In the post-colonial world it would be nice to correct a lot of boundary mistakes. Iraq is a post-colonial disaster -- and maybe it could have been avoided. Nevertheless the recieved wisdom is that we should try to keep it as a single state. First, a reorganization of Iraq would *seriously* inconvenience its neigbors. Second, realigning the borders of sovereign states to correspond to areas of national presence invariably results in bloody destabilazation of entire regions. Witness sorting out the Balkans. Liberation from Austria Hungary and Ottoman colonial rule *caused* the First World war. The last episode ran through most of the 1990's and the issue might still not be settled.
Iraq is a post WWI mistake. The cost of fixing the mistake would be worse than learning to live with the mistake. A Kurdish nation-state could foster insurgencies in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. The Shi'ite Arabs in the south would cause worries for Iran, with an Arab minority, for Saudi Arabia where the population near the north eastern oil fields are unhappy Shi'i and for Gulf States like Qatar with oppressed and restless Shi'i minorities. From an American standpoint there is an even worse prospect, a Republic of Greater Basra might not feud with Iran over Iran's Shi'i Arabs, they would probably get along with their neigboring regional power. Third, until 1991 Baghdad was a major center of Arab commercial and intellectual activity. In many ways it was more progressive and urbane than Cairo (no thanks to the Baathist regime). But the oil is around Mosul (north, post-WWI a candidate for the capital of Kurdistan. A plan scrubbed by the Brits because it was then the center of oil production.) The other area for oil is the south, between Kuwait and Iran. History and geography imply Baghdad should be a major city with Mosul and Basra as satelites. Spliting modern Iraq in three isolates Baghdad from its hinterland since ... well they have been Baghdads satelites through most of recorded history. Ironically splitting Iraq into three nation-states *artifically* impoverishes the Sunni majority in the region known as Mesopotamia. > 1. Bush Jr tenaciously holds the same logic as Bush Sr.... that Iraq > must be maintained as a single country. In order to do that AND get > rid of Saddam, we must go straight into Baghdad, use urban warfare to > hunt down SH and his Tikriti clan, and replace them with a US led > military occupation government. This is loony. Urban warfare is the > most violent and unpredictable kind. Baghdad is where the Sunnis > live, who hate us most. They will not kiss us as liberators (an > essential image on TV that validates our actions.) Instead, the > image will be of a 'crusade' against Islam. Above all, a direct > attack on SH is the very thing that will trigger as spasmodic use of > WMD. > > The solution that will NOT cause SH to use his WMDs is to leave him > in power in Baghdad for a while, as we remove his sources of victims > and wealth, by finally liberating the Kurds and the shiites to form > their own nations. SH will lose all his oil & most of his victims, > but will not be personally threatened. He can stew there till > someone finally puts a bullet in his brain, quietly. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
