Okay. I've read the comparisons of the Bush doctrine to the Truman doctrine before, but I am just now seeing how this war really is the test for the former that Viet Nam was for the latter. We are still just in the begining of the containment phase of Islamist Totalitarianism here and still kind of finding our way. But this enemy is WAY more dangerous than the Soviets: It is more critical than we can imagine that we get it right this time, even if it takes more years and lives than Viet Nam. We cannot let the social disease, er, I mean Leftist Moonbats, derail us again!

Either that or I have to quit drinking double Tequila rocks while reading about geopolitics. Now, where's that tape of "The Song Remains the Same?" That should make all kinds of sense tonight.

I've often wondered this... why isn't Iraq divided into seperate states? It seems that our Confederation of seperate states has worked pretty well so far. Since Iraq is a country where there are dozens of different warring parties, did they ever consider a plan like that?

If you laugh to yourself while reading this post, delete it and save me the shame.

Josh,

I'm not laughing, not in the slightest.

I argued last year (or was it 2002? It's too late to look up the link), that a multiethnic, democratic Iraq could be just the thing to start some positive trends in the Middle East.

On the other hand, no less an authority than Ralph Peters (forget his chest-thumping NY Post columns, and read his stuff for Parameters), argues that the best hope for the people of Iraq is partition. Three states, centered on Mosul (Kurdistan), Baghdad (for Sunnis), and Basra (for Shias).

The longer the insurgency continues, the more sense partition makes. Problem is, the bespoke-shoe boys at the State Department would never stand for it. (Neither would the UN - although State is a far greater obstacle than the idiots on the East River.)

Which means there's another danger I should have addressed in the original post, but failed to. Namely, that political infighting in the Executive Branch (State vs Pentagon vs White House) could also ruin our chances of making things right.

why partition is a bad idea

Ireland
India
Cyprus
Israel

those conflicts that resulted in partition never ended
If people can't live together peacefully they probably also can't live as peaceful nieghbors

I'm a little smug here - two of the insurgencies mention on the chart happen in pre-Malaysia Malaysian territory.

Proud to be Malaysian.

Oh, BTW, Iraq today is divided into 18 governorates, each having slightly less powers as modern USA's states. But quite unlike early USA, there isn't 13, established states to form a confederation.

One more reason a partitioned Iraq is bad: oil. Their is a vast disparity in reserves between the 3 posited states - and that would mean war.

Partitioning not Dividing. I think the idea of separate states has some logic to it. I don't believe the comparison to the USA can be made though, because the states of the USA were originally separate colonies which formed a union. Later states were created entities to form law and stability. I don't believe there was ever a case where states in the USA were formed to stabilize factional disagreements.

The logic in the partitioning would be that they still have to form a central goverment, but each state gets a level of autonomy. This could allow for area stability in that these ethnic/religious groups would have self interest to drive them in making the state work and eliminate factors that destabilize them. (i.e. insurgents) I think this can aid in stabilization, but not certain how it would work in the long run.

The other side though has an excellent argument. By partitioning, you can cause problems. Separating the groups causes unity, but also will cause the "grass is greener" problems. Who gets control of the areas that have the oil? With that control they have the money and then power over the other states.

Who draws the partitions?
What happens to peoples who end up on the wrong side of the partition from their native group?
By forming the states, are you not concentrating idealogical differences and setting the stage for permanent separations?

I don't know.
History does show that when religious differences are used for separation, that things get messy. (see above comment especially relating to Israel and India)

The statehood plan could work, but would require a very strong central goverment. And due to the differences in the groups I think the central goverment, if built like the USA's goverment would have some issues with the Shia having too much power.

Maybe the key is not to form just 3 states but several more. Partition the country in a more granular way. Then hope that the states self interest will overwhelm the religious self interest.

Very interesting idea. Thanks for putting it out.

I've been told that each of the three regions contains a goodly handful of people from one of the other two regions. You'd have to take their land and put them on trains. It would have to be over their dead bodies in many cases.

Back at the first Iraq war, I suggested that Iraq should be split into four states: the three mentioned and a Palestinian state between the Sunni region and Iran. There would be the type of massive migration that happened, say, when India was partitioned, but that would reduce the opportunities for conflict. I think the main reasons we won't consider such a thing are (1) the Turks would be furious at any recognition of the Kurds, (2) various enemy factions (both in the Arab world and in the west) would seize on the partition as a "root cause" for more terrorism and (3) concern that the Shia state would become too friendly to Iran.

I'm sure there are plenty of idiots to go around, but I suspect in this case you might be intending to refer to the idiots on the East River, not the Hudson. . .

A guerrilla war is only winnable if:

a) You have a majority of the populace on your side.

or

b) You're willing to use scorched-Earth tactics in the event that the majority opposes you.

Neither of these axioms holds true for us right now, so we're in for more trouble.

I've wondered a lot about partitioning over the last two years, but, due to the very real religious differences among the Kurd, Shia and Sunni, I believe it is a bad idea.

