NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraq is, as it has ever been, an artificial construct. Drawn up by the British following the end of the First World War, it is not so much a melting pot but a cauldron of hatred, where Kurd, Shia and Sunni live in uneasy companionship.

But to end this country’s existence as a Nation State? Would creating a truly sovereign Kurdistan, with two separate Sunni and Shia homelands, solve or at least calm the present crisis? I believe it would.

History has shown that badly collected ethnic groups will result in violence and bloodshed. This is one of human natures regrettable facts. Today, we have both Sunni and Shia fighting the American led occupation, but if the so called co-alition of the willing withdraws, this alliance could easily fall foul and spark a civil war. Shia's will never again be able to tolerate Sunni domination, nor will a Shia administration forget Sunni crimes. In the north, the Kurds are demanding greater autonomy; refusing this will lead to unrest and repressing it will lead to revolt. The only logical solution is then, I believe, to partition Iraq into states which represent its ethnic groups.

The dangers that a Shia state will fall under the influence of Iran is real, but unlikely. The Iraqi Shia's have already demonstrated that they differ from Iran on such issues as the separation of religion and state. Turkish objections to a Kurdish state could be pacified by allowing Turkey into the EU, and the dangers of another Saddam in the Sunni state would be minimal, whilst the Baathist nightmare is fresh in Iraqi minds. Indeed, a Sunni state would probably result in the regime that the Americans fear most, a Communist administration.

I strongly believe that the end of Iraq is the only real way to end the Iraqi problem. Any other solution will result in more of the same, and that is a particularly frightening thought.

While I agree that it is a solution, that is not up to the US or the coallition to decide, such actions would be viewed by the world (and the Iraqis) with disgust.

I think you are terribly wrong. And independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq would be both an unacceptble security threat for Turkey and Iran. Neither of those countries would accept it since that would spark separatism among their communities.
Turkey won´t accept it.
My position to solve the problems in Iraq would be: Get the Turks in. They have the largest army (500.000). And they are used to fighting in Northern Iraq. Probably they should not be used in Northern Iraq - but in the sunni Arab areas. Traditionally they are not that popular (neither are the British and the Americans by the way) but they are respected. And Turkey has a serious and clear interests to keep Iraq together as an unified state. With that pretext the Sunni Arabs (former Saddam supporters) could be won over to support an secular Iraq. Turkey could play a key role in crushing islamism, Kurdish seperatism (which is a threat to regional stability) and to win over the Sunni Arabs to build a new state. And all historic experience shows: You can´t build a new state if you say: We reject all who played a role before. Who do you think Mr. Yeltsin came from. Or the current Polish president? Or even a few figures in the early Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. "If there is no clean water you have to resort to dirty water" (Chancellor Adenauer 1949-63).
This pragmatism must be applied for Iraq as well. The idea to avoid it - as it was tried at the begining by dismanteling the Iraqi state and security infrastructure was a mistake. It will now take a lot of time to rebuild such an infrastructure. Turkey could play a key role in assisting the Sunni Arabs in Iraq by doing so.

In what sense? Those who have suffered in the past due to Iraq (a considerable number of states in the middle east) would be delighted to see Iraq disappear from the Geo-Political map. The Kurds have campaigned for over a century for independence from their Arabian cousins, and the Shia and Sunni peoples have never sat easily with each other.

My solution-Nuke Iraq.

Heavily unethical, I admit, but who cares... turn your problems into a smouldering crater. The same for Afganistan.

But then again, thats my view of a new world order...

In what sense? Those who have suffered in the past due to Iraq (a considerable number of states in the middle east) would be delighted to see Iraq disappear from the Geo-Political map. The Kurds have campaigned for over a century for independence from their Arabian cousins, and the Shia and Sunni peoples have never sat easily with each other.
How do you want to split Iraq? There are many mixed arreas. Baghdad has sunni and shia districts. So what would happen. A civil war like in Bosnia. It is not possible to find divinding lines and clear borders. That would inevitably result in a civil war - like in Lebanon.
Regarding the Kurds. Yes they have campaigned for that - but not just in Iraq, also in Turkey and Iran. When they get what they want in Iraq the seperatists in Turkey and Iran would feel encouraged to go for the same causing more conflicts and destability in those countries since they wouldn´t accept it. I think Turkey would do what it did SEVERAL TIMES during the 1990s - INVADING NORTHERN IRAQ TO go against Kurdish seperatists. That is the truth. And that is the threat.
No one gives a shit about the Kurds in this game. They are like the Chechens or the Palestinians - trouble-makers.
An independent Kurdish state would need a complete change of the map of the Middle East. ANd that would go against Iraqi (arab), Iranian and Turkish interests. The United States is not almighty. It can´t go against all. It is not in that position. Turkey is never going to accept that. And the United States needs Turkey as ally. Like the West in general needs Turkey.

I think you are terribly wrong. And independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq would be both an unacceptble security threat for Turkey and Iran. Neither of those countries would accept it since that would spark separatism among their communities.
Turkey won´t accept it.
My position to solve the problems in Iraq would be: Get the Turks in. They have the largest army (500.000). And they are used to fighting in Northern Iraq. Probably they should not be used in Northern Iraq - but in the sunni Arab areas. Traditionally they are not that popular (neither are the British and the Americans by the way) but they are respected. And Turkey has a serious and clear interests to keep Iraq together as an unified state. With that pretext the Sunni Arabs (former Saddam supporters) could be won over to support an secular Iraq. Turkey could play a key role in crushing islamism, Kurdish seperatism (which is a threat to regional stability) and to win over the Sunni Arabs to build a new state. And all historic experience shows: You can´t build a new state if you say: We reject all who played a role before. Who do you think Mr. Yeltsin came from. Or the current Polish president? Or even a few figures in the early Federal Republic of Germany in the 1950s and 1960s. "If there is no clean water you have to resort to dirty water" (Chancellor Adenauer 1949-63).
This pragmatism must be applied for Iraq as well. The idea to avoid it - as it was tried at the begining by dismanteling the Iraqi state and security infrastructure was a mistake. It will now take a lot of time to rebuild such an infrastructure. Turkey could play a key role in assisting the Sunni Arabs in Iraq by doing so.

