Shultz | January 28, 2005, 8:31pm | #
I can't compete with direct experience interviewing people in Sunni Triangle."I ask you again Shultz, if they are fighting to regain the territory for Sunnis why are they not killing Shias and Kurds, but Sunis?"
...but I will point out that the insurgency is most certainly targeting Shiites.
http://www.google.com/search?q=insurgents+target+shiites&sourceid=opera&num=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
"Al Quada managed to kill 3000 Americans on 9-11, does that mean they are secretly supported by a majority of Americans?"
You're right--just because bombs are going off in the Sunni Triangle doesn't mean that Sunni Arabs are actively supporting the insurgency.
...But it sure as hell doesn't mean that they aren't supporting the insurgents either.
"The same way leftover Nazis did in occupied Germany."
In Iraq, I'm neither willing to kill as many civilians or squander as many American lives as it took to create a democracy in Germany.
John | January 28, 2005, 8:37pm | #
In Iraq, I'm neither willing to kill as many civilians or squander as many American lives as it took to create a democracy in Germany.That is another topic. I don't see how we can live in the world post 9-11, with nearly a billion people in the middle-east living under totaltarian governments.
Ken Shultz | January 28, 2005, 9:34pm | #
I maintain that, just like the Shiites and the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs probably want to control the areas in which they predominate.I agree with G. Marius, there is a great risk of Balkanization. However, I suspect that cat is already out of the bag.
If peace, prosperity and freedom in Iraq require a three state solution, then America would be much better off pushing for a three state solution.
I suspect that if there was a bloody civil war, legitimacy would require a three state solution in the end anyway--my hope is that, perhaps, we can jump to the end of that mess, and skip all the horror and bloodshed in the middle.
...Indeed, my desire to evade a U.S. instigated, bloody civil war in Iraq is only surpassed by my concern for the safety of American troops.
pragmatist | January 28, 2005, 9:47pm | #
I've long suspected the "insurgents" (who should be called "terrorists") have very little popular support. Their tactics betray this. You don't rally broad popular support by telling Iraqis to kill lots of other Iraqis. Not as a general rule, anyway.But are there really a lot of foreigners among the "terrorists"? That I don't know and have wondered much. Because I think it potentially makes a huge difference to the US.
If the terrorists are local, just disaffected Iraqis, that's bad but not so bad. If the terrorists are foreigners, and if they're tied in with bin Laden type orginizations, then the US (like it or not) better dig in and fight hard -- because now, it means the terrorists are probably fighting to get their hands on the second largest oil supply in the world.
Do we have adequate "intelligence" to even know? Though using the word "intelligence" seems so unintelligent here. John, can you tell us anything solid from your experience? I don't believe anything I read about this from the news feeds, I doubt they know.
What the Iraqis must have, more than anything else, is a gov't good enough to be worth fighting for. Maybe that can spring out of the elections, we can only hope.
btw, if you look back in history, the Kurds fought each other whenever they've had their autonomy anyway. The Shiites may not want a civil war, and who knows what the Sunnis at large really want. But the Kurds have fought each other whenever there was nobody else to fight for, oh, say, the last 400 or 500 years. The odds of a Kurdistan surviving any length of time are in fact small. They'll need at least semi-autonomy, so that they're free to shoot each other instead of "the invading outsiders".
Gary Gunnels | January 28, 2005, 10:11pm | #
John,Left over Nazis in (western) Germany did not put up anything remotely like the fight we've seen out of the Iraqi insurgents. Indeed, even the Soviets didn't have to deal with something like this (though there was much more resistance to the occupation in the east than the west). Why people keep on tossing up this preposterous historical analogy I don't know.
Al Quada managed to kill 3000 Americans on 9-11, does that mean they are secretly supported by a majority of Americans?
Well, given the differing factual predicates, this analogy borders on the absurd.
And please learn how to spell the word "lose."
clarityiniowa | January 29, 2005, 12:01am | #
I'm afraid a "partition of Iraq" may very well accomplish itself no matter what else happens. What I haven't made my mind up about is whether that's a good or bad thing.The last thing I think we should worry about is the perceived "legitimacy" of the election based on whether or not the Sunnis sit it out. The correct response is, "Here's your opportunity to participate and represent yourselves, take it or leave it, and accept the consequences either way."
clarityiniowa | January 29, 2005, 12:08am | #
Ken Schultz - ...Indeed, my desire to evade a U.S. instigated, bloody civil war in Iraq is only surpassed by my concern for the safety of American troops.Well said, although the term "civil war" might be more apropos in the case of Iraq if it hadn't taken a bloody-handed dictator to hold the thing together in the first place. Trouble with that region of the globe is too many long-standing geographic fairy tales in the wake of the British Empire.