Ultimately, I think, our goal in Iraq is to have a democracy that can be emulated by Iran and the Arab states. If we encourage the Iraqis to split apart based on religious, tribal and cultural differences, all we have done is add 2 more crazy nations to a region that already has more than its share.

Look to James Madison who felt that a successful democracy needed "factions," which prevent the tyranny of the majority. And a tyranny of the majority is what you get in dividing Iraq by religion.

A federation of 18 governates could work. Geographic, rather than religious, imperatives should drive compromise, coalitions, and cooperation.

Think of Shia and Sunni together demanding roadbuilding to support industry and agriculture in underserved regions. It seems that they would be less likely to kill each other over who killed which wife of Mohammed 1300 years ago.

Economic prosperity, it seems to me, trumps ideological diversity. As some philosopher (or economist (or possibly, blogger)) once said: Man is never so harmless as when he is engaged in the occupation of making money.

This really is an idea that should be getting more consideration in the White House... maybe after W is reelected there will be some housecleaning at State?

BTW - the UN isn't on the Hudson, it's on the East River :-)

oops, didn't notice that kaz had already mentioned that...

How much of the violence is actually civil war, and how much is foreign invasion? There should be a different approach and different policy if the war is being fueled mainly by Iranian and Syrian insurgents as opposed to arguing Iraqi factions.

Partition would be a good solution if it didn't effect surrounding countries so much. If the Kurds were broken off, it would probably lead to civil war in Turkey as their Kurdish areas sought to seceed and join their Iraqi brothers. It also replaces one fairly powerful state with several weakling states, making them a much easier target.

Iraq would be a great case for a confederation or weak central government with semi-autonomous states. In any case, nothing will ever get better until we kill the Iranian and Syrian invaders and "convince" those countries to stop sending more.

Whilst partition is debated, in time the issue will resolve itself, whether by civil war or debate. The United States must make every effor to avoid a civil war but in the end, Iraqi's must make their own decisions if they hope to flourish.

You can't deny that the insurrection in Iraq draws some of its strength from the ability/willingness of Islamic militants to enter the country and from the covert support of the neighbors.

And they have hope: if we lose Iraq, we lose.

How to change that dynamic? War 101: open additional fronts. Can shoestring-budget insurgencies operate simultaneously in Iraq, Syria and Iran? (Note that in Iran's case I'm not suggesting we invade but rather arm and encourage an insurrection against the mullahs). And, of course, if we bust open Syria, we open up Lebanon.

Obviously, there are strategic issues with these scenarios - I'm not saying I've thought through all the implications - but toppling these regimes would restore the initiative and put the Islamists on the run. I hope our war planners are thinking big enough to consider all the alternatives.

From the very beginning of this war, aside from the 'if it bleeds it leads' negative slant common for the press, there has been a strong and vocal resistance from the left, in the press, in the congress, and in the opposing parties attempt to score points for themselves.

These forces do not go unnoticed by our enemies and show them a nation divided, like they did not go unnoticed by the North Vietnamese. The encouragement and moral boost the enemy gets from our press and the political contest here at home keep the fight and body bags coming. They know this is a winning scenario for them.

The fact all the conversation about this 'classified' document on American war planning, likely copied by an American, released to American media, and printed by that media for the enemy to read, is all about it's 'content' and not the astounding fact it was released to our enemies by the cooperation of several Americans and American institutions is the REAL NEWS to me.

It's just not a good sign folks. And I just hate to see our young boys over there losing life and limb for our 'freedoms with no responsibility' over here.

Hi Steve.......Idiots they are but they moved cross town, they're now on the East River not the Hudson.....Keep up your great work

The problem that I see with splitting Iraq into a Confederation is that the groups are not that clearly divided by geography. Saddam moved a lot of Sunni's into the Kurdish areas. They would not be willing to be ruled by the Kurds. Sadr city in northern Baghdad is mostly Shia. I'm not sure that they would agree to be ruled by Sunnis, having just escaped Saddam's rule.

Actually, this could be a heads-I-win/tails-you-lose situation.

Consider this: The longterm goal in Iraq seems to be to set up a prosperous semi-domcratic state that becomes the model for the region. People living under Islamo-fascism will look at Iraq and say, "I want what they have." The 9/11 Commission makes this point. It's the way that the West won the Cold War: show people that there is a better way.

What if it doesn't work? What if the people of this region, because of radical Islam, are just not capable of creating and maintaining moderate government free of religous and ethnic persecution? Then civil war gives way to splitting up the country, we get out, and we let them have at it. Maybe they'll spend their time killing each other instead of launching attacks against us. And if we remove the scientists and infrastructure used to create WMD (esp. chemical weapons), then that resource won't be available to terrorist organizations anymore: they may stay in a stoneage economy constantly selling oil for weapons.

It will also highlight why their people are so miserable. Arafat and Saddam were good at getting rich, keeping their people poor and hopeless, and blaming it all on the US and Isreal. We can say, "Hey, we tried. We really tried."

I read one reason why they don't split Iraq up (even though it does make some sense) is because the new states would be too small individually to balance out the economic and military power of Iran.

