Separation is needed to stop the killing
Richard Parr
October 06, 2006
After WWI, Britain, still an active colonial power, conducted a nation building experiment and the country of Iraq was the result. The purpose was to establish a puppet government and enable the British to exploit the vast oil reserves in the area. For almost ninety years the unstable mix of peoples in Iraq had been held together by force and terror on the part of the governing entity. With the removal of Hussein from power, the country of Iraq is in the midst of splitting apart into warring groups. Apparently, the process is inexorable and the result inevitable. Why not encourage this “cultural correction” to proceed in an orderly fashion and reduce bloodshed? To allow the civil war to fester and gain momentum unabated, “letting the cards fall where they may”, is simply condoning genocide.
Any solution for the insurrection and civil war occurring in Iraq will be realized by the Iraqis themselves. The following describes a plan for three viable regions or states, with economic incentive for the Sunnis. Perhaps many Iraqis would consider this plan because it respects boundaries that existed long before Western meddling in the region.
There are three dominant, disparate groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd. These groups should be allowed to divide the country into three autonomous regions roughly corresponding to the long existing historical-cultural divisions reflected in the recent elections. Since Baghdad sits on the natural boundary (Tigris River) between the Shiite and Sunni regions it would be divided between the two groups. The traditional Sunni region would need to develop its own oil fields (there are vast reserves in western Iraq) and also receive oil income from the Shiite and Kurd regions in the interim. The Sunni portion of Iraq unfortunately doesn’t include any developed oil fields and the Sunnis have lost the political control they had under Hussein. Understandably, most of the insurrectionists are Sunnis. Common sense tells us that if the Sunnis had their own self-governing region and significant income from oil, the majority of them would be satisfied and incorrigible members of the group could be isolated.
The Sunnis rightfully feel excluded from representation and income. Extreme elements in the Sunni community have been seduced by the nihilist notion that fomenting sectarian strife and civil war will improve their position. The U.S. backed elections that gave the Shiites majority control highlighted the deep divisions in Iraqi society and fueled the Sunnis’ desperation and the sectarian violence that followed. However, after five hundred years of dominance and harassment by the Sunnis in the area now called Iraq, it is incredibly naïve to expect the Shiites to be magnanimous and share power equally with the minority Sunnis. Recent events have made it painfully obvious that many Sunnis will never accept a secondary position, which is their fate in a “unified” Iraq. But the tables have turned and now it is the Shiites who are dominating and harassing the Sunnis. Sunni leaders are complaining about Shiite death squads and are asking U.S. forces for protection. Meanwhile the Kurds, being somewhat insulated from the insurrection and sectarian violence, are already well on their way to autonomy. They have made deals to sell oil independently of the central government and are unifying their own government in the north. The Kurds are a distinct people and don’t consider Kurdistan a part of Iraq. Their involvement in the Baghdad government, aligned with Sunni Arabs, is a way to counter growing Shiite dominance and also an accommodation to our demands.
Ideally, the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could each choose leaders and convene constitutional conventions and form democratic regional governments under the auspices of the United Nations. The alternative would be reversion back to the Middle Eastern paradigm of despotic rule. Either way, with three separate entities there would be tremendous motivation for each group to succeed on its own terms rather than continue inter-group fighting. Also, physical separation itself would eliminate a great deal of the ongoing bloodletting (which is the purpose of this plan). The borders between the regions and the external borders with Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would have to be protected through a plan devised with international input and cooperation. Each region could arrest or expel foreigners who lack proper I.D. since many hard core terrorists are from neighboring countries and abroad. Instead of the U.S. trying to pacify and force these three diverse cultures together, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites should be allowed to form their own separate states and conduct their lives without U.S. occupation. As Einstein once observed, “Peace cannot be kept by force.”
