The Case for Dividing Up Iraq (846 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0.7 on 68 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Bob (View user info) at 2007-04-27 12:24:31 EDT
With the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, I am surprised that this idea has not gotten more attention.
Iraq, as we know it today, is a completely artificial state, which was created when the British took over 3 regions of the Ottoman Empire and consolidated them to form Iraq.
Even the Ottomans were smart enough to keep the Shia and Sunnis separate.
Ever since the British consolidated Iraq, there has been sectarian violence between the two sects.
In one of the last letters to Britain before he left Iraq in 1936, the General in charge of the territory warned of sectarian violence if the Iraqis were left to their own. (See American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips, one of the first prominent Republicans to speak out against the war).
This all being said, partitioning Iraq would not be easy.
I foresee three major issues that would arise:
1) Oil Revenue: Kurd and Shia dominated areas control the vast majority of the oil reserves in Iraq. If there was to be a split in the Iraqi state, there would have to be some revenue sharing between the Kurds and Shia and the oil-poor Sunnis. Considering the current violence, I believe that this could be done a lot easier than quelling the entire country.
2) Baghdad: Baghdad is filled with both Sunnis and Shia, with Shia majority. There would need to be some mechanism to give Sunnis or Shias control of Baghdad because I highly doubt that the Sunnis would just give up Baghdad without something in return.
3) Refugees: Although Iraq is, for the most part, divided by sectarian lines, there is a great deal of minority populations in Baghdad, Najaf and Muthanna (between Sunnis and Shias) and Nineveh and Tamim (between Sunnis and Kurds). The best way for this to be solved would be to get UN involvement to allow for border control. This would allow the US Military to continue operations against Al-Qaeda and other organizations within Iraq without having them become glorified Border Control Agents.
The only major obstacle against UN involvement would be China, due to their natural aversion to breaking down states (re: Tibet and Taiwan). However, at this point in time, China is much more worried about the importation of natural resources. Therefore, as long as we guarantee their oil; I see no reason why they would veto a UN Resolution to place UN Troops in Iraq.
This then brings the question to the minority populations in these mixed areas...the fact of the matter is, there will be repression and/or ethnic cleansing of these minorities if they remained in these areas. We know it, and they sure as hell know it. Therefore, a principle job of the UN would be to allow safe passage of these minorities out of one area and to their natural ethnic area.
After this is done, the US would have to remain a regional player because of the fact that the Shia created state would be so damned close to Iran. It seems that the US could do so if they remain in neighboring areas, especially Kurdistan, although obviously a certain level of closeness between the two Shia dominated states would be unavoidable.
User Reviews
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-30 12:05:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-04-30 08:14:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-28 13:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:17:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thinking about it made me realize something.
They ain't American, so fuck them
*******
pull out and let THEM fix it. We aren't the World Police
-----
Didn't stop you idiots from going in there and fucking it up in the first place.
_______________________
Word. We fucked that shit up hardcore.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-04-30 08:15:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Oh and gonna give a +2 for a well thought out post on the iraq war without saying sand nigger or some other dense shit once.
Submitted by Nobb (user info) at 2007-04-30 08:14:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-28 13:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:17:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thinking about it made me realize something.
They ain't American, so fuck them
*******
pull out and let THEM fix it. We aren't the World Police
-----
Didn't stop you idiots from going in there and fucking it up in the first place.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-28 15:32:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2007-04-28 07:31:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
Simply put, massive areas of that place have intermingling- to the point, before the US invasion at least, even of intermarriage.
Yes, the British did fuck it up by ignoring traditional cultural groups - in a sense ethnic despite major cultural and genetic intermingling - because it suited them. It now suits Washington to divide these existing countries into these groups, conveniently ignoring the fact that in the case of all groups involved, the same subcultures spill over the borders into neighbouring countries - the reason why partition was so destructive in the first place.
Washington and its allies (NOT ordinary citizens of any country) would be the ones to benefit. If ANY such imperialist power benefits, it's at the cost of *everyone* else - ESPECIALLY YOU.
