US Senate calls for Iraq's partition
Middle East News
Sep 26, 2007, 18:54 GMT
Talkback
Add your comment (no registration required)
Iraq was a country hobbled together by the British in 1932. There had never been a distinct 'Iraq' as we know it. While it might be overstepping our bounds, perhaps the Iraqis want it. The Kurds have been autonomous for the past 15+ years, so it might work. Iraq, anyhow, would still remain a nation.
What right Washington politicians have to decide about another country? Shame on you, bringing war, displacement and misery to that country was not enough, now you want to split it?
It's all aprt of the plan that both US parties are in on. Balkanization was always the goal. The Israeli right wing believes this is Israel's only hope of completing their ethnic cleansing of Palestine and, at the same time, barring Chinese access to mideast energy assets. The Democrats are totally subserviant to the Likudniks.
Disgraceful, but not surprising as i believe this was the plan all along, ...this move will ensure problems will persist long term, and the different factions will be perpetually at war, bad idea.
How about diving USA in two countries (Blue and red state)? Then eceryone will live in peace.
I believe that Mr. Biden recommended this about 2500 troops ago???
The stupidity of the senate is well known. They are unable to do their duties under the US consitituion and continue to interfere with other countries. Nothing new.
I think Biden's hair plugs were screwed too deep into his brain.
'How about diving USA in two countries (Blue and red state)?'
How about dividing you in half. (Stupid and stupid)
Bush said I'm a Uniter, not a Divider.
Somedy here said that Brits cobbled Iraq together from chunks of the Sublime Porta conquered - that was in 1920s. Which makes this state 50% older than Israel - which was cut out of the other chunk of the same Sublime Porta in 1947.
Why not divide Israel since it's younger anyway - let us divide it into Jewish Zone, Arab Zone, and Christian Zone. Would our senators Brownbacks and Lievermans like THIS idea?
The U.S. is divided in to 50 separate states, and many Americans support 'States Rights'; read Amendment 10 in the U.S. Constitution. I would love to have a smaller government in Washington, and one which would deal with problems at home, and not nation building....
Iraq, would have been better of if after the war a Federal system was setup similar to Switzerland. However it took a few hundred years for the con-associational federal system to take its final form. It may be worth a last ditch effort, it is probably to late now, and the Turks would invade if such a system were set up. But anyway it should be left to the Iraqis to decide, not us.
Good luck,
JK
This article fails to mention that the plans to split up Iraq were already in the works as reported in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006. By all accounts the plans for redrawing the Middle East (see map) has been one of the primary goals of the US led invasion of Iraq. As the old saying goes, divide and conquer is still the quintessential rule when it comes to gaining or maintaining power.
The question is: will Iraqis be as accommodating as Yugoslavia in allowing their country to be split up into pieces?
chycho
chycho.com
We supported Saddam for years during the Iraq-Iran war, and continued to endure him after Bush Sr. decided that we were better off with Saddam in charge in 1991 than the Shia, which could have led to Iranian influence. We made the current mess, and if a solid partitioning plan were presented, it would have support in Iraq. What we'd have to do is add a LOT of money for infrastructure and reconstruction, and find provincial and sectarian leaders capable of working together. At this point, the Shia see themselves as having defeated Sunni influence - the only way to insure Sunni safety in a country where 14 of 18 provinces were Shia-majority is to formally give the Sunni safe territory - we're doing that now ad-hoc with the surge by creating walled enclaves within the Baghdad region to keep the Shia out. The Shia gain more Sunni territory each day.
dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pub&dt=070926&cat=news&st=newsd8rt9lvo 0&src=ap
'Al-Maliki said Iraq also has hundreds of political parties active within 20 political alliances; more than 6,000 civil organizations; hundreds of newspapers and magazines and 40 local and satellite TV stations.'
The 'soft partition' idea has been around for quite a while, and the direct benefit would be having local sectarian police (militias) guarding their own people, and a lessening of influence of al Qaeda through stronger police presence. The Shia would wipe out al Qaeda given the chance, as would many of the Sunni, who were threatened with forced intermarriage with al Aqeda fighters in Iraq. There's a REASON that the Sunni rose up against al Qaeda, even BEFORE the surge.
