sensible ideas

[totient]

I've thought for a long time that the right answer to the Iraq situation is (and has been since about 1933) to partition the damn thing. But what I did not realize is that there was a better proposal than the naive tripartite one. David Apgar has come up with a two-state division which creates one all-Shiite state and one state with a 40-40-20 ethnic mix. What's brilliant about this isn't the rather naive assertion that the 20% Shiite population in the northern state will gain political influence by being kingmakers, but the fact that it torpedoes the idea of an independent Kurdistan (making those neighboring countries with any Kurdish population of their own much less uncomfortable) while not actually screwing the Kurds. The approximately even distribution of oil resources is also a nice touch.

Realpolitik in action. Now if only anyone would listen to him.

Comments

[palmwiz.livejournal.com]

Oh, and all the significant Shiite religious sites are in the Shiite half, so even if the Shiites do get screwed it will only be the ones in Baghdad.

partition makes sense, but...

[tjic.livejournal.com]

I've always thought that partition is a good answer to these sorts of troubles (I was in favor of it back during the Balkans mess under Clinton, too).

The problem, as I understand it, is that one of the various Geneva conventions (or perhaps a UN resolution) makes it illegal for an occupier to do so.

[doctordidj.livejournal.com]

Good one. It's about time someone came up with a new, positive approach. I hope this idea gets considered seriously.

[enheduanna13.livejournal.com]

You don't think the mixed 40-40-20 country would just devolve into the same fighting and civil war? Would the Kurds really feel like they hadn't been screwed? I think they're pretty happy with their autonomous region right now.

And wouldn't it also be a problem for the Sunnis who live in what would become the Shiite state? If the experience of Ireland and Palestine teach us anything, it's that the Sunnis in that state aren't necessarily going to want to just pick up and move to the other state. Even with the creation of Pakistan, not everyone moved. And look how well Pakistan and India get along...

[palmwiz.livejournal.com]

*de*volve? The new country would include Baghdad and as such would start out with a civil war. I certainly agree that an independent Kurdistan would be (and by some measures already is) a viable state, but I think if that were recognized by the UN it would wind up being viable the way Israel is viable: with a whole bunch of neighbors whose policy is that it should not exist. Better, I think, not to push on that one.

True that Sunnis in the southern state won't want to pack up and move. But there really aren't very many Sunnis there at all, far fewer than there were Muslims in Hindu areas of India.

[enheduanna13.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, the Sunnis are already proving that they don't need significant numbers to cause significant trouble. And they believe that they're fighting a jihad against the Shia.