U.S, Senate and "Partitioning" Iraq

The reason I have been ... ... is this:

It's for me not so much about the legal nature of the act. The fact is that the US senate passed a resolution about partitioning Iraq. There are not too many options to interpret that. Either they are deluded fools to think they could actually partition Iraq by decree, or they are irresponsible fools trying to score a cheap political point at the expense of the president. There can be many things be said about legislative action in the US, but I wouldn't go as far as to dismiss a senate resolution as partisan but irrelevant political maneuvering. The resolution found a majority, that means it does reflect the views of a majority in the senate, and likely it reflects a strong view in 'foreign policy circles'. I think generally the idea behind support for the partitioning plan is that ethnic cleansing is inevitable, or under way already, let's just make the best of it.

Probably that is a result of the view that the US now own Iraq, according to Powell's pottery barn rule. In my understanding the senate resolution is a statement expresses a general notion of either entitlement or a feeling of responsibility to determine the future of Iraq. As such, it is an expression of an imperial reality. Apparently the senate crowd sees partition as as good as it can get for Iraq, which is pretty pessimistic. It indicates that in D.C. it at last has dawned that the Iraqi government cannot meet US expectations - for which the Iraqis are being blamed, and not so much the unrealistic goals the US expect them to achieve for them.
I think that you BTA, and that is not personal, are mistaken about the extent to which the Iraqis are still bound by US decisions made in the past - laws from the CPA era in particular. I also think you are mistaken about the extent of control the US still exercise in Iraq, at the very least through controlling the funds the Iraqi government gets. I would be careful to take all that talk about 'Iraqi sovereignty' at face value. Usually I use the term ironically. A country with 150.000 foreign troops, plus an uncounted contingent of unaccountable mercenaries, on the ground that are conducting independent combat operations is not sovereign – no matter what's the label for these activities.

For the senate resolution it is also beside the point that probably the situation in Iraq is out of the US hands. That actually is what I believe. In my understanding the US politicos are in denial about their inability to truly influence events in Iraq. They try hard, however. This is no contradiction on my part

That doesn't even mean partition is the actual US policy. I still doubt the Whitehouse has a coherent Iraq policy, let alone regional policy. Cheney's and Rice's views on both are probably still irreconcilable, leading to at least two contradicting approaches. I think it's rather a 'we make it up as we go along' approach. Gen. Petraeus remarkably honest remark, that the Iraqi Sunni tribes turning against Al Quaeda in Iraq surprised them, but that the US military exploited it, suggests that. It also suggests a general disconnect in D.C. from the 'reality on the ground' in Iraq. I also think that this disconnect among other things manifested itself in the partition resolution. What else is to say about this, is that if the US pursues such Machiavellian schemes, they ought avoid telling it people in their face, as successful Machiavellism relies on stealth and guile.

Add to that some generally being pissed off on my part about the idea of redrawing regional borders as a pastime, for which I am fully aware that you're not to be blamed for BTA

Aldeth remarked this:

Ralph Peters has a simple solution for that dilemma - ethnic cleasing

One dirty little secret Mr. Peters, ethnic cleansing is a war crime for which the US strung up a lot of Nazis post 1945. Interesting basis for a Grand Strategy!

As for practical implementation, it would be subtler than the US drawing borders and displacing locals. Of course that will not happen that way. Rather, the US would support local factions which will then duke it out, much like US support first generated a demi sovereign Kurdish entity, that is now trying to 'fix' the intermingling problem by driving out non-Kurds, like in the city of Kirkuk. I presume an approach towards the Sunni could look similar. That means that the ethnic cleansing and killing would be done by the locals, who then of course would solely be to be blamed.

Insofar, Peters is far worse than the senate crowd, because he isn't happy with the devilry afoot already. For his scheme to transform the Middle East war just in Iraq is not enough. More blood has to flow to create truly satisfactory borders. What are numbers in the history books? Some tea and cookies with that? Certainly, old boy, and would you be so kind and hand me your crack pipe, too?

 

Or perhaps they are acknowledging the fact that, left to their own devices, racial and cultural tensions that have gone back 1000s of years between the regionally isolated Kurdish, Shia and Sunni factions will boil over and they will proceed to kill each other in a mad struggle for control of the region.

This is hardly the first time we've split up areas across racial and cultural boundaries in order to curb sectarian violence. It worked quite well in Czechoslovakia, if you care to remember. I also think it bears repeating that the "partitioning" of Iraq is actually just a de-centralization of much of the political power in Iraq. Under the partitioning plan, these regions will still be linked by a central government. The real difference is that less power will be held at the top, and with de-centralized rule, the ability of one region to trample over the needs of another is greatly diminished.