Your analysis is extremely limited if you're not going to consider Algeria, 1954-62. This situation is more like Iraq than any example you've listed.

Professor,

Algeria is a good example, and I'm surprised Dunnigan left it off his chart. But it might not be as apropos as you think.

France had over a million colonists in Algeria, and the coastal provinces were part of Metropolitan France. We don't have any colonists in Iraq, nor are we trying to annex the choice bits of it as new states.

In fact, we're trying to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible -- too quickly, in my opinion.

Steven: you're exactly right -- the French were rather poor colonial masters and we seemed to have learned that lesson. The parallel is really in looking at the FLN's ideology, rhetoric, and tactics and recongizing that we see the same thing from the "insurgents" in Iraq.

I use Fanon's Wretched of the Earth (1963) in my classes and my students always comment that it could have been written by bin Laden today.

Would that there were even a few "bespoke shoe boys" left at the State Department. A little world-weary aristocratic realism at Foggy Bottom might actually give the diplomats there a longer view and help us fight the war in Iraq and the war on terror for the long term. It was the British who fought that 12-year war against the Malay insurgency, you know - you better believe it was the "bespoke shoe boys" who ran the Foreign Office in 1948-1960. As it is, we've got middle-class, mediocre graduates of the "foreign service" programs at George Washington U and Georgetown staffing State - whatever they bring to the party it isn't what Vodkapundit implies with the "bespoke shoe" crack.

The reason why the thre state solution wouldnt work is simply defined by three words: Syria, Iran, Turkey. If the nation is divided, either one of these nations would immediatelly "liberate" the new country . Iran would liberate the shiite south up to nasariah, Sirya would go accross from nasariah to tikrit, turkey would liberate south into mosul.

Three states are too few. Go with the 18 governates or even split them up into smaller units. The most successful, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-language state is Switzerland. Use the Swiss as a model. Divide the country into cantons with lots of local control and lots of local democracy and votes.

Two, Iraq is merging its oil companies into one national oil company. Here, the model should be Alaska, where oil profits are sent to every Alaskan. Centralized oil is to much of a target to fight over, but if you give the proceeds to the Iraqi people, individuals will be empowered and they will want peace in order to enjoy the fruits of their oil incomes.

If the cantons then want to tax them, go ahead, you'll have elections to keep that in line.

The thugs of the region, both theocratic and secular, will violently oppose the mass distribution of oil revenues as much as they violently oppose democracy. Once people directly receive oil revenues there will be no turning back. Can one imagine the revolutionary effect of having young, unmarried women who are no longer economically dependent? This is a crucial measure, but we should be prepared to have it opposed by the most violent, ruthless, means available.

Just got a bumper sticker, “Lefties Do It Better”

Course I was thinking of Iraq, this misbegotten war, flawed from it’s first seminal spurt. If war in Iraq was the answer, what was the question? How do you create the perfect environment for the spread of terrorism, perhaps?

If this war was such a good idea a lot more folks would have got behind it. Rich irony that some here would like to blame the left for this utter cock up.
Regards, Wally Wunwatt.

We have a glaring example of what happens when you separate states by ideology in our own nation's past - the fractious period before the Civil War that required the equal establishment of "slave" and "non-slave" states. It didn't work, and only added fuel to the ensuing Civil War.

In Iraq, there is a vast number of non-indigenous fighters, similar to Vietnam where the North Vietnamese army regulars frequently fought as "VietCong". We recently saw the defeat of one such group in Najef, where even the locals got tired of the intereference and joined with the central government (weak as it currently is) and the United States in ousting these foreigners from their city. Fallujah is a combination of foreign Baathists from Syria, combined with other foreigners from Palestine, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and just about any other Arab nation in the region, and local Iraqi Baathists left over from the previous regime. They are primarily fighting to re-establish the status quo of Baathist - and thus Arab - dominance of the entire population. As the new government gains strength, and the United States and Iraqi forces continue to bleed the insurgents of bodies and armament, the insurgents will continue to weaken. That will force them to engage in greater and greater attrocities, principally against the Iraqi population, and end even what cursory support they currently have.

If the United States can stay the course for three more years, I believe the war will be won - even if the "battle" continues. The Iraqi government will gain strength, the opposition will be pushed farther and farther to the margins, and only the intervention of outside states will allow it to continue at all. Degrading or stopping that intervention would have the effect of causing the virtual and immediate collapse of the 'insurgent' movement.

"Man, those latenight blogging sessions can lead to some silly errors. East River, not the Hudson. I knew that, but I blame the martinis."

For God's sake, as long as you weren't wearing your PAJAMAS...

Turtle Bay sounds more fun to me, and accurate.

In my opinion, one of the most poisonous effects the debacle of the Vietnam War has had on US diplomacy and especially military operations has been the ascendency of the idea of the "exit plan". Get in, get out, wash hands, done. A great idea for politicians leery of taking serious responsibility for serious actions, but a remarkably bad idea for doing anything at all worthwhile. Sometimes, often, it's necessary for armed forces to stay a considerable amount of time. Always concentrating on a quick "exit strategy" is like some sort of ADD for geopolotics.