Why not partition Iraq as a solution to the conflict ?

Question

why not partition the country for example create a Kurd independent country, give to Kuwait part of the south and the city of Basora as compesation for the 1990 invasion give to Iran most of the eastern part of the country. to annex or give to the UN as a protectorate give Saudi Arabia a large part of the south along the actual border as payment for thier support, and the rest of the west between Jordan and Syria im sure they will taked a small central portion with Bagdad as capital can be left to the shia mayority as an independent state or put it under UN control is my belief that this will make the insurgency internal and external colapse and if not to turn against each other we most remember Iraq was created at the end of world war I before that there was no Iraqui State so lets called a failed proyect and do something diferent there had been precedents for this action the partition of germany afther world wars 1,2 the UN ca't say anithing abouth it becuse they refuse to intervine

Answer 1

Not that I'm against the idea of a Federation of sorts, per se, but here's some of the problems with it.

#1 - Any partitioning would have to include an agreement on how to split oil revenues. This would obviously be problematic to get them to agree.

#2 - While regions are predominantly one group or another, there's significant mixing of groups, overall, particularly in cities. To not be the downtrodden minority, many would have to pack up and leave their homes, jobs, belongings and move to an uncertain future with no guarantees. If someone is willing to stay and be the voiceless minority, they'd probably get "ethnically cleansed" out - I think my assumption here is also that if someone has something worth staying for, someone else will want to take it and will take advantage of the situation to do so.

It would be ugly and nasty. Moreso than the road being travelled now? I don't know. That's part of the frustration with the mess we're in. We're in so deep there are no "good" choices.

Answer 2

The problem is that the nations of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria don't WANT those territories. Would the United States be happy to annex a piece of Mexico because it was given to them? Certainly not. It would cause too much problems for the country who got the land. Creating three Iraqi states might be a good idea, but the danger there is that those three states would be subject to influence from other countries. The Shia state would align itself with Iran, the Sunni state would align itself with Syria, and an independent Kurdistan would strengthen resistance movements inside Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Those countries do not want an independent Kurdistan.

Answer 3

It's a question of trying to do the right thing.
Any kind of partition would result in war as Turkey and Iran moved to support their interests. The Kurds could be destroyed.on that they agree.
The Sunnis who sit on no oil would be excluded.
Something like this is already happening the question is can we damp it down while they take rational non-violent steps to divide up their nations wealth and political control.

Your plan
Kuwait is Sunni and Shiite Basra has no ties.
Jordan and Syria are deadly enemies.
Syria is Iran's satelite state and Iran is a military superpower in the region which would take on all the others and control the country

Answer 4

Because, the Iraqi people will someday come together and establish a working Democracy for them all to enjoy. Dividing the country into separate states with a central government will be the eventual outcome and once the proceeds of all the Natural resources are divided equally there will be a nation built upon a model that will work.

Answer 5

I couldn't but agree with brendan b.

I have to add that your idea is an absolute recipe for disaster.
Unless the US and their poodles withdraw there will be no peace in the area, and any peace there would be now would most probably result in the mullahs of all sects gaining the upper hand.

So it's choosing between pest and cholera for the people of Iraq.

I would like to hear you - after your country had been invaded and destroyed, in order to exploit its natural resources - react to a similar proposal for the US. Give the North to Canada, the South to Mexico, and let's have a UN mandate for California and Alaska.
Phantastic idea, isn't it?

Answer 6

that is an OLD idea dating way back to 1915 when the British who controled the entire region decided to setel the conflicts by deviding the entire midel east into seperate contrys.
they took the map and a strate edge snd devided it into the base of the new countrys not caring about who held the land at the time or the trading routs or the tribal lands.
this is one of the main things that started all the trouble in the first place.
So how would you do it now?

Answer 7

I do not believe that would work And leave Kuwait out of it, they
are an independent country. As a matter of fact that tells me you
don't no enough about that middle east to come up with a viable
solution.

Do more research before you ask a question..

I think you may have just made yourself an enemy of the
Kuwaiti people.

Answer 8

Why not leave them be and let them decide what to do? After they fight amongst themselves for a couple years/decades, we can then beging the negotiations with whomever comes out on top. It sounds bloody and nasty, but you just can't force a society to adopt to our rules. Look at Palestine/Israel. The west intervened in 1948 by making Israel a Jewish state and the Muslims that already lived there are still fighting for their land back. Sometimes, we just have to stay out and let a region/country/society work things out on their own, no matter how nasty it can get.

Answer 9

Partitioning of Iraq has generally been deemed unacceptable by all parties.

The forced relocation of thousands of people from each of the different areas would meet strong resistance. It would also act to strengthen the racial and religious divides that already exist leading to lots more bloodshed.

Answer 10

The combat has no longer something to do with Israel. i recognize that sounds unusual, yet whilst there became no Israel then Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon may be combating over the land purely like Saddam invaded Kuwait and Iraq and Iran are consistently combating.