 

Iraq as it stands now is the result of similar attempts to partition that area of the world -- IIRC, it was the British who drew the lines last time. Redrawing the lines might work, but it also might not. No matter what is done, there's still going to be violence, whether sectarian or international in nature.

The Czechoslovakia example is an interesting one. I've always thought that the reason that worked so well was that the regime imposed was rather brutal, though I'm not sure on the details. I thought the whole point was to get a regime that is not oppressive to minorities, but that seems like a pipe dream in the Middle East.

I thought the ethnic cleansing bit was interesting, Rags. That's the conundrum that the U.S. and other superpowers face. They have the technology to wipe the entire population of Iraq off the map -- any settlement over 100 people pinpointed and eliminated by conventional missiles fired from the safety of aircraft carriers. Such action is, of course, morally reprehensible and would draw a tremendous backlash from both the international community and a good chunk of the U.S. population itself. So despite its great power, the U.S. has to rely on less decisive methods that inevitably result in a bloody mess. Partitioning is the method that some might want to try. It doesn't seem much better or worse than a lot of the other solutions being floated out there.

 

Can an occupied country actually formulate it's constitution freely?

The Iraqi constitution was drafted under U.S. supervision by a body hand-chosen by the U.S. military occupation authorities, and subject to final approval by the U.S. proconsul, Paul Bremer. The CPA was created and funded as a division of the United States Department of Defense. Interestingly, the CPA's orders largely remain in power. From what I recall Newt Gingrich had a hand in getting orders 39 and 46 written as any US conservative's dream business code. Or just read order 17, which will remain in power until the US leave Iraq.

The only legitimacy the Iraqi government has is among the Shia majority that elected them. They have no way to stop the Kurds from doing something stupid. They have no legitimacy among the Sunni, that look down at the Shia as peasants at best. Still, I don't think partition is generally desired in Iraq. The Shia ethnic cleansing was largely a reaction on the Al Quaeda bombings on the Shia to drive a wedge between the Iraqi population groups. The Kurdish ethnic cleansing is actually more along the line of ethnic gerrymandering in preparation for the coming referendum about the status of Kirkuk. The only ones really wanting to be sovereign are in my view the Kurds. Everyone else would only lose. The Shia would lose oil rich Kirkuk if the Kurds have their way, which I doubt they would like. The Sunni would lose everything in a partition, they will fight to the death against irrelevance, and they are really quite good at that.

Despite the exasperations of the central government in Baghdad, the US Army propping up the Sunni might actually help achieve unity, by forcing the Shia to negotiate with the Sunni that have again reached a position of strength. It also eliminates the Al Quaeda in Iraq trouble seekers that attack the fault lines of the Iraqi society. The Sunni succeeding in this would mean that they have again become so dangerous that the Shia dominated central government just can't ignore them any longer and realises that it is cheaper to buy them than to try to kill them.

 

Czechoslovakia partitioned?!

Now the constant mentioning of partitioning Czechoslovakia has been bugging me almost subconsciously the last few day, and I wonder why it was taken up by the other posters. The reason for my scepticism is that Czechoslovakia is a neighbour so to say, and, dunno, living in old Europe for quite a while already, and anyway, I always thought I had some grip on my continent's geography and history. Here's what I recall about Czechoslovakia:

1. Czechoslovakia dissolved into the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, in what became known in English as the "Velvet Divorce" in English and other languages, a reference to the Czechoslovakia's "Velvet Revolution" of 1989 which led to the end of the rule of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the formation of a new, non-Communist government. Now that was a self-partition, if anything. Especially, Czechoslovakia was at that time not an occupied country or embroiled in a civil war. Based on that, I do not quite see the point in referring to Czechoslovakia as a template for Iraq.
   .
2. Of course Czechoslovakia was sort-of partitioned earlier, when after the Munich Agreement the Nazis incorporated the German parts, the Sudetenland into Germany, and divided the rest into the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and divided the rest to Hungary and into the Slovak Republic. In view on the presumable poster's intent I don't quite see that as a fitting historical template either.
   .
3. Another interpretation is that there was an intended analogy to the situation after WW-I, which would be more interesting, if only insofar as internal dynamics are concerned. On a makro-level it is in my view highly misleading as it was about mainly the French, who, after after the victory in WW-I and the dictate of Versailles, by encouraging ethnic minorities into independence, successfully managed to break up the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Imperial Germany into smaller parts that they hoped would be easier to deal with than the previous major continental powers.
   .
4. Another option is that the first poster to mention Czechoslovakia confused the place with Jugoslavia, which is more to the South East, somewhat

In any case, it appears to me as a poor historical analogy. Clarificatiion desired.