The hopes for a unified Iraq have been shattered. “Unity Government” is becoming an oxymoron. Three regions are not the ideal solution but they may be the only answer to quell the violence and allow us to get our people out of a hellish situation. By most criteria, the Kurds have already achieved independence but fear the repercussions of declaring it. They've always been our loyal supporters and are more than willing to sell us their oil. Being the least sectarian of the three groups, the Kurds might even form a democracy. Regardless, this is the last, best chance for a Kurdish homeland, the subject of Kurds’ yearning for two thousand years. Obviously, the Kurds know this better than anyone else and are working diligently to achieve their goal. A correspondent in Kurdistan tells us the major stumbling blocks are the same things plaguing the rest of Iraq: out-of-control militias, greed and corruption and the stifling of political dissent. Reforming and integrating the militias into a single police force which respects the rights of minorities, dealing fairly with Arab Iraqis displaced by returning Kurds and equitably sharing the newfound oil wealth are now the keys for Kurdish statehood. The Kurds may be our only friends in Iraq. We owe them our support in their quest (which includes keeping Turkey and Iran at bay) if they demonstrate efficacy in building a just society. We can’t let them down again.
The Shiites and the Kurds each want self rule and they have for centuries. Wouldn’t allowing them the choice be democratic? The Sunnis want to return to their previous position of ruling a strong central government and being able to derive income from oil appropriated from the Shiite and Kurd regions. But that dream is evaporating and many Sunnis are beginning to realize that they will never again control the country of Iraq. They are probably at the point of understanding that their own autonomous region is the best that they can hope for, especially if an agreement can be reached with the Shiites and the Kurds to provide the Sunnis with a share of oil revenue until the Sunnis can develop their own fields. The Shiites and Kurds would be wise to accept that responsibility since all are suffering in this current chaos.
If “Plan A” is to “Stay the Course”, hopelessly mired in a mind boggling debacle, and “Plan B” is to abruptly depart, leaving an ongoing civil war that we ignited, then there must be a third option of effecting attainable improvement. If stability can be achieved we can leave with a clear conscience. Liberal and conservative forces within the U.S. are tuning into the idea that the warring groups in Iraq need separation for the killing to stop and the healing to begin. In an enlightening article in the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, August 27, 2006, Page M5) Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution described an option of “facilitating voluntary ethnic relocation while maintaining a confederal governing structure”. This would allow individuals and their families the “chance to move to an Iraq territory more hospitable to their ethnicity and/or religion”. O’Hanlon goes on to explain that this process would need the support of the Iraq and American governments and the three ethnic groups and would involve: “Confederacy, along with safe passage, property swapping, job-creation programs and oil revenue sharing”. These constructive ideas would enable cooperation whether the end result was a loose confederation of regional ethnic groups or three independent states. Are the politicians listening?
The bottom line is that we have to present and encourage a solution that reflects the cultural reality of Iraq. It appears we are doing the opposite. The Wilsonian idea of promoting freedom and democracy around the world, that Bush has adopted, has backfired in Iraq. The elections decreased the chances for democracy by exacerbating ancient sectarian differences and hatreds. Our efforts in Iraq are doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire of insurrection and civil war. Recently, our people have been given the impossible task of separating battling groups of Shiites and Sunnis which further detracts from our hapless efforts in quelling the insurrection. Iraq is not a melting pot ready for democracy but a volatile stew that our interference has stirred up. The ever increasing sectarian violence has changed the situation from horrible to humanly unbearable. Iraq is approaching the point of critical mass and ready to explode into anarchy. Reasonable parties must realize that the greatest chance for a lasting peace will be when each group is given its own space, relief from violence and a viable economy. Three independent regions would seem to be the best answer for now, at least until things cool down and reason prevails.
Is this the best approach? Or is there another, better one? Ask the Iraqis! So far, we haven’t done that; probably because three autonomous regions or states would be seen as a failure by the Bush Administration in its nation building experiment. The war in Iraq is dragging on in a desperate and doomed attempt by the Bush Administration to save face. We have yet to learn the lesson that democracy cannot be forced upon a people by a foreign power. Have we liberated the Iraqi people or opened Pandora’s Box as an occupier? The fact that 87% of Iraqis want a timetable for our withdrawal gives a pretty clear indication of the Iraqis’ view. John Zogby (Zogby International) wants to get into Iraq again this year; perhaps the subject of separate regions will be included in his poll. Hopefully, if given the opportunity, the same high percentage of Iraqis will endorse a plan leading to the establishment of three independent states and the return of peace to the Cradle of Civilization. But this would require cooperation and help from America. Now is the time for members of congress from both parties to develop some backbone, come together, confront the president and devise a solution. Sen. Joe Biden is promoting the three region idea; which is a start. If some prominent anti-Iraq war Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel and Rep. Ron Paul reached out to Biden and his fellow Democrats and to the Iraqi people it would get the ball rolling. A new mantra is needed: “Let’s correct the course”.