Also, George Bush Snr. called, he wants Saddam back.
___________________
Then the question becomes whether the relationships between Sunnis and Shias can be repaired...and the only way that would happen would be through stability, both militarily and economically.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2007-04-28 13:48:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:17:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thinking about it made me realize something.
They ain't American, so fuck them
*******
pull out and let THEM fix it. We aren't the World Police.
Submitted by FuckTheArmy (user info) at 2007-04-28 07:31:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No.
Simply put, massive areas of that place have intermingling- to the point, before the US invasion at least, even of intermarriage.
Yes, the British did fuck it up by ignoring traditional cultural groups - in a sense ethnic despite major cultural and genetic intermingling - because it suited them. It now suits Washington to divide these existing countries into these groups, conveniently ignoring the fact that in the case of all groups involved, the same subcultures spill over the borders into neighbouring countries - the reason why partition was so destructive in the first place.
Washington and its allies (NOT ordinary citizens of any country) would be the ones to benefit. If ANY such imperialist power benefits, it's at the cost of *everyone* else - ESPECIALLY YOU.
Also, George Bush Snr. called, he wants Saddam back.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-28 00:21:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ok.
we let yugoslavia break up into like 10 different ethnic countries
so why the fuck not?
we'll only have to support the dominant faction in that case
im all kinds o drunk
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 22:33:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess it doesnt matter anyways, Bush is just gonna continue the war until he can hand it off for the next president to fuck around with.
gotta love bush.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:23:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
should'Ve realized that before the invasion and save us all that trouble
perhaps then the only things coming to mind when thinking of iraq would be Iraqi Warrior and HotShots 2 instead of all that kurdish, shia, sunni crap i don't care about
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:17:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thinking about it made me realize something.
They ain't American, so fuck them
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:15:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well isnt that what Bush did 4 years ago?
Shouldve ran.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:14:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well then, it's all settle.
if i knew that the solution was as easy as drawing a few lines on the groudn and play command & conquer with people and troops, i would've applied for president
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:08:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stop pasting Googled shit. you make no sense.
the unification process was done over decades so your emmanual II fella was only a key player among others. that's not even the point.
my point is that before today it was only a bunch of independant city states that were lumped together in kingdoms (WHO EVENTUALLY UNIFIED YES) by a foreign emperor not too long ago. sounds kinda like Iraq, eh? and i doubt you could easily split italy in tiny little kingdoms cuz it makes sense to you on paper.
______________
Well when you consider Italian loyalty was not divided by religion, but rather political entities, it is a different situation.
Who is the most powerful man in Iraq? A Shia Cleric, not a king or a prime minister or a president.
Loyalties are drawn by religion and tribalism in Iraq, its a whole different factor.
Remember all those wars/inquisitions in Europe that were fought when there were two religions within a state? You know, 30 Years War, Spanish Inquistion, French Wars of Religion, etc?
Thats what is happening in Iraq, and the only way to fix this would be to allow for a civil war, or divide the state among these lines and enforce the borders with a UN/US coalition of troops.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 17:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
stop pasting Googled shit. you make no sense.
the unification process was done over decades so your emmanual II fella was only a key player among others. that's not even the point.
my point is that before today it was only a bunch of independant city states that were lumped together in kingdoms (WHO EVENTUALLY UNIFIED YES) by a foreign emperor not too long ago. sounds kinda like Iraq, eh? and i doubt you could easily split italy in tiny little kingdoms cuz it makes sense to you on paper.
do you actually think the young iraqis think?
"my country is so artificial, just slash it already"
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:53:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Napoleon didnt directly do anything except get rid of Venice...
