Partitioning Iraq is a Bad Idea.
Tue May 18th, 2004 19:15 MSTThere is an active discussion in blogspace, including at Roger Simon’s excellent blog on the subject of partitioning Iraq. The idea of a “rolling partition,” where the partitions evolve as smaller units join voluntarily together seems especially popular.
Half of this idea seems very good: democracy from the bottom up. But the other half is very wrong and impractical. It’s proponents also may have temporarily forgotten that we didn’t expend blood and vast amounts of treasure just to give the Iraqis a better life. We did it to get rid of a serious international threat, and to replace Saddam’s fascism with a “model” civilization in order to get at “root causes” of terrorism, partly by driving a wedge between authoritarian Muslim nations and their populations.
Splitting Iraq as proposed is extremely unlikely to work. Furthermore, such a collection of what… countries, principalities, city states… will greatly increase the odds of having one or more terrorist-supporting states in the region.
The proposal also ignores the fact that many Iraq’s have family in several areas and ethnic groups. Some of the bloggers are from Sunni and Shia roots. Furthermore, a lot of Iraqis think of themselves as Iraqis, not Sunnis or Shia. The ethnic situation is much more complicated than it looks, with families, tribes, gangs and religious variants all overlaid across the same people. Baghdad, where a significant portion of the population lives, is relatively non-sectarian and by middle eastern standards is somewhat sophisticated.
Look at this in a probabilistic sense. What are the odds that *all* of the resulting units will be peaceful? What are the odds that *all* of them will not aid the international terrorists? The probabilities get rapidly worse as you increase the number of units (although the base probability per unit might go down some). If you assume 5 units with an 80% probability that each will not go bad, the odds of having none go bad is only 33%.
In other words, the odds of this approach producing anything other than a disaster for the war on terror are about zero. The odds of it providing a better life for the Iraqis is the same (except for the ones who come out on top).
Consider geographic issues. Iraq has a lot of territory that would end up land-locked. Sunistan would be one of them, and also would have almost no natural resources.
The Kurds would be another, although they have developed decent trade capabilities and have some natural resources - oil and I believe minerals. But I suspect the fact that Kurds live in the surrounding countries helps their economic case - it becomes natural for them to be traders.
Allowing Iraq to fission is going to lead to all manner of complications and warfare. There are plenty of weapons there, and as in any society, plenty of bad people who will try to force their conquest of territory. In fact Iraq has an excess of these people as a result of the Saddam regime. They would try to recreate the Balkans, except with some WMDs. Even without the more dire consequences, it doesn’t make economic sense. In free societies, economics drives a lot of decisions. In balkanized societies, the balkanization becomes significant friction in the economic system, even if they all get along (fat chance) which would greatly increase the time to prosperity.
Look at the water issues. Who gets the water in times of shortage? There has long been a potential for war between Israel and the puppet government of Lebanon over water supplies. Here in the west, partially dependent on Colorado River water in the sixth year of a drought, we live in an area with many of the characteristics of Iraq - irrigated desert, disputed water sources, water shortage, lots of non-productive land, etc. We even have, here in Phoenix, an almost identical climate to Baghdad. It’s going to be bad enough when California, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado start fighting over this (not to mention the Indian tribes). But we won’t be shooting rocket propelled grenades at each other or occasionally turning loose nerve gas. In Iraq, Shiastan is downstream - it would be the most dependent on Otherstans’ water policies. Middlestan is far from the ocean and has no oil.
Iraq makes sense as a geographic entity because of history, existing infrastructure and population, and geography. Dividing it up makes sense only if the Iraqi people are unable to live with each other, and the constant bloodshed ant international policing and aid are acceptable. Ultimately, the whole thing would probably fall to an autocratic government which takes over the rest by threat and force.
If they won’t get along, we need to make them get along. I see no natural law requiring Iraqis to be at each others’ throats. We know the professionals can get along, as we see from the Iraqi bloggers, who write about these topics.
A much better approach, which is already under way is to bring Democracy from the ground up. The military has been working with small entities to create small, democratically elected governments all over Iraq. One of the medical bloggers who is near Basra has been to “city council” meetings there and had a voice in changing minds and resulting government actions.
Local democracy is a fairly natural development. As soon as the idea of a warlord is replaced with the idea of an elected and responsible government, the rest tends to follow - not perfectly, but it can work. These people are tired of warlords or central governors or whatever.
They need a central government to provide certain security functions, diplomacy, central bank functions, standardization of some laws, and to provide an appellate judiciary, but not much else. I think the most approach is to create a tightly constrained central government, with limits set by us (or the international community if we can get the right people to do the right thing). This should last until democracy, with guidance, grows upwards from the towns and cities to regions.
What they don’t need is a big government like the US has or they had. The more functions a government takes on, the more prone to corruption and favoritism it is, and the less responsive it becomes. This is especially true in societies with no custom of equality before the law and transparency.
As their society gains experience with democracy, they will undoubtedly expand the powers of the central government, but it should be discouraged at the start. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the power plays, of which we only see shadows, are between people in our government who want to have a strong central government so that our people can control it for their own bureaucratic reasons, and those who want federalism.
[Update: Historys End also has a comment on this.
