Fallujah gains independence

The sunni-shia rift runs deep. Iraq will likely need to be split into 3 nations at some point, but I expect a few civil wars to happen first. The same sorta thing needs to happen in Syria. These two groups just can't really live together.
 
Glaucus said:
The sunni-shia rift runs deep.
...
These two groups just can't really live together.
Click to expand...


I don't really buy this and think it's an over-simplification.

Much the same has previously been said of sects of other religions, such as Catholics and Protestants.
 
Yes, it is a bit of an over simplification, there are many more factors at play here. One of which is that the oil is not evenly dispersed around the nation. But religion is where the battle lines are drawn, or put another way, the religious leaders are the ones drawing the battle lines.

Most groups (religious or otherwise) that hate each other tend to eventually cool their tensions but only well after the two groups have expelled huge amounts of the offending population to the point where it's no different from redrawing borders. The main reason why Greeks don't cause problems in Turkey today is because the Turks kicked them all out and the main reason Albanians are causing problems in Greece is because the Greeks allow them in. Groups that had tension and then separated tend to get along better and when remixed the old tensions tend to flare up again. In Greece we now have neo-nazi like groups, often supported by police, who hunt out Albanians, Turks and Africans and terrorize them in the hopes that they leave. And so far it's been somewhat effective. And I wouldn't bet too much money on a last Catholic and Protestant peace. One day something stupid will happen and tensions will likely flare up again.
 
Glaucus said:
The sunni-shia rift runs deep. Iraq will likely need to be split into 3 nations at some point, but I expect a few civil wars to happen first. The same sorta thing needs to happen in Syria. These two groups just can't really live together.
Click to expand...
Internal division is partly why the British created it that way. A lot of conquered territory ended up getting bundled that way, moving borders around to bring disparate groups together. It helps prevent the creation of a unified front against whatever ruler you decide to put in place to run things for you. The idea to partition Iraq into 3 has been mooted by such luminaries as Joseph Biden (do I need to point out I was being ironic there?) back in 2006. How to partition Iraq was being discussed before the war.

And, of course, talk of partitioning Iraq goes back even before the 2nd Bush presidency. In a 1998 article from the Washington Post:
"A lingering Turkish suspicion, most recently voiced by Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, that the United States aims to partition Iraq by fostering creation of an independent Kurdish state in the north is another reason for Turkey's hesitation to support U.S. policy, particularly as it might apply to northern Iraq. The government here fears that a sovereign Kurdish state there would further inflame separatist sentiment among Turkey's sizable Kurdish minority."

In fact, Israeli strategists were looking at this back in 1982 (and probably before).
Yinon’s article, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” written in Hebrew, appeared in Kivunim (“Directions”), “a journal for Judaism and Zionism,” published by the Department of Publicity of the World Zionist Organization in Jerusalem. The Yinon article is considered one of the most explicit and detailed statements of Zionist strategy in the Middle East.

The essay was translated by the late Israel Shahak in 1982 and formed the basis of Shahak’s subsequent article, “The Zionist Plan for the Middle East.”
Click to expand...

The Zionist vision for the Middle East rests on two essential premises, Nakhleh noted. “To survive, Israel must become an imperial regional power, and, secondly, it must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states.

“The Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states will become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimization,” Nakhleh wrote.

“The idea that all the Arab states should be broken down . . . into small units occurs again and again in Israeli strategic thinking,” Shahak wrote.

“For example, Ze’ev Schiff, the military correspondent for Ha’aretz, wrote on June 2, 1982, about the ‘best’ that can happen for Israeli interests in Iraq: ‘The dissolution of Iraq into a Shiite state, a Sunni state and the separation of the Kurdish part.’ ”

“Ideally, we’d like to see Iraq disintegrate into a Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni community, each making war on the others,” said an unnamed Israeli official who was quoted in the July 26, 1982, issue of Newsweek.
Click to expand...
Hey, isn't that pretty much the Biden Plan?
 
You don't need to be a zionist or Joe Biden to come to the obvious conclusion that Iraq, and many other nations, would likely be better off with some sort of breakup. The Kurds already have some level of autonomy in the North East and something like that will likely be needed for the Sunnis. All of Iraq may go under one flag at the Olympics but aside from that they'll be mostly independent.

And it has to be that way. It's better to separate them and let them negotiate how they want to get back together later. If that doesn't happen then the Sunni minority will likely be more tolerant of al-Qaeda insurgents who they will see as allies (especially if the government cracks down harshly and indiscriminately - something al-Qaeda is counting on). Give the Sunnis autonomy and al-Qaeda will appear as the nuisance that they are.