I mean hes credited with indirectly aiding Garibaldi and Mazzini (through the spread of ideas) but his direct effect was minimal.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:49:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the kingdoms were unified to give what it is today, but before bonaparte it was just disparate city states.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:44:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that's not an answer, that's a question and it's unrelated, especially since i said the exact contrary on another post.
p.s. italy was an 'artificial' kingdom created by napoleon
______________
Italy was internally unified by King Victor Emmanuel II in 1861.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
that's not an answer, that's a question and it's unrelated, especially since i said the exact contrary on another post.
p.s. italy was an 'artificial' kingdom created by napoleon
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:39:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:36:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the southern states were forced to remain within the Union.
i think it's time we split the US in half to make american politics better?
what do you say about that?
_________
so are you advocating a withdrawl of US troops to allow for the majority Shias to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:36:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
the southern states were forced to remain within the Union.
i think it's time we split the US in half to make american politics better?
what do you say about that?
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:27:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
forgot the word 'tendencies' after tribalistic and religious
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:18:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so based on your own personal Risk map of a country thousands of miles from yours, you think it should be split à la saveur du jour?
ok, sounds like a plan that will make everybody happy
______________
No...based on a few hundred years of seeing how states with strong tribalistic and religious best function determines how this artificial country should be split.
The key difference between German and Italian UNIFICATION and Iraqi CONSOLIDATION is that the Iraqis did not determine their own statehood, it was determined by the British, who forced the coagulation.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 16:14:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
so based on your own personal Risk map of a country thousands of miles from yours, you think it should be split à la saveur du jour?
ok, sounds like a plan that will make everybody happy
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:43:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:41:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Shiites are loyal to a single Iraq becuase they have the majority, aka the power, there. Thats a fairly obvious connection there."""
stop pulling shit out of your ass. the article pointed that Iran couldn't easily reign them in because there is Iraqi identity and pride, especially after the Iran-Iraq war. this is unrelated to your 'power' comment, which btw is new since Saddam fell.
you just don't divide a country like that cuz you see "obvious connections" that have little application on the ground.
____________________________
Well without the article how could I understand the context?
That still being said, this war has brought the Shia majority decidedly closer to Iran, to a point where loyalties have shifted for some.
Submitted by MidnightToSix (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:41:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
But ignorant people love acting like expert specialists on every subject.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:41:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The Shiites are loyal to a single Iraq becuase they have the majority, aka the power, there. Thats a fairly obvious connection there."""
stop pulling shit out of your ass. the article pointed that Iran couldn't easily reign them in because there is Iraqi identity and pride, especially after the Iran-Iraq war. this is unrelated to your 'power' comment, which btw is new since Saddam fell.
you just don't divide a country like that cuz you see "obvious connections" that have little application on the ground.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:33:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
isnt that what Dubai is for?
Submitted by beauxjizzle (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:29:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
i got a better idea. exterminate them all and clear out the land, then build some casinos. they always do well in the desert. casinos that is.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:29:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:10:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:06:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i wonder how iraqis would feel if they would watch us talking about splitting their homeland at our will, based on malinformed opinions.
it's like the ultimate arrogance...BUT WE LIKE IT!
=================
I think you missed a big point below. Iraq is a NEW thing, and is hardly the historic homeland of any people. Besides, I'm pretty sure that all the Iraqi's not busy blowing themselves and others up would take the country cut up into 211 pieces if it meant they could go about their day without worring if they'll catch a bullet, mortar, or tank round for trying to buy a loaf of bread.
===
New? It was created in WWI. That means that most people living there were raised in Iraq, not the Ottoman Empire and considering their literacy rate, I assume most of them are oblivious of that past. I read an article in Time that Shiites were actually loyal to Iraq, that there IS such a thing as an Iraqi identity. It doesn't take a billion years to build one (except in Canada).
I mean, while you're at it...Germany and Italy are relatively new too. Let's dissolve them back and see what happens.
____________________________
The Shiites are loyal to a single Iraq becuase they have the majority, aka the power, there. Thats a fairly obvious connection there.
A migratory tribe and a city-state are hardly similar enough for a direct comparison.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:27:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:10:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:06:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i wonder how iraqis would feel if they would watch us talking about splitting their homeland at our will, based on malinformed opinions.
it's like the ultimate arrogance...BUT WE LIKE IT!