I agree about the need for Iraqi Democracy to be “bottom to top.” Russia tried it the other way around, and it has been an unqualified disaster. Hopefully the State Department doesn’t screw things up for Iraq. A Federal system is the best approach at the moment, the Iraqis can change it later if they so desire.
Some times all the choices are bad. Including the choice to do nothing. All those in favor of defering a bad choice signify by saying “I resign!”
Walter:
I couldn’t agree more, but he never said it. He left at the end of his term in 2000 and then he and his awful wife stole the Whitehouse silverware. It’s too late.
Here’s my idea of ‘partitioning’:
I say, instead of partitioning Iraq, we should partition the USA; divide the country in two, liberals in one half, conservatives in the other.
This way, if libs’ want to sanction gay marriage, elect yet another philandering, sexually promiscuous president, place extraordinarily high numbers of their citizens on welfare rolls, and further remove all traces of Western culture from their ‘enlightened’ purview–in general, live in wholesale anarchy–then they’re free to do so of their own choosing.
On the other side–the “Norman Rockwell” half, that is–guys like me can occasionally enjoy a quiet, cold beer on the back lawn with friends, stroll with the wife on our city streets without fear of being gunned-down by drive-by-shootists,’ live neighbor-to-neighbor with ‘legalized’ citizens (as opposed to illegal aliens), and live without fear of being ridiculed for loving our country, and our religious and cultural traditions and institutions.
Trouble is, when I say things like this in public, my lib’ pals look at me as if I’m badly in need of a re-education camp. My question is, why do libs’ always seem to need a barricade to man; why, indeed, are they always rabidly searching for the next ‘revolution’?
“Agitate…agitate…agitate,” a dying Frederick Douglass told protegees, from his sickbed.
I say, why agitate, so?
An old high school girlfriend–a real fire-breathing, man-hating, divorcee-Medusa of a woman–recently instructed me, “You need to let your hair down, find a cause, get your political blood boiling….”
I told her I thought she needed to try to achieve an orgasm.
I guess there’s really something to that left-brain/right-brain thing, after all.
Sorry for rambling, this evening; that Rolf character has really begun to make me think….
Submitted for Your Approval
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Religion…
Rolflike Robert:
I think you already know the answer. Collectivisit thinking is a protective instinct for dying subgroups. Imagine a primordial soup where organisms are forcibly prevented or coerced from using evolved limbs to crawl onto the shore.
No one is allowed to leave. There’s no where to go but into your neighbor’s yard. You are forced to live with lesser evolved organisms. This is what they mean when they say they want “someone to bring us together”. This is what they mean when they say “community” when they mean “group”. This is what they mean when they talk about “the people”.
Enforcing these rules requires power, which explains The Left’s admiration for bureaucracies. Governments, coalitions, education bureaucracies, private interest groups, you name it. I think it was P.J. O’Rourke who said that bureaucracies are the only place where power is obtainable without merit or effort. That’s why The Left loves bureaucracies.
What’s wrong with partitioning? Partition Magic sets up your hard drive great!
Oops, sorry, wrong blog…
El Jefe es estupido. Via con Diablo!
Robert:
Find me a place on your side of the wall.
Revolution suits them. Revolution is about power. Power is the only stimulant left to them. Placidity requires a soul.
Rhod, Sallinger–as always, it’s good to establish contact with those who possess common sense. Sometimes I feel alone, like an island, surrounded in a liberal sea of lunacy. I tremendously appreciate your presence.
My wife told me just this morning, as I angrily paced the carpet in front of the television: “You’re overly concerned about things that aren’t really there. You’ve got to remember that November’s nearing, and the media’s turning up the heat, doing their absolute best to demoralize people who really care about the country’s welfare. You need to remember that the vast majority of people–even many Democrats–well understand the media’s role in all this. You also need to understand that, no matter how powerful these people are, they in fact represent a tiny minority of opinion in the country, and that’s the way it’ll probably always be. Dan Rather’s rich and powerful–but he’s largely insignifant to most, and that really must eat at him.”
So, thanks for being there when I ‘go over the top,’ or get a little down, guys. It’s great to know you’re out there. The icing on the cake will come when John returns from vacation.
Semper Fi.’
Robert:
Your wife is patient; mine thinks I have lost my mind. Which is not to say she doesn’t feel as I do, but that she handles it differently.
Yesterday, after witnessing Albert Gore’s latest seizure, I despaired (however briefly) for our country. I know what you mean about the Norman Rockwell world, a world which, as you know, is reviled and scorned by The Left.
Their answer to it is to dress up a demented, paranoid, sissified punk like Gore and have HIM define their view of America. And Gore isn’t the worst of the lot, just the most physically revolting and personally corrupt. And by the way, Gore is an idiot too. He is widely praised for his intellect. Good Lord! The type of rally Gore controlled is usually followed by breaking glass and “scapegoating”, if you know what I mean. We have seen this before.
The 60’s were disturbing. The situation around us today is immeasurably worse, and it is so bad we don’t understand it yet. It is late-stage post-industrialism nihilism that we’re seeing today, I think. The Left is infected with the Gore Syndrome, which is a permanent infantilization brought about by class insularity and arrogance. Something like it usually precedes violent revolutions, but they can’t win this one. No society ever turned the hotels over to the burglars.
Ah. Someone spelled your name for you. Take the Thorazine, Robert.
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Religion and Politics by Four Right Wing Wack…