All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

Staying together for... the children?

TorgoX on 2004-03-07T09:04:29

Dear All,

Newspaper says: "Shia boycott widens Iraqi divisions: Ethnic majority objects to Kurdish power of veto enshrined in interim constitution."

So, remind me -- why would it be such a bad idea to declare Iraq three separate countries, one for each of these major groups that can't, well, stand to be in the same country with eachother?

I mean, the obvious objection is "the US broke up the great country of Iraq!". But I that that's just as rhetorical as the objection "The US doomed the area to constant civil war by refusing to seize the moment and dissolve the absurd colonial creation that was the barely decades-old country of Iraq!".

simple, really

jhi on 2004-03-07T10:33:30

> why would it be such a bad idea to declare Iraq three separate countries

Do you have any idea has much more work it is to negotiate oil deals in *three* different countries instead of in just one?

Well...

vsergu on 2004-03-07T14:28:51

There is the little matter of the necessity of ethnic cleansing of some sort to relocate or otherwise eliminate people who are now living in the "wrong" areas. Besides, it would be further precedent to support those who believe that every ethnic group needs its own country and every country should be ethnically pure -- though admittedly they've gotten their way in some other places.

No need for understanding

brian_d_foy on 2004-03-07T15:44:32

Dividing the country worked for Israel, so it sound work here. Worked for the former Yugoslavia too. Foreigners have always had the most simple solution to these little annoyances that plague the third world.

Israel Was More Complex

chromatic on 2004-03-07T17:23:45

Israel worked especially well because of moving people off of land that their families had owned for hundreds of years. Remember, it's more important to have neighbors just like you than a sense of history!

Re:No need for understanding

jdporter on 2004-03-09T17:00:10

Israel is not a good analogy here. If it were to happen in Iraq the way it did in Israel, we'd have a native Iraqi government (such as existed until recently) saying to the Kurds, "We don't want you, and we will make sure you stay in your little corner of the country. And when we feel like it, we'll take some of your land for our people. If you don't like it -- tough."

Yugoslavia isn't a good analogy, because the U.S. didn't go into Yugoslavia and wipe out all semblance of government and install a new one. If it were to happen in Iraq the way it did in Yugoslavia, there would have to be pre-existing Shiite and Kurdish states, which the U.S. would invade in order to help "liberate" them from Baghdad control.

However, I agree with your sarcasm. :-)

Re:No need for understanding

brian_d_foy on 2004-03-09T19:20:47

That is what Iraq said to the Kurds though.

And we did install a new government in some of the states of the former Yugoslavia.

You miss the premise though: foreigners drawing lines on a map do not solve problems, and my examples perfectly illustrate that.

Re:No need for understanding

pudge on 2004-03-24T03:58:26

Foreigners drawing lines on the map is what GAVE US Iraq in the first place!

Re:No need for understanding

brian_d_foy on 2004-03-25T12:23:47

And it is going to work again! If at first you don't succeed, try the same thing over and over.

Interestingly, Herodatus notes in The Histories that Baghdad has always been a tough nut to crack.

Peace in our time?

brev on 2004-03-07T19:11:43

There is no way to satisfy someone like Sistani without theocracy. There are no redrawn borders that would satisfy the people who believe that the Kurds are secretly in the pay of Israel.

There may be some power sharing agreements that would help the Shi'a feel more secure, but there's no need to cave to such posturing by an ayatollah.

Come to think of it...

brev on 2004-03-07T19:17:51

In the USA, your southern states don't have much in common with the north. I'm sure an amicable breakup could be arranged.

Re:Come to think of it...

TorgoX on 2004-03-07T22:37:14

Stop reading my mind!!!

Re:Come to think of it...

chromatic on 2004-03-08T16:40:16

The bigger division is still urban versus rural, though it's not a north-south or an east-west thing anymore. It's more of a coasts-inland thing these days.

Manufactured states

schwern on 2004-03-07T21:29:36

What makes countries like Iraq and Yugoslavia different from the US and Israel is that they were largely created by fiat. The territory of Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire until the British and French seized most of the Middle East in WWI. Later, the League of Nations carved up the region and drew boundries thereby creating new nations, often ignoring existing informal boundries. The former Yugoslavia and much of the nations of Africa were also created this way. Much of the strife in these areas stems from the national boundries cutting across traditional boundries. Its a similar practice to gerrymandering, turning minorities into local majorities and majorities into local minorities by clever manipulation of the boundries. The Kurds are a perfect example, split between Turkey and Iraq they have less power than if they all lived in one state or another.

Which is not to say they're inherently bad or that breaking them up would solve their problems, but I wouldn't strive to hold these artificial constructs together simply for their own sake.

Re:Manufactured states

brev on 2004-03-08T17:27:32

You're right, but it's important to note that "traditional boundaries" don't really exist either, they're all fuzzy and disputed. If you accept that, then I think one must face the real problem: oppressive governments. And it does not go away just because the redrawn country oppresses 10% of its population rather than 30%.

So as 'undemocratic' as it may seem from a Western liberal perspective I'm against abandoning most of Iraq to theocracy. I wouldn't have gone in there to begin with but that decision's past now.

Anyway, Sistani caved, sort of. Check the news.

In the end he's just another guy who wants power. Don't give him more legitimacy than he deserves just 'cause he claims to represent traditional values. Even people in the South of the USA probably wouldn't want Jerry Falwell running their lives.

Re: Staying together...

jdporter on 2004-03-09T17:11:58

why would it be such a bad idea to declare Iraq three separate countries...
A perfect example would be Pakistan. The division of India into Hindu and Muslim states was Britain's parting gift to the region. Now they have nukes pointing at each other, and a region (Kashmir) on the border which is -- as for the last 1000 years -- deeply contended by both sides. (I'll avoid the "powderkeg" cliché.)

If nothing else, keeping the hostile factions integrated in one country, living as neighbors, will reduce the possibility of one using WMD against the other.

Someone should mention the U.S.' official reason for not considering a seperate Kurdish state. This is a concession to its NATO ally, Turkey. The Turkish are certain that if a Kurdish state were created, then the Kurdish minority within Turkey would revolt, probably with some success. (They've tried in the past, without success.) Since this would result in a loss of Turkish territory, it is unacceptable.

Personally I think it is a travesty that the U.S. would permit the continual oppression of a people, like the Kurds, especially for so political a reason.