=================
I think you missed a big point below. Iraq is a NEW thing, and is hardly the historic homeland of any people. Besides, I'm pretty sure that all the Iraqi's not busy blowing themselves and others up would take the country cut up into 211 pieces if it meant they could go about their day without worring if they'll catch a bullet, mortar, or tank round for trying to buy a loaf of bread.
===
New? It was created in WWI. That means that most people living there were raised in Iraq, not the Ottoman Empire and considering their literacy rate, I assume most of them are oblivious of that past. I read an article in Time that Shiites were actually loyal to Iraq, that there IS such a thing as an Iraqi identity. It doesn't take a billion years to build one (except in Canada).
I mean, while you're at it...Germany and Italy are relatively new too. Let's dissolve them back and see what happens.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:16:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/76393
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:11:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:06:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i wonder how iraqis would feel if they would watch us talking about splitting their homeland at our will, based on malinformed opinions.
it's like the ultimate arrogance...BUT WE LIKE IT!
_______________
You seem to be looking at it from a Western Realist point of view...
Tribalism and Religion is far more important to Iraqis than the belief in an artifical statehood.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:10:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
That quote from Frost is taken out of context. If you read the whole poem you'll see.
There is this book I'm reading right now Adam it's called "The Thirteenth Tale". It's a pretty good book but probably a bit too chicklike for your tastes. I read "The End of Faith" a while back. It's interesting but a bit angry and bitter. "Ancestor's Tale" is really good but I had to take it one chapter at a time and then read something else in between just to let it sink in for a while. I'm also wading through the entire Dune series again waiting for that hack Brian Herbert to get off his duff and publish the last one.
I suppose it's too late to turn the mess back over to Sadam.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:10:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:06:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i wonder how iraqis would feel if they would watch us talking about splitting their homeland at our will, based on malinformed opinions.
it's like the ultimate arrogance...BUT WE LIKE IT!
=================
I think you missed a big point below. Iraq is a NEW thing, and is hardly the historic homeland of any people. Besides, I'm pretty sure that all the Iraqi's not busy blowing themselves and others up would take the country cut up into 211 pieces if it meant they could go about their day without worring if they'll catch a bullet, mortar, or tank round for trying to buy a loaf of bread.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:06:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
i wonder how iraqis would feel if they would watch us talking about splitting their homeland at our will, based on malinformed opinions.
it's like the ultimate arrogance...BUT WE LIKE IT!
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-04-27 15:04:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That's it, R. Frost. He raped and strangled a postman once, did you know that?
Submitted by ampersand (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:58:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
no no, frost dislikes fences.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:35:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
good fences make good neighbors from Frost?
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:34:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:55:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:47:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
True, but also consider that the partitioning has in some repects help ferment islamic fundamentailism. When the partitioning was first implemented it touched off a flurry of smaller civil conflicts. These conflicts tend to be signifigant brain drains on any country. Secondly, the British allowed power vacumns to continually form as the european influence slowly waned in the region. This almost ensured that radical fundamentalism, strongly opposed to the west, would take hold.
-------------------
There is also the theory that without these smaller in country conflicts you would have had a lot more larger international conflicts between neighboring countries of different faiths.
I could be wrong, I would like to read the book, but I don't think the British intentionally left power vaccuums. I think they tried to install "western" democratic powers when they could, it just didn't work.
==============
You're correct. I was alluding to the overall effect that their actions had, (and as Caul mentioned the other European powers were just as guilty. On that note how many people here believe that the assaination of the the arch duke franz ferdinand was the reason for WWI? Read up on the partitioning of Africa and get a pretty fresh perspective on that.) I don't think that the British ever INTENDED to throw the whole place into a decades long conflict, they did know that when they partitioned it that they needed to segregate the populations in order to prevent the consolidation of power in a specific area.
