Is it time for serious talks about dividing Iraq into three autonomous regions? I think so. And so does Peter W. Galbraith, who writes the following in this week’s edition of Time Magazine:
A divided Iraq will be destabilizing to Iraq’s neighbors. Iraq’s Sunni Arab neighbors all fear the destabilizing consequences of partition. But they fear an Iran-dominated Iraq even more. Turkey, Iraq’s other powerful neighbor, has a population that includes at least 14 million Turkish Kurds. The Turkish nightmare has been the emergence of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq. But now that it is actually happening, Turkey has responded pragmatically: it is by far the largest source of investment in Iraqi Kurdistan and has cultivated close relations with its leaders. As Turkey’s more sophisticated strategic thinkers understand, Turkey and an independent Kurdistan have a lot in common. Both are secular, pro-Western, democratic and non-Arab. Not only will Kurdistan depend on Turkey economically, but it can serve as a useful buffer to an Iran-dominated Islamic Iraq.
Prior to leaving for my year-long mission in Baghdad, I believed that we had to do something to stem the tide of Islamic terrorism against Western democracies. I still do. But Iraq isn’t even close to becoming a democracy. It’s not freer than it was under Saddam Hussein. Certainly, there are some freedoms enjoyed by Iraqis now that didn’t exist under Saddam – you can have a cell phone, satellite television and an Internet connection. I’m sure that’s of little comfort to people who cannot move freely through their capital city and must struggle daily just to avoid being murdered by their own police forces or army. I doubt that secular Iraqis who are now being forced to follow new religious mandates appreciate it much.
For the United States, the choices are tough. We lose our sons and daughters everyday trying to make the country a better place to live for its citizens. But are those citizens interested in what we want for them? Many are. But many more are busy being duplicitous with us while settling old scores with each other – and we pay for it daily.
Galbraith says:
Iraq’s national-unity government is not united and does not govern. Iraqi security forces, the centerpiece of the U.S.’s efforts for stability, are ineffective or, even worse, combatants in the country’s escalating civil war. President George W. Bush says the U.S.’s goal is a unified and democratic Iraq, but we have no way to get there. As Americans search for answers, there is one obvious alternative: split Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shi’ite states.
I saw many Iraqi Army units doing their jobs professionally while I was out and about in Baghdad. But I didn’t really get beyond what was on the surface. I don’t speak the language. I couldn’t tell whether I was watching Sunnis, Shias or a mixture of the two. I only got the “official” viewpoint. I don’t think we have enough Iraqi commanders committed to national unity and a nonsectarian outlook to make a real dent in the violence that takes place every day. The commanders and political figures who do espouse such views are often murdered.
The Kurds in the north live in a completely different world already. The have a de facto nation of their own, provide their own security, and they love Americans. They would welcome us with open arms on most levels. Countering all the messages of national unity that our own government insists on pusing, the Kurds have already stopped flying the Iraqi flag in their cities. And who can blame them? Iraq murdered so many of them under Saddam’s rule.
Southern Iraq is now completely dominated by the Shia and by Iranian interests. And in the middle sits Baghdad and the Western provinces – the sources of the majority of the violence you see on TV and read about in newspapers and on the Internet. These mixed areas are the battleground between the formerly ruling Sunnis and the new Shia power structure. The violence between the two is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, but perhaps it could be mitigated and minimized by the implementation of a Sunni autonomous region – that, at least, would give those now focused on only violence as a solution to problems some other more peaceful avenue on which to focus their energies.
Go read what Galbraith has to say. The debate over Iraq shouldn’t be about timetables or mistakes that have already been made. We shouldn’t talk in terms of abandoning the country. But we should be realistic about the nature of the beast we’ve created. We should be asking ourselves what we can do to help average Iraqis, regardless of their ethnic or religious status. We should be practical about what we can do to improve the security situation.
Autonomous or semi-autonomous regions seem to me to be the only near-term solution that has a practical chance of lowering the level of daily conflict. This might mean mass migration, but that is already happening. It might mean more division between Sunni and Shia inside Iraq but that is also already happening.
Four months before I left Iraq, we were told that Baghdad was the hub that held Iraq together, and that we would have to secure it before the country could have a chance. I don’t think that is even remotely possible with the current state of Iraq’s own military forces and our limited human resources on the ground. Those four months gave me no indicators of an improved security situation, no matter how various departments tried to spin it.
We must try new approaches. If partitioning the nation isn’t a viable one, then what else can we try that hasn’t been tried? I’d love to hear from you.