I for one do not oppose Quebec's separation. In fact, I think it would be to our advantage to allow them to leave and then negotiate how they want to deal with us. If they think they'd have a better chance of negotiating with the US themselves, all the best to them.
 
Glaucus said:
You don't need to be a zionist or Joe Biden to come to the obvious conclusion that Iraq, and many other nations, would likely be better off with some sort of breakup.
Click to expand...
Which isn't really the point. The breakup of Iraq has been a long time objective of some, not for the benefit of the Iraqis, but to prevent the Iraqis from challenging the power of others. The breakup of Iraq isn't just an idea that popped up out of nowhere. There is the fact that a lot of old British mandates and colonies had deliberately bad borders but also the political and territorial aims of current actors cannot be ignored. The complete neutering of Iraq as any kind of power in the region was the aim of the war after all. If we can't guarantee it is US aligned then keeping it troubled, weak and fractured is the next best thing.
 
Fluffy, like I stated before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the ones who benefited the most from the invasion are the Iranians. The majority of Iraqis are Shia and are not likely to wage war with Iran any time soon. But Iran isn't the only benefactor from that. This also brings about a greater chance for peace now. We can't undo the war, but we can help with the peace.

Personally I don't buy your theory of keeping Iraq fractured makes Iraq weak. most of the oil is under Shia control, the next big chunk with the Kurds and the Sunnis are shit out of luck. The Sunnis can blow the shit out of whatever they want out of Fallujah, the Shia in Baghdad won't even notice while counting all their filthy oil money.
 
Glaucus said:
Personally I don't buy your theory of keeping Iraq fractured makes Iraq weak.
Click to expand...

You don't think a bunch of small nations fighting each other are weaker than a united nation all working to the same purpose?
 
This could have gone in the Syria thread but that one is already plenty well fed. Besides, it's more expansive than just Syria - but, the Middle East is uniting against Al-Qaeda.

Meanwhile in cradle of Al-Qaeda and still a big funder, Saudi Arabia, the king is doddering, bits of the royal family keep dying off and the internet is destabilizing religious rule.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
You don't think a bunch of small nations fighting each other are weaker than a united nation all working to the same purpose?
Click to expand...
A bunch of small nations fighting each other are weaker than a united nation all working on the same purpose. But what the hell does that have to do with Iraq? A nation totally NOT united and with citizen fighting citizen? The idea is that groups of like people are antonymous. Once you figure out how they deal with themselves then you can start to talk about how they deal with others. What makes you think the different groups inside Iraq wouldn't get along better if they were in their own nations defined by what they think defines them? Why must small nations fight amongst themselves?
 
Glaucus said:
A bunch of small nations fighting each other are weaker than a united nation all working on the same purpose. But what the hell does that have to do with Iraq?
Click to expand...
Really? Under Saddam Iraq could match Iran and worry Saudi Arabia and even make Israel feel a little uneasy. Now it's pretty much neutered.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Really? Under Saddam Iraq could match Iran and worry Saudi Arabia and even make Israel feel a little uneasy. Now it's pretty much neutered.
Click to expand...
Actually, Iraq should have done better against Iran but in fact Eastern Iraq was captured by Iranians many times during the war. Chemical weapons alone bailed them out. Iraq should have had the upper hand, but most Iraqis felt allegiance to Iran and had no real interest in defeating them. So much so, that Saddam was more concerned with his own citizens. Iraq under Saddam was a single nation, yes, but to say they were all united working towards a single purpose is truly laughable. The Kurds put up an organized armed resistance and the Shia majority also worked covertly against Saddam with multiple assassination attempts. Iraq was unified but not by it's own will. Saddam placed guns to a great many people. And those were the lucky ones. The not so lucky ones ended up dead in ways that make al-Qaeda killing sprees seem compassionate in comparison. The fact of the matter is, the cost of Iraq's "unity" was very high and paid for in blood.
 
Glaucus said:
Iraq under Saddam was a single nation, yes, but to say they were all united working towards a single purpose is truly laughable. The Kurds put up an organized armed resistance and the Shia majority also worked covertly against Saddam with multiple assassination attempts. Iraq was unified but not by it's own will. Saddam placed guns to a great many people. And those were the lucky ones.
Click to expand...

Something similar could be said of the US under Lincoln. Sometimes you just have to kill the ones who don't want to be under your rule. Nonetheless, Iraq under Saddam actually was a regional power and now it is just a basket case. The local competitors rejoice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top