Gary Gunnels | January 29, 2005, 12:11am | #
clarityiniowa,The election means very little, since they'll be having another one next December. This parliament is almost a "lame duck" from the start.
The problem with the division of Iraq, is that the "International Community" has a fetish for borders. Even after forcibly separating Kosovo from Serbia, it can't bring itself to admit that its done that. It'll never agree to change anyborders, unless, of course the borders belong to Israel.
clarityiniowa | January 29, 2005, 12:21am | #
GG - True, but the approach is similar to how U.S. Presidents were originally supposed to be elected, and hopefully will pave the way for some kind of an interim parliamentary body. Whether or not it will be seen as "legitimate" enough to put other than a tissue-paper constitution together, your guess is as good as Bush's. Heck, it took the U.S. a couple of tries at the start ourselves.At best, this is a "dry run," but I do believe it is important as a checkpoint of sorts. I give a certain amount of credit to those who set this up for not pinning too much on this initial round. First halfway wise thing they've done over there so far.
Gary Gunnels | January 29, 2005, 12:33am | #
clarityiniowa,Well, they are going to write a constitution in the mean time.
deron | January 29, 2005, 10:18am | #
I'll admit a good amount of naievity in these matters, but that hasn't really stopped anyone else much less our government so...In a perfect world we would have conquered Iraq, and worked towards establishing self government at the local level. Elections in the cities seems a much better starting point then national elections. After a period of time let a group come together from the cities to design the national government. They can either join or not.
My guess is that based upon history and ethnicity there will be 3 different countries. That isn't to say that I think WE should determine the partitions. Most arguements against partition seem based on what external powers fear. As long as the reconstruction of Iraq is governed by the needs of external powers it will almost surely be a failure, because it's the internal people who will have to live with it.
Civil war in Iraq also seems a forgone conclusion. (A) they've always had it just ask the Kurds (B) they're having one now, the only failure in recognition is in scale.
Ruthless | January 29, 2005, 10:48am | #
To summarize here, none of us can predict the results of any of our top-down proposals.Most of us like top-down proposals because they allow predictability. It's like the challenge of a game of chess: complex but with an element of predictability.
The hell with predictability. I don't have any proposals except to get the US government out of that area. I have "faith" that getting the US government--all governments--out of there would be better than ANY top-down proposal.
Nationalist ties are stronger than sectarian ties to most Iraqis. In other words, most Iraqis don't want a divided Iraq. That seems to be overlooked in all these "partition Iraq!" columns that pop up from time to time. The Kurds are the only group that has any kind of strong desire for independence, and even among them it's not obvious that it's a majority. [And it doesn't take an expert to see what kind of powderkeg an independent Kurdistan would be in the region.] The Sunnis are upset that they won't be able to continue ruling Iraq, not that they won't be able to rule some "Sunnistan" carved from just the Sunni areas in Iraq. Those trying to disrupt Iraq from the outside are attempting to fuel sectarian loyalty at the expense of Iraqi nationalism, but they haven't had much success with the changing the mind of the ordinary Iraqi. There are many areas of Iraq where Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, and even Christians are neighbors, friends, and co-workers of people from a different sect. Some Iraqis would consider a partition of Iraq from outside to be a more hostile action than the war itself.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 29, 2005, 1:33pm | #
Left over Nazis in (western) Germany did not put up anything remotely like the fight we've seen out of the Iraqi insurgents. Indeed, even the Soviets didn't have to deal with something like this (though there was much more resistance to the occupation in the east than the west). Why people keep on tossing up this preposterous historical analogy I don't know.True, Gary, we should be using the Japanese occupation, including the outer islands, as the comparison is much more apropos. The resistance there was just as, if not more, deadly that we're seeing in Iraq.
Or course, the Japanese didn't have access to the vast munitions from outside sources that the Iraqis have.
clarityiniowa | January 29, 2005, 2:50pm | #
Nationalist ties are stronger than sectarian ties to most Iraqis.If that's true, one has got to wonder why. What exactly has there ever been about the place to feel nationalist loyalty to?
