It couldn't be done for Humpty-Dumpty, either

by David Grand
December 6, 2006

Some theorists conjecture that seemingly naive nursery rhyme often had concealed political or topical significance. That might be the case in Iraq. For as noted diplomat and author Peter W. Galbraith said in a recent TIMES  article, that "Iraq is broken and that trying to put it back together will only bring about more pain and blood for Americans and Iraqis; and that splitting Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite states may be the U.S.'s only viable exit strategy."     

Among other salient points he makes in favor of partitioning were:

• The breakup wouldn't make anything worse than it now is, what with the sectarian warfare having claimed tens of thousands of lives, and Sunnis and Shiites abandoning the idea of coexistence.
• Iraq is de facto already partitioned: in the country's north, Kurds, a non-Arab people, enjoy an independence they've long dreamed about, which has a democratically elected government and its own army (where the Iraq flag doesn't fly); in southern Iraq, Shiite religious parties have carved out theocratic fiefdoms, using militias to enforce an Iranian-style Islamic rule; and in the west, Sunni provinces have become chaotic no-go zones, where Islamic insurgents and Baathists operate barely beneath the surface.
• Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, is now divided between the Shiite east and Sunni west, and has become the front line in the war, with the al-Qaeda having a large role in the Sunni sector.
• While most Iraqis do not want civil war, they have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq, as shown in the 2005 national election: Shiites voting overwhelmingly for Shiite religious parties, the Sunnis for Sunni religious or nationalist parties, and the Kurds for Kurdish nationalist parties, albeit that President Bush continually asserts that Iraqis have voted for unity.
• Iraq's new constitution, approved by 80 percent of voters, is a roadmap to formal partitioning, by allowing Iraq's three main groups to establish powerful regions, each with its own government, control of oil in its territory and its own army.
• Under a partitioned Iraq, U.S. troops could still serve as an insurance policy against the threat of al-Qaeda in western Iraq, by deploying a small force to Kurdistan, which could readily respond to disrupt its operations; and thereby discharge a moral debt to the Kurds who fought on our side in the invasion.

Of the various options the U.S. has for coping with the downward spiral into a full blown civil war (all of which have a downside), partitioning  would, in my mind, be the least costly alternative in terms of saving lives and dollars, and having the best chance of succeeding.

Notwithstanding some bumps along the way, it's worked pretty well in India (partitioned on the basis of religion), in Cyprus and in Bosnia-Herzegovina, where a NATO peacekeeping force has created a secure environment since 1995. Hopefully, in the near future, our troops, along with those from other countries, will be performing a similar mission in Iraq, under the auspices of the U.N.