Any solution for the insurrection and civil war occurring in Iraq will be realized by the Iraqis themselves. The following describes a plan for three viable regions or states, with economic incentive for the Sunnis. Perhaps many Iraqis would consider this plan because it respects boundaries that existed long before Western meddling in the region.
There are three dominant, disparate groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd. These groups should be allowed to divide the country into three autonomous regions roughly corresponding to the long existing historical-cultural divisions reflected in the recent elections. Since Baghdad sits on the natural boundary (Tigris River) between the Shiite and Sunni regions it would be divided between the two groups. The traditional Sunni region would need to develop its own oil fields (there are vast reserves in western Iraq) and also receive oil income from the Shiite and Kurd regions in the interim. The Sunni portion of Iraq unfortunately doesn’t include any developed oil fields and the Sunnis have lost the political control they had under Hussein. Understandably, most of the insurrectionists are Sunnis. Common sense tells us that if the Sunnis had their own self-governing region and significant income from oil, the majority of them would be satisfied and incorrigible members of the group could be isolated.
The Sunnis rightfully feel excluded from representation and income. Extreme elements in the Sunni community have been seduced by the nihilist notion that fomenting sectarian strife and civil war will improve their position. The U.S. backed elections that gave the Shiites majority control highlighted the deep divisions in Iraqi society and fueled the Sunnis’ desperation and the sectarian violence that followed. However, after five hundred years of dominance and harassment by the Sunnis in the area now called Iraq, it is incredibly naïve to expect the Shiites to be magnanimous and share power equally with the minority Sunnis. Recent events have made it painfully obvious that many Sunnis will never accept a secondary position, which is their fate in a “unified” Iraq. But the tables have turned and now it is the Shiites who are dominating and harassing the Sunnis. Sunni leaders are complaining about Shiite death squads and are asking U.S. forces for protection. Meanwhile the Kurds, being somewhat insulated from the insurrection and sectarian violence, are already well on their way to autonomy. They have made deals to sell oil independently of the central government and are unifying their own government in the north. The Kurds are a distinct people and don’t consider Kurdistan a part of Iraq. Their involvement in the Baghdad government, aligned with Sunni Arabs, is a way to counter growing Shiite dominance and also an accommodation to our demands.
Ideally, the Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could each choose leaders and convene constitutional conventions and form democratic regional governments under the auspices of the United Nations. The alternative would be reversion back to the Middle Eastern paradigm of despotic rule. Either way, with three separate entities there would be tremendous motivation for each group to succeed on its own terms rather than continue inter-group fighting. Also, physical separation itself would eliminate a great deal of the ongoing bloodletting (which is the purpose of this plan). The borders between the regions and the external borders with Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria would have to be protected through a plan devised with international input and cooperation. Each region could arrest or expel foreigners who lack proper I.D. since many hard core terrorists are from neighboring countries and abroad. Instead of the U.S. trying to pacify and force these three diverse cultures together, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites should be allowed to form their own separate states and conduct their lives without U.S. occupation. As Einstein once observed, “Peace cannot be kept by force.”
The hopes for a unified Iraq have been shattered. “Unity Government” is becoming an oxymoron. Three regions are not the ideal solution but they may be the only answer to quell the violence and allow us to get our people out of a hellish situation. By most criteria, the Kurds have already achieved independence but fear the repercussions of declaring it. They've always been our loyal supporters and are more than willing to sell us their oil. Being the least sectarian of the three groups, the Kurds might even form a democracy. Regardless, this is the last, best chance for a Kurdish homeland, the subject of Kurds’ yearning for two thousand years. Obviously, the Kurds know this better than anyone else and are working diligently to achieve their goal. A correspondent in Kurdistan tells us the major stumbling blocks are the same things plaguing the rest of Iraq: out-of-control militias, greed and corruption and the stifling of political dissent. Reforming and integrating the militias into a single police force which respects the rights of minorities, dealing fairly with Arab Iraqis displaced by returning Kurds and equitably sharing the newfound oil wealth are now the keys for Kurdish statehood. The Kurds may be our only friends in Iraq. We owe them our support in their quest (which includes keeping Turkey and Iran at bay) if they demonstrate efficacy in building a just society. We can’t let them down again.