When power can be consolidated, especially along religious and ethnic boundaries, you are going to create a conflict. If the Sunnis or Kurds had been segregated into a singular region, they would have been able to easily band together as a united front to topple the puppet government. However, by ensuring that the population is made up of factions with different goals, you tend to prevent the actual action of governmental overthrow because they can't unite and decide who will rule once the dust has cleared.
Someone made the point that the British screwed up when they cut Palestine to peices, but I disagree. In a single motion they dismembered and entire cultural population, and just look at them now. Reeling. Lost. FUCKED.
Speaking about the power of the British and their awesome partitioning skills, look at India. They cut it up saying Muslims here (Pakistan) and Hindis here (India). Even without Kashmir being a diputed territory, a war was inevitable because you consolidated the position of two opposing factions.
I like this post, it's thought provoking
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:29:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
How does it go--good fences better neighbours make?
Something.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:28:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why the hell is that book $120? Ridiculous.
Library it is!
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:20:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today,
-----
well, yes and no. I'll agree that breaking up the Ottoman Empire was a good idea, but they could have been a lot smarter about it. Palestine, for an example...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:14:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Iraq isn't a Brady Bunch bedroom, bob.
---------------
Apparently somebody hasn't seen, "A club House is Not a Home," or "Vote for Brady" (episodes 6 and 11 season 1).
A perfect analogy for the strife and problems facing the middle east.
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:06:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
I think we need to intstall a really brutal dictator at the head of a totalitarian state. The different sects will find fighting a lot more difficult under such oppression. I do mean a brutal dictator. Some nasty fuck who'll use rape rooms, torture chambers, and chemical weapons on the populous to keep them in line. As long as we remind him every now and again who put him there, we could get some cheap oil out of the deal. Wonder where we could find such a guy.
By the way, American Theocracy is an EXCELLENT book. It should be required reading nowadays, in the U.S. at least.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2007-04-27 14:00:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Iraq isn't a Brady Bunch bedroom, bob.
---
hehe
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:59:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Iraq isn't a Brady Bunch bedroom, bob.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:58:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today, especially considering the role that petroleum has played in the world economy
===
every colonial empire did that. even belgium. although i'm not sure about the use of the word empire.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:55:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:47:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
True, but also consider that the partitioning has in some repects help ferment islamic fundamentailism. When the partitioning was first implemented it touched off a flurry of smaller civil conflicts. These conflicts tend to be signifigant brain drains on any country. Secondly, the British allowed power vacumns to continually form as the european influence slowly waned in the region. This almost ensured that radical fundamentalism, strongly opposed to the west, would take hold.
-------------------
There is also the theory that without these smaller in country conflicts you would have had a lot more larger international conflicts between neighboring countries of different faiths.
I could be wrong, I would like to read the book, but I don't think the British intentionally left power vaccuums. I think they tried to install "western" democratic powers when they could, it just didn't work.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:53:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:48:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today, especially considering the role that petroleum has played in the world economy. In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
_________________
Agreed. What was the novel?
The Islamic World in Decline: From the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Disintegration of the Ottoman Empire
http://tinyurl.com/2rxzys
I suggest your library (where I got it from) cause its $120 bucks
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:48:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today, especially considering the role that petroleum has played in the world economy. In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
_________________
Agreed. What was the novel?
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:47:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
-----------------------------------
If it existed without the backward tribal mentality that still runs large parts of that part of the world, then yes.
=====================
True, but also consider that the partitioning has in some repects help ferment islamic fundamentailism. When the partitioning was first implemented it touched off a flurry of smaller civil conflicts. These conflicts tend to be signifigant brain drains on any country. Secondly, the British allowed power vacumns to continually form as the european influence slowly waned in the region. This almost ensured that radical fundamentalism, strongly opposed to the west, would take hold.
Looking back at the culture of the middle east during the height of the ottoman empire is almost surreal.
Ever seen Hagia Sophia? An architectural wonder of the world.
And Loki, I read it for myself. It's amazing how reading books like this will open your mind in other directions, not to mention they lead to a important understanding of the world.
