Would Iraq be better off as three separate states: Sunni, Shia, and Kurd?

Question

I was just wondering, because I think they would be...but I'm just asking for opnions...with strong detailed information as to why or why not. please

Answer 1

There would be no clean division of Iraq into a set of ethnic states. Border questions would be impossible to resolve, and there is also the question of what to do with ethnically mixed cities, such as Kirkuk and Baghdad. There would also be questions of equity (who has how much oil) along with access to water and transportation along the river systems. Also, there would be a Kurdish state in the north, looking to detach parts of Turkey and Iran.

The best solution would be a federal system with something like 10 to 15 provinces, all with substantial autonomy, to allow for different types and degrees of Islam, as well as ethnic differences. The key point is to have a great deal of autonomy for the provinces, similar to what we have here in Canada where, with some difficulty, we have been able to manage the relationship between ethnic groups and to avoid a break-up of the country (with one close call along the way). Break-ups of countries lead to a host of problems - just look at Yugoslavia.

Answer 2

Generally speaking, I think you've got a point. The problem is this: how do you separate the states? As it is now, the majority of the Kurds live in the north. The majority of the Sunni live in the middle. The majority of the Shia live in the south. This is how it has been proposed that they divide it, but the problem is very basic: the south section of the country sucks. All the best resources are in the north and in the middle. The Shia would get the bad end of the stick, a poor desert with little in it, and they would fight it.

Basically, from their point of view it will be like if you split the United States up, giving everything east of the Mississippi to Catholics, giving everything west to atheists and non-Christians, and then just gave Protestants the Dakotas. Nothing against the Dakotas, but there isn't much there, relatively speaking. I use the Protestants as my example, simply because they are the largest religious demographic in the country, much like the Shia are in Iraq.

If you split it up any other way, then a very large amount of people will have to uproot themselves and move. This would be very costly, time-consuming, and most people would not be willing to do it. That is assuming another way to divide the country could even be agreed on!

Eventually these people have got to learn how to live with one another. That is all there is to it. Even if they split up into different states, they still are neighbors. They have a choice. Learn to work together, or destroy themselves. Splitting them up will only aggravate the problem; delaying the inevitable at best. So it is a waste of time and resources to try it.

Answer 3

No! Iraq should not be divided. previously the U. S. invasion, or perhaps previously Saddam, Iraq had Shia, Sunni and Kurds residing peacefully. US coverage of solid-based branch and federalism has sown the seeds of latest discontent. Its in simple terms like saying, US states could be divided up alongside solid/creed lines - one for whites, one for blacks, kind Latinas etc. If the country replaced into divided into 3 international locations, forever Turkey, with its super Kurd inhabitants will take up the Kurd united states to circumvent its Kurds from turning out to be a member of the recent Kurds; further, Iran will the two capture, or impact thoroughly, the Shia section. and that's some thing neither u . s . a . nor the international might like. ultimate answer is to enable Iraq study to stay in a multi-cultural united states, using democracy through fact the thought.

Answer 4

Almost certainly they would, but the problem is the basis of the economies of each of the independent states. You would have the Shia in the South, Kurds in the North and Sunni in the middle.

It would be tricky to create three economically viable states, but not impossible.

Of course, you wouldn't get rig of the fundamentalist good-for-nothings running around killing people just for kicks. So it's not a guaranteed solution to the insurgency.

Answer 5

Well.. would you be happy if America was cut in half and a new country created???

Then stop asking stupid questions!!

Iraq is a nation that belongs to all Iraqis.. you cant conveniently cut it off so that it's easier to manipulate.. sorry.. that's happened too many times before now.. I doubt the Iraqis would fall for it.. nor accept it.. and Kurds have only lived in Iraq for 500 years as they were refugees from the Ottoman Empire who were forced to move into the Iraq hills.. they have no right to claim a nation for themselves in Iraq.. and only support USA because USA made them these false promises that one day they would have their own nation of Kurdstania in Iraq.. well.. maybe the Afro Americans in USA should annexe a chunk of USA and proclaim it AFRO-USA.. since most blacks in USA are treated like the Kurds as second rate citizens.. most of them imprisoned and "legally" murdered.. kinda like Saddam.. his murders were all legal at the time.. coz this is what you are suggesting happens in Iraq..

Once again.. hypocritically and selfishly..

Answer 6

In order for it to work. It would have to be decided which state would control the flow of OIL. Just like NOW. So instead of having one country fighting . You would 3 countries fighting over the oil.

Answer 7

No then they would just fight each other. They won't get along just because of separate countries. It's never done any good before.

Answer 8

Divisions are bad

Answer 9

segregation didn't work in America or South Africa and it won't in Iraq.

Answer 10

If they would leave each other alone, but it doesn't seem possible with them.