Playing the Indian Card

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Partition Iraq

We are hearing one heck of a lot of angst from the US military, from the UN, and from the press about Iraq being on the brink of civil war.

Ther solution is staggeringly simple. The US should simply partition Iraq. Problem solved. Insurgency solved. Civil War solved. What's the problem?

The British learned this lesson long ago, didn't they? Just about whenever you leave a conquered country, civil war breaks out, and partition is required.

This happens because one or another ethnic group has been favoured in the past, and fears future retribution from the majority. It happened in Ireland; it happened in India; it happened in Malaysia; why wouldn't it happen in Iraq?

Literally, the Brits decided that the thing to do is cut, and run. Not their problem, is it? Similarly, why is it any skin of the US's nose if Iraq is split?

And how would it be a bad thing? It is the one way to satisfy the Sunnis, who fear retribution from the majority Shiites for their bullying under Saddam. This seems to be the main motive of the current insurrection.

And it is what the Kurds have always really wanted. The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world, they maintain, that lacks its own independent state. So what would be so wrong with allowing them an independent state in northern Iraq? Why is it right for the Jews to have a state, but wrong for the Kurds?

And I do believe there is also no independent Shiite Arab state anywhere. So why not let the Shiites have their state in Southern Iraq?

What’s so wrong with allowing the right to self-determination of peoples that Wilson championed at Versailles? Why isn’t sauce for Europe sauce for the Middle East?

Just do it. Partition Iraq.

No comments: