You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq-Jordan
Should We Partition Iraq?
2004-04-28
Posted by:Mike Sylwester

#6  oops unworthy=worthy
Posted by: B   2004-04-29 8:18:28 AM  

#5  I've never heard that before, but OK..(B's mind working to rethink that whole meme). Considering the language of our forefathers and that it was through the structure of the church that things were really functioning here in the US, it's a new idea to me, but ok...hmmm...I guess I can buy that.

BUT, be that as it may, Christianity by nature, allows for people of other faiths to worship in peace. Islam does not. Christianity is about forgivness - Islam is about blame.

You can not have a representative government if your leaders do not believe that those holding minority viewpoints are unworthy of being represented.

I think for that reason, we should at the very least, divide them into states, that hold the majority the power for the day to day of their constituents and overarch on top of that a loose federal government that is based on the mutual benefits of cooperation between these states

....just as our country was set up or the EU should be set up.

For all practical purposes, they are separte states and I think we should recognize that and act accordingly, rather than pretend they are somehow magically going develop a multicultural consciousness.
Posted by: B   2004-04-29 8:11:58 AM  

#4  B, don't forget that our country's founder had no intention of separating church and state other than not creating a new American Anglican church. The Supreme Court paper-mache'd that idea together out of some strips of a Jefferson letter in the 1940's - some pretty effective revisionism.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-04-29 5:56:53 AM  

#3  I don't know the right answer, but what bothers me is their inability to separate church and state and the law from their religion. I'm not sure their culture is advanced enough to handle it, though I think their are plenty of Iraqi's who can.

Remember that the American Revolutionaries already had a good grasp of the advantages of these principals, having been separated by distance from the King. The Sunni's and Shia's just don't seem to grasp it...whereas the Kurds, having run themselves separate of the state for years ..seem to grasp it fairly well.

But more importantly - I think we should at the very least, divide Iraq into at least 3 separate states that are linked, much in the way as the EU is should be linked. Our own original states held the majority of the power in our early days. The federal government had very limited actual powers...just look at the history of the attempts to set up the lighthouse service to see how much of a gentleman's agreement the Fed govn't really was. They issued mandates and the states followed them if they felt like it. The Federal govn't in early America was not strong, but over time they grasped the power/advantages of a strong union. That wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

I don't see why don't apply those concepts to Iraq. They really are three separate states - denying it isn't helpful, IMHO.
Posted by: B   2004-04-29 1:47:15 AM  

#2  I dunno - the Kurds have deserved a state for over 500 years. They've proven it repeatedly - and been screwed each and every time. As for keeping it together, it just doesn't compute as relevant, IMO. Not even a tick on the old stability meter. :-)

Aside from that, I used to refer to SyrLeb as a two-fer. Fact is, it should be IraSyrLeb - and it's a three-peat. Whack the Mad Mullahs and Damascus starts waffling and falling into civil war as Baby Assad will be the first man down and whatever passes for Gov't in Lebanon dissolves. They'll all be very very bizzy with their own affairs. Just finish building those arms caches, broadcast the magic phrase ("Oh Pejman, these Karbala kumquats look mighty tasty!") on the Mohammad's Magi-Meals show, and cut the head off that damn sqawking chicken over to the East...
Posted by: .com   2004-04-29 1:21:54 AM  

#1  At this point a partition would only serve to carve up Iraq in convenient spheres of influence for Syria, Iran and Turkey. Iraq will function as a unitary state once we take care of Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Once we bloody the old 2x4 on the correct heads the cross-border instigating will drop the level of annoyance only, there will be a peacefulness that spreads throughout the area.
In the post thumping Middle East, I expect that Kurdish separatism will continue but with fewer outbreaks of gross violent behavior. Palestinian population in Jordan and Lebanon will remain politically outspoken, but will begin to assimilate into their respective nation-states. Also, economically speaking, Lebanon will make a highly effective trading partner for Syria. Lebanon's current status as a chaotic, subjugated vassal state is ruining a symbiotic economic relationship that has worked very well throughout previous centuries.
Balkanizing Iraq just results in inefficient and weak “statelets” that sub-optimize. Partitioning has resulted in poor economies in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and throughout the Balkans. It's a bad idea and would necessitate a perpetual American military presence in each state.
Posted by: Super Hose   2004-04-29 12:44:30 AM  

00:00