Analysis of Dividing Iraq - Essay Example

 Three Iraq States, One Government? No Way! . Iraq, in three states? No way. One of the reasons the United States does not want to divide Iraq into three separate states is because of its unstable fractions characterized by different religious and cultural beliefs. Therefore it doesn’t seem to be an ideal proposition for one government to control the three states. It doesn’t even seem reasonable to expect that these three states, which are extremely different, each with its own cult of violence and long history of hatred for one another, can co-exist with any cohesiveness. It appears that these three factions would only vie for eliminating one another before running the risk of being eliminated by the other. The Case for Dividing Iraq “The case for the partition of Iraq is straightforward: It has already happened.” This is what Peter W. Galbraith will have you believe. I personally feel this is just a military stance in order to avoid total obliteration. They are just positioning themselves for what they know will be on all out war among the three fractions; but may not be all the three at once. First it will be between the Sunni’s and Shi’its and after that elimination bout, the winner will take on the Kurds, I think the safest bit is Shi’its. One of the most prominent American politicians who, by the way, is running for presidency, to support anything resembling partition, is Senator Joseph Biden. He, along with former Council on Foreign Relations president Leslie Gelb, proposes dividing Iraq into three regions while maintaining a “central government in charge of common interests.” But it transpires that these factions hardly have any common interest other than liquidating one another. To divide Iraq as Galbraith states, will be equivalent to owning a condominium vile owners in conflict waiting for the most opportune moment to strike at one another while the Kurds occupy the north (top level) the Sunni is in the middle of the county (second floor) and shi it’s to the south (first floor). As everyone knows, in a condominium you must share in the cost and abide by the by-laws drawn up at an owner’s meeting, and of course they should respect each other’s space. Now which one of these requirements do you see the three mentioned factions above would honor? Well here are the reasons why it won’t work: The Kurds, a non-Arab people, are located in the northern part of Iraq known as Kurdistan. They don’t even recognize Iraq’s current government. This group would like nothing more than to be independent from Iraq’s Shi’its and Sunni. They would be able run their government democratically and have their own army. They would have control of the oil fields that would provide the source of income to their government. There oil fields are located in their area of control so, naturally, they want total independence. However, the Kurds represent only 17% of Iraq’s population and therefore the other factions, i.e. the Sunnis and Shi’its would not want to share the oil resources with such a small portion of the population. The Sunni’s have been occupying central Iraq, since the existence of Iraq. “Winston Churchill, as Britain’s Colonial Secretary, created Iraq from the wreckage of the Ottoman Empire in 1921, installing a Sunni Arab King to rule over the Shi’its majority and a rebellious Kurdish minority. Churchchill later described Iraq’s forced unity as one of his biggest mistakes.” He sure was right about that. The discovery of oil in this country helped only to make the situation worse. Now it has the resources to wage war on any country it sees fit. Galbraith believes, if we divide Iraq now to each his own region, every thing will be ok. It is like telling three bullies to go sit in the corner for a time out. By the way who will control the oil resources? Everyone knows he who controls the purse strings controls everything else. One of the strongest arguments against separating Iraq is because Shi’its, who are the majority, and occupy the south, runs the risk of having an Iran-Dominated government. the current ruling U.S. supported government, are the Shi’its known for using Police units to “Kidnap, torture and execute thousands of Sunnis since the Samara bombing. In response the Sunni police units are often insurgents or sympathizers,” (“Iraq bombs tied to top Iranians, U.S. says.”) and they retaliated with bombing and attacks on Mosel. This faction the Shi’its, has agreed to voluntarily share in the oil reserve resources. They harbor a strong hatred towards the Sunnis for persecuting, and torturing them during their reign of terror for over 80 years. This so called agreement that everything will be kosher (no pun intended) is highly unlikely to happen. Saddam’s reign was brutal, and yes, he did gas some of the Kurds. But every thing was still under a controlled chaos after all and he limited killing to only his discretion. There are other interested outside States that are also fueling the flame of discord like Iran, Syria, and Turkey. The most dangerous of these is Iran; the government that the United States has labeled as evil. Shiites who will most likely model their government in tandem to that of Iran’s government. To make things worst, Steven R. Hurst’s report in Chicago Sun –Times dated February 11, 2007, states that the”U.S. military officials Sunday accused the highest levels of the Iranian leadership of arming Shiite militants in Iraq with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more that 170 American forces.” Dividing Iraq will also have after effect on its relation with countries like this and therefore it will not work in favor of Iraq. Recently the United States has made known what everyone else already knew; that Iran has been supplying land mines bombs and other weapons to Iraq. This is a critical reason against dividing Iraq. It is a well known fact that Civil wars do not end because the parties get tired of fighting. Rather, they end because of outside intervention or, more often because one side wins. That is what has to happened in Iraq, Unfortunately Iran is intervening with the affairs of Iraq and once the county is divided they may join hands with on faction and destroy the others. This way they will be able to page a major threat to Iraq’s existence. On a superficial level one might think that dividing Iraq may speed up the process of ending the civil war. But this will make Iraq more vulnerable to Iran, and open a new Pandora’s Box. As it stands right now, Shi’its Arabs number 60% to the Auni Arabs 20% and the Kurds 17% which show the range of difference in numbers. If these were the odds the Chicago Bears had, been a no contest, they would have cobber the Colts. In conclusion, it is a fierce internal strife among the factions and now it will be the survival of the fittest. This is what this unjust war has come to cost the country. The end of what was once a united, if not perfect Iraq, in which the dictator was cruel and unjust. We cannot deny that he kept the killing to a minimum. Now Iraq will have the never ending cycle of retaliatory violence that goes from Sunni to Shiites to Kurds, then all over again, each trying to clinch another vendetta on the other. We have no choice other than keep the avenues ready for open dialog with Iran and avoid all out confrontation with Iran, Syria, and few other Arab States that would jump in the mix. Work Cited Sources: Brookings Institution Iraq index: GlobalSecurity.org HealingIraq.blogspot.com Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who has advised the Kurds on constitional issues, is the author or The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/aritcle/0,9171,1555130,00html Steven R. Hurst Chicago Sun-Times February 11, 2007 “Iraq bombs tied to top Iranians, U.S. says.” Read More