A unified iraq isn't worth it.
[link|http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/Fallujaterrorism.shtml|Stephen den Beste misses the larger point]
Excerpt:
The key to achieving most of that is establishment of a relatively successful liberal democracy in Iraq, which was the primary reason for the invasion (rhetoric about WMDs notwithstanding). And it can't be done unless the Sunnis participate and are accepted by the Kurds and Shiites.
During the Saddam years, the Sunnis were the top dogs, and Kurds and Shiites suffered very badly. With Saddam gone and the Baathists shattered, if what replaces them in turn oppresses the Sunnis, then in the long run it will fail to achieve the larger political goals the US requires: to inspire reform and liberalization of the entire region. We need the Sunnis themselves to participate, and we need the Shiites and Kurds to accept them.
I say:
That doesn't sound like much of a plan to me. It only works if the bad guys decide to play nice. May as well say "We can have world peace by the end of the month. We just ask the Easter Bunny to wave his magic wnad and make it happens. This can't be done unless the Easter Bunny cooperates, so we need to do everything we can to get on our side."
Excerpt:
This terrorist attack was an application of violence intended to derail the American effort to set up a liberal democracy in Iraq, by attempting to provoke an American reprisal which would lead to Sunni suspicion and reduce Sunni participation in that democracy.
Paul Bremer understands that and seems to be responding to it appropriately. But he's being criticized by hotheads who don't seem to understand that swift, strong, broad reaction against Sunnis collectively would be a blunder of the first order.
I say:
No, insisting on a unified Iraq against all logic would be a blunder of the first order.
There is no such thing as "the Iraqi People." There is nothing but a bunch of rival ethnic groups, thrown together within arbitrary lines on the map by a historical accident, and kept there by an appalling lack of imagination among statesmen. THEY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. Never did, never will. They should be separated, not thrown together.
Under the Ottoman Empire, this region we call Iraq was divided into three provinces: Baghdad, Basra and Mosul. Right now we should divide into three nation states along similar lines. Break the problem into three parts, and each part becomes much, much easier to solve. Democracy and self rule to the Kurds, right now. That's a no-brainer. Democracy and self-rule to the Shia, as soon as possible. Which will be never, if we insist on thinking of Iraq as a legitmate political entity. Once we blow off the Sunnis, giving the Shia what they want will become trivial.
As for the Sunni Triangle, we occupy it, like we did with Germany and Japan after World War II. In the meantime, maybe we'll figure out what to do with the bastards long term. If not, here's the fallback position: we turn them over to occupation by a coalition of their neighbors. Yes, leave them to the tender mercies of the Kurds and Shia whom they tormented for so many years. Call it international justice.
Let the Sunnis know this is our fallback position, if we can't come up with anything better. Make it clear that if they don't like this prospect, it's *their* problem. Let them rack their brains trying to think of a way to make *us* - and their fomer victims - happy.
Maybe then they'll learn to play nice. And if not, they're only 20% of the population of this "Iraq" thing. That's 80% of the problem, solved, at least. Maybe we'll think of something better later. But a problem reduced to a fifth of its former size is real progress.
[link|http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/marlowe/#20040403|Home link]
