Why is it impossible to?

Question

partition Iraq into Kurdistan, Sunnistan,and Shiastan. Your would think "partition" is a dirty word. Neither Petraeus or Congress used the word. Yet it is the only solution in Iraq.

(1) Kurdistan already exists.
(2) The only communities left where Sunnis and Shi'ites live together are fast disappearing. An offer of a nominal bonus and safe conduct to a Sunni region would finish the job.
(3) An offer to mediate boundaries accompanied with a little cash would create Sunnistan and Shiastan.

The Shi'ites and the Kurds would get the oil. The Sunnis would have their cash and would no longer have to worry about death squads.

It's easy when you know how.

High school drop-outs, please note:
This is not a multiple-choice test. This is a political debate of much importance to our clueless, suffering troops.
You must give reasons for your opinion. Otherwise, it's just hot air, smelly at that.
Grow up!

(1) Chessale
Three separate nations inhabited by three distinct groups with intense hatred toward each other is better than putting them all in one nation, everybody armed to the teeth. Figure it out!

Chessale #2
You must be claire voyante. How did you know the end of the question? May hat is off.

Everybody in that hearing room had a responsibility to offer advice. Both Petraeus and Crocker had opinions on the subject and know more than Buckley. If they said nothing, they were following orders.

Congress is another matter. Most of them are idiots, but I expected more of Biden and Obama. Disappointing.

Matt W
Six US brigades sitting for one year on the borders of Turkey/Kurdistan, Iran/Turkistan, Kurdistan (including Kirkuk)/Sunnistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait will be a cheap solution to your problem.
After the dust settles, everybody can go home.

JR
About survival of the three states, read above.
The Sunnis will have it tough, unless they have salted away all the oil money they have been stealing from the Shi'ites for the last 80 years.
Many countries have it tough. Look at Africa. It is not in our national interest to get to close to the Sunnis or the Shi'ites.

Let the Saudis worry about the Sunnis

Answer 1

Because three is better than to?

Actually when I answered the question all you had up was the title and no other information. If you want cogent discussion on these points

1) Post the whole question at once. If you screw up take your hits.
2) Read some of Buckley's articles on the subject. Very well handled. BTW he likes partition.
3) This isn't for GEN Petraeus to say. This would be a policy decision to create a political solution and is outside his purview.
4) Congress won't say it because Congress has said there is no solution and we should just wash our hands of it.

Answer 2

The Turks would go nuts if there was an independent Kurdistan to the point of military action. They have already crossed the border more than once.

Shiastan would have roughly the same life span as the Independent Republics of Texas and California before they became part of the US. Iran would quickly and irrefutably annex these areas through a plebiscite. (Yes, I used that word to remind you of the plebiscites used by Hitler to annex Austria and the Czech lands in support of the Munich accord.

Sunnistan could perhaps continue to survive in such a world but would also make a nice target for Iran immediately thereafter.

You are right that this is the correct solution (a la the partition of Yugoslavia) since the different ethnic and religious groups have no desire to be together. Unfortunately the neighbors, Turkey and Iran, are likely to choose military and political options that are ultimately much worse than the current situation (a vastly empowered Iran and two allies, the Kurds and the Turks at war). Blame the British who originally drew the lines for Iraq. Blame Bush for getting this started. Blame, whoever, you want, but partition is not a positive solution for anyone at this time.

Answer 3

It would seem to be the obvious solution to the problem ; however, there might be some unwanted consequences.
You would have three independent countries with enemies for neighbors. The Kurds would almost certainly be invaded by the Turks, and Iran and Syria would very likely align themselves with the Shiites, and eventually try to destroy the Sunnis. This alliance would become a strong force opposing Americans and American interests.

Three small weak countries run the risk of being gobbled up by their neighbors.
Since there is very little tillable soil, or natural resources in the Sunni area, it is unlikely that they could be bought off with a little cash. They're smart enough to know that drugs and oil are, about, the only means for survival in that area.

Answer 4

The reply to #15 is HORSE. Its a type of hidden in undeniable sight type of questions. The approach you cost the laser on query #sixty four is beautiful hard, however you have got to begin clicking like mad at the mouth of the backside left bomb. Again I say its hard however it may be performed. I have performed it a couple of occasions. And approximately query that claims "do not contact the crimson" "do not you want you had a bridge?" All you have got to do is click on and keep down the mouse button and drag it throughout to the opposite dot. Took me a at the same time to determine that one out. Hope that is helping you men.