The Shiites and the Kurds each want self rule and they have for centuries. Wouldn’t allowing them the choice be democratic? The Sunnis want to return to their previous position of ruling a strong central government and being able to derive income from oil appropriated from the Shiite and Kurd regions. But that dream is evaporating and many Sunnis are beginning to realize that they will never again control the country of Iraq. They are probably at the point of understanding that their own autonomous region is the best that they can hope for, especially if an agreement can be reached with the Shiites and the Kurds to provide the Sunnis with a share of oil revenue until the Sunnis can develop their own fields. The Shiites and Kurds would be wise to accept that responsibility since all are suffering in this current chaos.
If “Plan A” is to “Stay the Course”, hopelessly mired in a mind boggling debacle, and “Plan B” is to abruptly depart, leaving an ongoing civil war that we ignited, then there must be a third option of effecting attainable improvement. If stability can be achieved we can leave with a clear conscience. Liberal and conservative forces within the U.S. are tuning into the idea that the warring groups in Iraq need separation for the killing to stop and the healing to begin. In an enlightening article in the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, August 27, 2006, Page M5) Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution described an option of “facilitating voluntary ethnic relocation while maintaining a confederal governing structure”. This would allow individuals and their families the “chance to move to an Iraq territory more hospitable to their ethnicity and/or religion”. O’Hanlon goes on to explain that this process would need the support of the Iraq and American governments and the three ethnic groups and would involve: “Confederacy, along with safe passage, property swapping, job-creation programs and oil revenue sharing”. These constructive ideas would enable cooperation whether the end result was a loose confederation of regional ethnic groups or three independent states. Are the politicians listening?
The bottom line is that we have to present and encourage a solution that reflects the cultural reality of Iraq. It appears we are doing the opposite. The Wilsonian idea of promoting freedom and democracy around the world, that Bush has adopted, has backfired in Iraq. The elections decreased the chances for democracy by exacerbating ancient sectarian differences and hatreds. Our efforts in Iraq are doing nothing but adding fuel to the fire of insurrection and civil war. Recently, our people have been given the impossible task of separating battling groups of Shiites and Sunnis which further detracts from our hapless efforts in quelling the insurrection. Iraq is not a melting pot ready for democracy but a volatile stew that our interference has stirred up. The ever increasing sectarian violence has changed the situation from horrible to humanly unbearable. Iraq is approaching the point of critical mass and ready to explode into anarchy. Reasonable parties must realize that the greatest chance for a lasting peace will be when each group is given its own space, relief from violence and a viable economy. Three independent regions would seem to be the best answer for now, at least until things cool down and reason prevails.
Is this the best approach? Or is there another, better one? Ask the Iraqis! So far, we haven’t done that; probably because three autonomous regions or states would be seen as a failure by the Bush Administration in its nation building experiment. The war in Iraq is dragging on in a desperate and doomed attempt by the Bush Administration to save face. We have yet to learn the lesson that democracy cannot be forced upon a people by a foreign power. Have we liberated the Iraqi people or opened Pandora’s Box as an occupier? The fact that 87% of Iraqis want a timetable for our withdrawal gives a pretty clear indication of the Iraqis’ view. John Zogby (Zogby International) wants to get into Iraq again this year; perhaps the subject of separate regions will be included in his poll. Hopefully, if given the opportunity, the same high percentage of Iraqis will endorse a plan leading to the establishment of three independent states and the return of peace to the Cradle of Civilization. But this would require cooperation and help from America. Now is the time for members of congress from both parties to develop some backbone, come together, confront the president and devise a solution. Sen. Joe Biden is promoting the three region idea; which is a start. If some prominent anti-Iraq war Republicans such as Sen. Chuck Hagel and Rep. Ron Paul reached out to Biden and his fellow Democrats and to the Iraqi people it would get the ball rolling. A new mantra is needed: “Let’s correct the course”.
Print
Email
