The option is not completely off the table. There is still the possibility that the national Iraqi government will be unable to muster the forces needed to shut down the groups fostering sectarian violence in Iraq.
There are two possibilities for Iraq if it were to be partitioned. Either give each of the three sections (between the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Shi'a Arabs) complete independence or place them in a loose confederation with a rather weak central government.
There are obvious problems that would come with such plans. First off, mixed areas such as Kirkuk and Baghdad would become great prizes and a great source of conflict between the three factions (perhaps moreso than they already are). The fight to clean out neighborhoods from mixed areas to homogeneous areas in Baghdad has already been well underway.
Additionally, there are two glaring problems that would come up, besides the fighting to gain those last bits of land. First, the Sunni Arab areas do not contain oil. The funds from the sale of oil would be greatly beneficial to rebuilding efforts across Iraq and the Sunni Arab area is unprepared to market itself on any other basis as of yet. Second, there is the Shi'a Arab enclave in Samarra where the al-Askariya Mosque stands (attacked twice already) as the burial place of two of the Shi'a Imams and it is also the site where the Mahdi, or the Hidden Imam, was said to have disappeared.
Further, one must also consider the regional implications of the plans. Iran would surely try to gain influence in the Shi'a Arab area, as usual. But the Sunni countries surrounding Iraq would also want to prop up their brethren in the area. Additionally, there is the tension that would undoubtedly rise between Kurdistan and Turkey should the Kurds gain any more political power.
On the other hand, maintaining a stronger national Iraqi government would lead to schemes to ensure that each side is equal (which ruffles the feathers of the Shi'a Arabs as the majority and of the Kurds, who would like to be left alone) and could be the target of any sectarian strife between the factions, accusing the other of using the national government to persecute those of their group.
So, should we further consider the possibility of partitioning Iraq, either within a confederation or as three countries? Or should we continue supporting the national Iraqi government?
As for myself, there are some benefits that I could see from the partition plan. That is, everyone would know where borders would lay. However, there might be a large movement of peoples across the borders to be with their own communities, reminiscent of the Indian partition, and as such, the potential for greater violence is certainly there. So considering everything, I am truly undecided as to the direction that should be taken vis a vis Iraq.
Note: This thread has nothing to do with arguments about whether the United States and its allies should have invaded or whether the UN had any say so in the run-up to the war or anything like that. This is about the future of Iraq, but with respect to some of the incidents that may have happened between the groups in the past, especially the Sunni Arab domination that continued through Saddam Hussein. We have plenty of other threads to debate what the politicians were arguing about in 2002 and 2003.
There are two possibilities for Iraq if it were to be partitioned. Either give each of the three sections (between the Kurds, the Sunni Arabs, and the Shi'a Arabs) complete independence or place them in a loose confederation with a rather weak central government.
There are obvious problems that would come with such plans. First off, mixed areas such as Kirkuk and Baghdad would become great prizes and a great source of conflict between the three factions (perhaps moreso than they already are). The fight to clean out neighborhoods from mixed areas to homogeneous areas in Baghdad has already been well underway.
Additionally, there are two glaring problems that would come up, besides the fighting to gain those last bits of land. First, the Sunni Arab areas do not contain oil. The funds from the sale of oil would be greatly beneficial to rebuilding efforts across Iraq and the Sunni Arab area is unprepared to market itself on any other basis as of yet. Second, there is the Shi'a Arab enclave in Samarra where the al-Askariya Mosque stands (attacked twice already) as the burial place of two of the Shi'a Imams and it is also the site where the Mahdi, or the Hidden Imam, was said to have disappeared.
Further, one must also consider the regional implications of the plans. Iran would surely try to gain influence in the Shi'a Arab area, as usual. But the Sunni countries surrounding Iraq would also want to prop up their brethren in the area. Additionally, there is the tension that would undoubtedly rise between Kurdistan and Turkey should the Kurds gain any more political power.
On the other hand, maintaining a stronger national Iraqi government would lead to schemes to ensure that each side is equal (which ruffles the feathers of the Shi'a Arabs as the majority and of the Kurds, who would like to be left alone) and could be the target of any sectarian strife between the factions, accusing the other of using the national government to persecute those of their group.
So, should we further consider the possibility of partitioning Iraq, either within a confederation or as three countries? Or should we continue supporting the national Iraqi government?
As for myself, there are some benefits that I could see from the partition plan. That is, everyone would know where borders would lay. However, there might be a large movement of peoples across the borders to be with their own communities, reminiscent of the Indian partition, and as such, the potential for greater violence is certainly there. So considering everything, I am truly undecided as to the direction that should be taken vis a vis Iraq.
Note: This thread has nothing to do with arguments about whether the United States and its allies should have invaded or whether the UN had any say so in the run-up to the war or anything like that. This is about the future of Iraq, but with respect to some of the incidents that may have happened between the groups in the past, especially the Sunni Arab domination that continued through Saddam Hussein. We have plenty of other threads to debate what the politicians were arguing about in 2002 and 2003.