I bet you most people don't know anything about the partitioning of Africa, or the Ottoman Empire even though these two events are responsible for a huge amount of the conflict in the world today, decades later, or how these events catapulted the west ahead creating the dichotomy of the "developed" and "developing" world we see today.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:47:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:36:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this is the only solution, but you're right no one is really talking about it. Didn't Syria freak out about it?
__________
Theyre freaking out now because they have over 750,000 Iraqi refugees.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:44:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
There's some really good reason for not dividing up Iraq. I forget what it is but I promise it's a good one.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:42:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today, especially considering the role that petroleum has played in the world economy. In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
_________________
Agreed. What was the novel?
On the Turkey issue...I think Coyote brought up a huge bargaining chip that we would have to exploit in order to keep Kurdish Turkey and Kurdistan stable.
Theres no doubt that this solution has major diplomatic and logistical problems. However, at this point, I am more likely to think diplomats have a better choice to solve this than the US Military. As Petraeus said, this is not a military issue.
Considering the other two main options, staying in Iraq until the job is done (when the fuck will that be?) and a timed withdrawal (A civil war, and possibly a regional war, would erupt), this has to be considered the strongest solution for both short term and long term stability of Iraq.
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:31:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Didnt work in Berlin, didnt work in Northern Ireland, wont work in Iraq
Submitted by Coyote (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:21:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Lots and lots of problems that we haven't even thought of, probably.
I've been wondering if Turkey could be bought off by smoothing their entrance into the EU in exchange for their cooperation on the Kurdistan issue. Of course, this would require cooperation from the EU, which is a whole different kind of cat-herding that a "go-it-alone" administration would never be able to pull off.
Still, if people at various state departments and ministries in Europe and elsewhere haven't already at least kicked this idea around as a strawman, they're not doing their jobs.
Submitted by greEn_uGly (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:01:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
sorry, but i disagree
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-27 13:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Adam what the fuck? Tell me you read that for some kind of assignment and not for shits and giggles.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:59:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
These desert mutants still don't know that the Ottoman Empire has fallen.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:53:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
-----------------------------------
If it existed without the backward tribal mentality that still runs large parts of that part of the world, then yes.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:48:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:48:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:45:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I just recently finished reading a book about the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire. It was done intentionally tho create strife, and destabilize the region. With less government coherence and pronounced civil strife the value of natural resources are greatly diminished due to competition between newly formed factions.
The British were some smart mother fuckers, partitioning the Ottoman Empire prevented it from becoming the major world power it would have been today, especially considering the role that petroleum has played in the world economy. In all respects if the Ottoman Empire existed today, in between thier large oil reserves and their domination over major trade routes they'd be substantial competition for the US
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:36:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I think this is the only solution, but you're right no one is really talking about it. Didn't Syria freak out about it?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:34:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The only major obstacle against UN involvement would be China, due to their natural aversion to breaking down states (re: Tibet and Taiwan). However, at this point in time, China is much more worried about the importation of natural resources. Therefore, as long as we guarantee their oil; I see no reason why they would veto a UN Resolution to place UN Troops in Iraq.
------------------------------------------
That and Turkey because a Kurdistan would encourage their kurd to fight harder for independence.
Saudi because they don't want their Sunni neighbors poor.
There is also fear that it would turn into a play ground for the surrounding Shiite and Sunni nations to fight (which is kind of happening already). Just saying it is a different country won't stop the back and forth killing, unless you boot out every person not of that religion, but of course once you do that hundreds of sacred sunni sites will pop up in shiite land and vice versa, giving them a reason to go to war.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
partionning Iraq has been talked about over and over.
this isn't a novel idea.
the US fear the Shiite will be assimilated by Iran, that the Kurds will be vulnerable to turkey and sunnis and a bunch of other shti that has been mentionned and talked over a million times
Submitted by d_prime (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:32:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I really don't see why everyone hates the idea of it becoming multiple countries.
Submitted by ajanssen (user info) at 2007-04-27 12:26:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Where the fuck is my pizza slicer?