by Disciple of Science
The idea that Iraq can be divided into three nations sounds good on paper, but I don't have much faith in the ability of any nation, including Iran, to maintain borders between Sunni and Shiite Iraq. As we saw with the regime of Saddam Hussein: the only thing that can create a sustainable, minimally peaceful coexistence of Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq is an oppressive Sunni regime. Moreover, even if Iran takes control of the Shiite controlled areas of Iraq, the Shiite militias will still attempt an ethnic cleansing of the Sunni population with or without Iran's discretion, just as the Sunni population did when they began to defy their anti-American-occupying-force sentiment because their priority was the Islamic sectarian conflict that has been raging since A.D. 632, (the "Sunni awakening" was not the fault of the military forces of the U.S.)
I'm not saying that the idea of a divided Iraq is a bad or unrealistic one, I simply believe that it is highly unlikely to ever occur.
The idea that we should give our veterans the ability to teach without a degree is completely absurd. Teaching is the last profession that we should be handing out to anyone without taking into account their own education. Our soldiers are heroes, but heroism alone is as much a qualification to teach a child anything from writing in cursive to calculus as the ability to "see Russia" is a qualification to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
A Tale of Three Nations
Labels: disciple of science, Iraq, islam, shiite, sunni
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
No nation should ever be divided. The onlly good-case scenario was the USSR. Germany's division was a disaster; so was the Nigeria-Biafra secession. When countries split, wars start over the borders. So dividing a nation has generally been a messy process to say the least.
I am inclined to disagree, especially when there are pre-existing borders that can be taken into account (compare Kosovo, Montenegro, if Québec or Scotland were to secede, etc.). You've cited some bad examples, yes, but there are separate issues there—East Germany was a disaster for another reason (Soviet domination, primarily). It's worth mentioning, also, that Biafra was at odds with Nigeria partly over borders but mostly over oil.
In other words: messy process, yes. No state (I wouldn't say nation—if it were one nation, it wouldn't be an issue) should ever consider it? No. Compare Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Yes, it's tense between Serbia and Kosovo (and understandably). No, there hasn't been a war. It just needs to be done with careful consideration for the consequences. Compare the unintended consequences of India and Pakistan's split.
Perhaps, however, a better solution for Iraq would be a government more confederal than federal, giving the various regions a bit more autonomy. At the very least something like the various countries that have (semi-)autonomous regions would probably be a Good Thing.
Splitting up Iraq will result in Civil War. BUT they are already engaged in civil war. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and ethnic cleansing is displacing millions.
The borders of present-day Iraq were set by colonial powers with the explicit intent to put disagreeable ethnic groups together. Infighting weakened anti-colonial resistance.
So now, the colonies which the European powers divvied up a hundred years ago are actual self-governing states. No wonder there has been so much tension in the Mid-East and Africa over borders. The borders make no sense whatsoever?
The question which I don't pretend to know the answer to is whether Shiite Iraqis identify primarily as Iraqis or primarily as Shiites. If the former is the case, then there is a valid reason for keeping the country in one piece. But it would be ridiculous to keep the Shiites from a homeland if that is what they want. The same goes for the Sunnis and Kurds.
Of course conflicts appear when borders are changed; I understand that. It's true that we don't want to upset Turkey by acknowledging Kurdistan. But there comes a point at which the violence that will result from a split is less acute than the violence happening now because of the bad boundaries. Something has to give.
The Iraqi people should decide what they want to do with their country. The US should oversee the preliminary discussions to make sure that all parties are represented and things are running smoothly. We should then transition out of the region, staying only as a training force for the Iraqi military.
No independent source who has been to Iraq can tell you otherwise: The Iraqi military/police is a joke. There is no accountability, rampant corruption, and no willingness on the part of the people to secure the nation against terrorists. I say this without any anti-Iraqi sentiments: the Iraqis aren't doing anything; they're letting the Americans risk their lives for them.
This is unacceptable. We shouldn't continue to run their country for them; they're perfectly capable of managing it themselves. The US Military should let the Iraqi security forces go about their business without complete reliance on America. Otherwise our soldiers will keep dying, our economy will keep diving, and we'll stay in Iraq for a million years.
Let's start taking this seriously.
The Young Sentinel
Post a Comment