A central government is needed for an army, and oil revenue distribution, and other matters.
Read your history on the early U.S., and how the 13 colonies fought against a 'United States' construct - each state had their own currency, and their own militia. It took a lot of persuading to get the 'colonies' to see the advantage of a central government, and Washington was in good part responsible for it.
Iraq has no 'Washington', so far as I can tell.
(The Kurds are cutting oil deals each day in the north, and with Bush family friends).
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR200709230077 8_pf.html
The oil deal signed between Hunt Oil and the government in Iraq's Kurdish region earlier this month has raised eyebrows, in no small part because it appears to undercut President Bush's hope that Iraq could draft national legislation to share revenue from the country's vast oil reserves. Making the deal more curious is that it was crafted by one of the administration's staunchest supporters, Ray Hunt.
Hunt, chief executive of the Dallas-based company, has been a major fundraiser and contributor to Bush's presidential campaigns. He also serves on the president's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, putting him close to the latest information developed by the nation's intelligence agencies.
If Hunt is signing regional oil deals in Iraq, critics ask, what does he know about the prospects for a long-stalled national oil law that others don't?
Since the deal was made public, it has drawn the ire of the Iraqi national government, which has called the agreement illegal.
'Any oil deal has no standing as far as the government of Iraq is concerned,' Iraq's oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters earlier this month. 'All these contracts have to be approved by the federal authority before they are legal. This [contract] was not presented for approval. It has no standing.'
(We're getting the 'plausible deniability' stuff now, where the President says that he 'knew nothing' about it. No doubt the Hunts used their position with Bush to get the deal, whether Bush knew, or not. I cannot believe that NO ONE in the Administration was aware of it. These people are all crooks, and should have been impeached. Hunt has competitors, and at least some have to see this as influenced by Hunt's relationship).
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/092107dnbuskurdishoil. 34410bf.html
Bush fears Hunt Oil deal will hurt Iraq
Dallas firm defends keeping White House out of Kurdish plan
Hunt chief executive Ray Hunt is a friend of the president, a major backer of the Bush presidential library at Southern Methodist University and a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.
Despite those ties, a company spokeswoman said no one in the U.S. government was told of the negotiations leading to Hunt's exploration contract in the Kurdish province of Dahuk, near Iraq's northwestern border with Turkey.
-----
WASHINGTON – President Bush expressed concern Thursday about whether Hunt Oil Co.'s search for oil in the Kurdish region of Iraq could undermine the national government in Baghdad.
'I knew nothing about the deal. I need to know exactly how it happened,' Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference. 'To the extent that it does undermine the ability for the government to come up with an oil revenue-sharing plan that unifies the country, obviously I'm – if it undermines that, I'm concerned.'
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's oil minister has called the deal with the Dallas-based oil company illegal. Negotiations over a national oil law that would divide Iraq's oil revenue among regional and ethnic factions collapsed after the Kurds announced the Hunt exploration deal. Congress and the Bush administration see the law as a crucial benchmark for healing sectarian divisions in Iraqi politics.
Qubad Talabani, Washington representative of the Kurdish Regional Government, said the deal would benefit all Iraqis through a revenue-sharing agreement approved by the Kurdish parliament in August.
(My guess is that al-Maliki is there because there's no one who can do better. 17 of Iraq's ministries have no one in charge, and the government is a shell, with the Shia militias running Iraq, for the most part. al-Maliki has no base of support in Iraq, even amongst the Shia groups. The surge is propping him up, but it's a band-aid. Read the entire article, which identifies the problems)
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/middleeast/25maliki.html?em&ex=1190952 000&en=35d6e41358097422&ei=5087%0A
BAGHDAD, Sept. 24 — Now that President Bush has extracted more time from Congress to show results in Iraq, the country’s unpopular prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, appears to have won a reprieve from American talk of pushing him aside.