You start by saying that a Kurdish state would be unacceptable for Turkey and Iran. This may well be so, and true it may spark separtist movements throughout the Middle East. However, we must remain commited to independance and democracy for all people who want it. The De Facto state of Kurdistan is possibly the most stable democracy in the near east, and Turkey and Iran have managed to tolerate this for the last ten years. I also reject catagorically your suggestion that Turkey should effectively occupy Turkey. Turkey is struggling against fundamentalist opposition within its borders, and a secular Turkey that co-operates with that most hated of hated enemys, the Americans, would make it a target for international terrorism and pose a serious risk to its future stability.

You end by going completely off message. You have obviously neglected to accuratly read my initial post, no where did I suggest the complete disposal of former Baathists. You speak of Iraqi infrastructure, this is a fanciful wish as the majority of Iraq is in virtual anarchy, with no effective infrastructure. If we are to build a new state we must start from the ground up, and when the ground is bare it is the easiest time to do so.

The dangers that a Shia state will fall under the influence of Iran is real, but unlikely. The Iraqi Shia's have already demonstrated that they differ from Iran on such issues as the separation of religion and state. .
That is really rubbish. Most shiite clerics were even in exile in Iran. And the fact that even political leaders come from that segments make that the most likely probability.

Turkish objections to a Kurdish state could be pacified by allowing Turkey into the EU,.
That is rubbish, since those two issues have nothing to do with each other. There are still conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Basque county and other places. The EU is not even inteferring in those issue. The assumption that a country gets a stamp that says: You are now EU - and that solves any problem is more than naive. It is just stupid.

and the dangers of another Saddam in the Sunni state would be minimal, whilst the Baathist nightmare is fresh in Iraqi minds. Indeed, a Sunni state would probably result in the regime that the Americans fear most, a Communist administration.,.
And that is a thing which I have to consider as rubbish. Communism is a trash of history. It has no basis of whatsoever in the Middle East. An ideology which is anti-religious has no chance over there.

I strongly believe that the end of Iraq is the only real way to end the Iraqi problem. Any other solution will result in more of the same, and that is a particularly frightening thought.
And I think what you say would lead to a situation much worse than today: To a civil war situation as we have seen in Lebanon - which is also divided into three groups: shiites, sunni and christians (as main factions) who however live so close together that a division is impossible. Well, so there was a prolonged civil war in the 1980s. That must be avoided. It is the duty of the occupying powers to do so. And since they seem not to be very successful it would be logical to get the Turks in (it is also in the Turkish interest) and to win them for the new Iraq and the creation of a new Iraqi security service. Turkey could play a key role here - historically it had played that role in the past. And it was capable at that time. Iraq under Turkish rule was a peaceful place btw.

You start by saying that a Kurdish state would be unacceptable for Turkey and Iran. This may well be so, and true it may spark separtist movements throughout the Middle East. However, we must remain commited to independance and democracy for all people who want it..
Come on. What is with the palestinian demand for an independent state?
That won´t work either. Lets be realistic. It would mean the end of Israel. And it is completly understandable that Israel de-facto rejects that by demanding so many restrictions on a possible palestinian state that it could hardly been called a state anyway.


The De Facto state of Kurdistan is possibly the most stable democracy in the near east, and Turkey and Iran have managed to tolerate this for the last ten years. ].
Turkey several times invaded Northern Iraq. A fact you simply chose to ignore. And Turkey would do so again if the PKK or other seperatists would regroup again over there against Turkey.

I also reject catagorically your suggestion that Turkey should effectively occupy Turkey. Turkey is struggling against fundamentalist opposition within its borders, and a secular Turkey that co-operates with that most hated of hated enemys, the Americans, would make it a target for international terrorism and pose a serious risk to its future stability.].
Turkey is the closests ally of the US in the region. Everybody knows that. So it wouldn´t make a difference. And if there are internal troubles in Turkey the Turkish military can enshure the stability. That has worked in the last 80 years. That is also why I´m against EU membership at the current stage. Turkey is destable. A democratisation could lead to the islamisation of Turkey (look what happened in Algeria in 1991 -fortunately the military prevented the FIS to take over power). If the Turkish military loses its key role - and that would be the price for EU membership - the most powerful counter-balance of the islamists would be neutralised. I think that this is a bad idea.

You end by going completely off message. You have obviously neglected to accuratly read my initial post, no where did I suggest the complete disposal of former Baathists. You speak of Iraqi infrastructure, this is a fanciful wish as the majority of Iraq is in virtual anarchy, with no effective infrastructure. If we are to build a new state we must start from the ground up, and when the ground is bare it is the easiest time to do so.
That is true for today. But it was not true for 2003 when the CPA decided to dismantle the Iraq military and police forces. Also the CPA had enough troups to ouster a regime but not enough to secure a country out of the size of Iraq and to fulfill the responsibilities and occupying power has to fulfill.