Dynamist | January 29, 2005, 3:06pm | #
I think I echo thoreau and Ruthless: The only answer that matters is the one the Iraqis embrace internally. The Iraqi people are not charged with electing an Assembly that appears legitimate to media or GWB, but one sufficient to begin drafting an agreement under which the Iraqi people are willing to live.Like clarity wrote, it's their first chance to take part in their own national future. Iraqis who don't act this time, for whatever reason, will hopefully join the process after this "Constitutional Congress" convenes.
Ruthless | January 29, 2005, 7:30pm | #
Dynamist,How about this for a top-down proposal?
You've noticed we have so many Iraqis here in the US that they're even voting in Nashville, my Scots-Irish, furriner-hating hometown?
What would it cost for every Iraqi in the US to have the US government pick up the tab for any Iraqi in Iraq chosen by Iraqis in the US to settle in the US?
Concurrent with this resettlement would be Iraqis helping US citizens convene a US Constitutional Congress. Iraqis would be the temporary leaders of the US government until a new Constitution is agreed to.
What would be the cost of this plan versus the cost of having US citizens occupying Iraq?
My guess is one third. What's yours?
Plus we'd be killing two birds with one stone.
kevrob | January 29, 2005, 8:06pm | #
One problem with dividing Iraq is that its current neighbors could take it as a chance to redraw borders in their favor, and skirmishing over this oil field or that source of water isn't conducive to getting the region to settle down. Dividing Iraq into thirds will mean establishing three new armies instead of one, and guess whose job it will be to keep them from each others' throats?Put me down with those who see federal/cantonal arrangements in the new Iraq constitution as a good idea. A hallmark of bad government in post-colonial states is a reliance on centralization as the organizing political principle. If your faction controls the central government, you and your friends control all the graft and patronage, in addition to impunity from civil and criminal justice. If the governates become more like American states than French prefectures, those who lose at the national political level can still have strongholds at the local level. That makes it a lot easier to accept the will of the electorate, with a "we'll get `em next time" attitude.
Developing local governmental structures also allows a "farm team" of pols to exist. If someone shows some competence as a county legislator or administrator, it is easier for the voters to trust them at the next level. Consider how that most hidebound one-party state, Mexico, was able to transition to actual competitive elections, in no small part because the PAN (National Action Party) was able to show success in reforming some of the northern Mexican states. When the Mexican electorate finally got its fill of the PRI, there was a plausible alternative to turn to. Iraq could use some of that.
Kevin
Dynamist | January 29, 2005, 8:09pm | #
Ruthless: It's probably cheaper to resettle all Iraqis in the US, although those Scot descendants would probably be further miffed at the influx. But it does little to sanitize the "terrorist breeding ground". I see that as a legitimate problem, that people prefer killing over negotation (or use killing to make deals). It's a hitch in my understanding of anarchist theory. Could/would a private army or security company defend its clients against state-sponsored 4G attacks?As long as were killing birds, lets take a shot at the Big Bird. The problem in Iraq is not lack of government, it is lack of order. Over here, we have order already, so maybe those Iraqis could help us dismantle the state? Or rather than have a Constitutional Convention, adopt a Code of Manners and empower individuals to work out their disputes with the Code as a guide?
deugallaher@earthlink.net | January 29, 2005, 9:17pm | #
Dynamist,I met Big Bird when he was in Cincinnnati promoting his book. I even have the book.
RE order. Recall the little woman and I live in "da hood." (sometimes called The Killing Fields of Over-the-Rhine)
Your vision of order and manners may not match what we have here, but what we have here works, once you're jiggy. (Beirut without needing a passport?)
By the way, unbelievable as it sounds, Scots-Irish are probably the minority most accepting of pesky furriners.
Recall I have faith in anarchy, and I have faith there is no god.
Dynamist | January 29, 2005, 10:16pm | #
I love the maxim: An armed society is a polite society. My taste would be more for top hats and Robert's Rules, but there's something to be said for bein' jiggy in OTR. Got to visit when the place isn't overcrowded with Tall Stacks.Maybe the Scots-Irish still remember what it's like to bust your ass making a life as a second-class citizen? Those who work hard tend to respect hard workers, no matter their origin.