But Mr. Maliki, who is meeting with Mr. Bush at the United Nations on Tuesday, appears still a long way from being able to forge political reconciliation. Many Iraqis describe his political position as increasingly perilous. A growing number of legislators in Parliament are trying to topple him, and in several provinces Shiite militias are successfully challenging government security forces.
Mr. Maliki’s popularity has shown no improvement over the past several months; services remain poor and movement on legislation is all but nonexistent. But the reduced violence in Baghdad brought about by the increase in American troops has blunted some of the frustration with his government.
(more in the link)
'We broke it; we fix it'
We will, even the major democrat presidential candidates have agreed that we will be in Iraq fr at least the next 5 years or beyond. Looks like your defeatism has been defeated.
Re the dumb: 'We will, even the major democrat presidential candidates have agreed that we will be in Iraq fr at least the next 5 years or beyond. Looks like your defeatism has been defeated.'
======================
Unless somehow Iraq finds their own version of George Washington, and the neighboring countries pitch in to stabilize, Iraq falls apart anyway. The Senate (at long last) is talking about a 'soft partition', which would be the only way to see the Sunnis survive, and be assured of their own territory. The country is pulling apart, and Bush has left the American people with a bill in the , including reconstruction costs yet to be allocated, and long-term care for our veterans.
Taking a war that Bush and accompanying imbeciles thought would cost less than $100 billion and a few months, and turning it into decades, should be an impeachable offense in and of itself, and troglodytes like you are who the veterans will have to thank for it.
Essentially, Bush has until end of 2008 to scotch-tape this mess together. al-Maliki has huge problems, and will have to be replaced to get it all to work. No one else can bring the country together, and the last few years have markedly increased sectarian differences. al Qaeda gets the headlines, but the native Sunni insurgents are a huge problem.
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/world/middleeast/25maliki.html?em&ex=1190952 000&en=35d6e41358097422&ei=5087%0A
But Mr. Maliki, who is meeting with Mr. Bush at the United Nations on Tuesday, appears still a long way from being able to forge political reconciliation. Many Iraqis describe his political position as increasingly perilous. A growing number of legislators in Parliament are trying to topple him, and in several provinces Shiite militias are successfully challenging government security forces.
Mr. Maliki’s popularity has shown no improvement over the past several months; services remain poor and movement on legislation is all but nonexistent. But the reduced violence in Baghdad brought about by the increase in American troops has blunted some of the frustration with his government.
He recently cast his lot with a new coalition to which he is now indebted for his survival, but the coalition has limited appeal on the street and few longstanding ties to the prime minister. Furthermore, even with its support, Mr. Maliki’s margin in Parliament is thin, making it extremely difficult for him to advance his policies.
Seventeen ministries now are without a minister and those ministers who are left are in many cases doing double duty, making it difficult to improve the performance of the agencies and allow them to deliver desperately needed services like electricity and water.
“Al-Maliki doesn’t have enough support to fill the seats of the ministers and push through his political program because his government doesn’t have a working majority in the Parliament,” said Jaber Habeeb, a political scientist at Baghdad University, who is also a member of Parliament.
And Mr. Maliki also must watch his back as his opponents begin to rally around the idea of offering a vote of no confidence in his government. For the moment, they appear to lack the votes necessary to bring him down, but it is close.
Similar articles
- Sadrists refuse presidential invitation to discuss US security pact
- Senate passes spending bill for Iraq, Afghan wars
- House passes spending bill for Iraq, Afghan wars
- Senate passes Iraq, Afghan funding bill
- House passes troop withdrawal timetable
Latest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. French protest as Iran detains woman university employee as "spy"
- 2. Pollution-hit Iran is forced to declare a holiday
- 3. Steinmeier in Israel says time running out for peace (2nd Roundup)
- 4. Lieberman: My settler status means a "conflict of interests"
- 5. UN commission holds public hearings on Gaza in Geneva
Think write guysSep 26th, 2007 - 20:35:24
I cannot understand how anybody in right mind can think of splitting a country?
First of all what right to we have to say 'let diving iraq into 3 parts'?
And secondly, did they even consider what this will this lead to?
this is no solution, this is adding fuel to the burning middle east.
Report this comment