Not A Partition
- 09.07.2007 - 7:42 PMThe great Charles Krauthammer—and I’m not being ironic: I really do think he’s a great columnist and thinker—has an article today claiming that “Iraq is being partitioned” as a result of General David Petraeus’s strategy of raising a grass-roots rebellion of Sunnis against al Qaeda in Iraq. He thinks this is a great step.
I agree that the Sunni revolt is good news, but is it actually leading to a partition of the country? Depends on your definition of “partition.”
Question: Is America “partitioned” into 50 states? By the loose definition of “soft partition” that some (like Krauthammer) use, you could say yes. After all, the federal government doesn’t provide most basic services, from welfare to policing to education; at most it supplements locally provided services (e.g., the FBI backs up or supplants local law enforcement in a few instances) and provides funding (e.g., “block grants”) to pay for locally provided services. While you could describe this arrangement as a “soft partition,” the more commonly accepted term is “federalism,” and it is a good description of what is happening in Iraq.
Pretty much everyone agrees that there should be some degree of decentralization in Iraq, with the central government in Baghdad taking care of a few responsibilities (such as the army, foreign policy, and splitting oil revenues) and the rest of the governance functions delegated to provinces and municipalities (with funding provided from Baghdad). The chief success of American troops in the past year in Anbar and other provinces has been in beefing up local law enforcement functions, within a framework of a larger Iraqi state. For instance, the Iraqi army, composed of Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites, is actively working with Sunni militias and local Sunni-dominated police forces to fight al Qaeda.
That hardly constitutes vindication, to my mind, of those who advocated partitioning Iraq into three new states composed exclusively of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. That is a “solution” still rejected by most Iraqis: it would be almost impossible to implement without tremendous bloodshed because most of Iraq’s eighteen provinces have mixed populations. Federalism, on the other hand, is a way that Iraq can remain a single state while still recognizing great differences between different provinces. Why this should be called “partition” is a bit of a mystery.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
September 7th, 2007 at 9:13 PM
That solution is still rejected by most Iraqi politicians not the Iraqi people! The results of a recent poll commissioned by the BBC, ABC News, and some other news institutions in April 2007 show a different view. The most important question in the poll with regard to the concept of partition reads, “Which of the following structures do you believe Iraq should have in the future?” The respondents had to choose from three answers: “One unified Iraq with a central government in Baghdad”; “Regional states with their own government and a Baghdad federal government” and “A country divided into separate independent states”. 59% of Shiite survey respondents are in favor of federalism and self-rule and 19% among that 59% want a complete separation and an independent state! Most Kurds want independence too or at least a loss federalism so there is a radical shift among the majority of Iraqis when it comes to the soft partition plan.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:29 PM
American “partition” isn’t partition at all, but freedom of movement and freedom of association.
Perhaps the answer lies there; making not 3 sections or separate countries, but drawing state lines as organically as possible. We might have 6 or 8 states that would still require a very strong military/police presence, but would still allow for movement and association wherever the citizen pleased.
It doesn’t please me to live in San Francisco or New York city because neither of those places, generally speaking, reflects the kind of values that I personally hold.
States in Iraq could similarly produce regions that were mostly Sunni, Shiite or what have you, but there would also be more cosmopolitan areas where people just wanted to live. The only real objection to a Kurdish nation is that they would inherit so much oil by default. With the creation of states, the rest of the country could still enjoy the economic benefits of their neighbors without necessarily having to put up with them.
(Kind of like America putting up with New York city, and New Yorkers being free to think that the rest of the country revolves around them. Most Americans will never go to NYC and will be just fine with that, while NYC’ers will rarely venture much farther away than perhaps Teaneck unless they’re flying to Florida of course. But no one is declaring war on each other unless one considers certain ideological agendas that only find strength in some coastal enclaves as a form of warfare on the rest of us - paste a smile on the end of that.)
To that end however, it would be important that one or two population centers in Iraq not be able to dictate to the rest of country their wishes.
September 7th, 2007 at 9:40 PM
Dr. Krauthammer, as a trained psychiatrist, ought to know better than to assume that the average Iraqi’s sense of identity is as reductionist as a die-hard jihadi’s, or even as a Western intellectual’s.
September 8th, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I too think that Charles Krauthammer is one of our top thinkers - if not the top one. If America was to have a dictator, he’d be on my short list of approved people to hold the position. However, I happen to agree with you Mr. Boot on this one. Maybe I’m too much of an optimist for my own good, but I have a little more faith than CK that this democracy project in Iraq is going to work. I even had this confidence over the past few years when things were going poorly in Iraq. It seems to me that human nature is a neglected facet in this debate. Would you rather be ruled by Taliban type extremists? A ruthless dictator? Or would you rather have a govt where you can vote for your leaders and live without fear of the state knocking down your door?
For all the troubles in Iraq right now (al-Qaeda terrorists, sectarianism, tribalism, Baathists, a culture left over from a Stalinist dictatorship), I think that - eventually - we will see a viable democracy emerge. The desire to marginalize all those barriers to peace trumps the desire to continue with them. I rarely disagree with CK, but I think and certainly hope, that he’s wrong on this one.
September 8th, 2007 at 8:07 PM
A unified nation will require a national army dedicated to that union. A condition precedent to establishing a viable national army will be the destruction of the local militias and their bosses. (Co-opting is an alternative but this requires the destruction or absolute intimidation of the Shi’a militia bosses.) Such a military triumph would make a national army relatively strong and capable of unifying the country - federal or not. This would also enable politicians in Baghdad to be statesman rather than puppets of the militias.
Can the Surge accomplish this in the Shi’a provinces? That is the most critical question. Based on what I see happening in Basra, conquering the Shi’a militias appears dubious. This would leave a weak national government at best.
As for establishing a democracy, I see no evidence that the majority will respect the rights of a minority and I see no evidence that either the Sunni or the Kurdish minorities will submit in any substantive way to a Shi’a majority. There is no reason for optimism at this point.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:29 AM
If tribal loyalties are as pronounced as has been lately asserted, they should manifest themselves within each Iraqi sect. That is presumably the best hope for mitigating the influence of hard-core militias as it seems to have been vis à vis al-Qaeda.. Taken in conjunction with steady efforts to build a non- or trans-sectarian Iraqi military and police, it may be possible gradually to displace the militias. The militias are fueled by a combination of external aid and mutually-reinforcing popular fears. The more outside meddling (read: Iran, Syria, Saudi Wahhabis, other global jihadis) is reduced and the more peace and quiet is provided and fear is lessened by US/Iraqi security forces working with tribal leaders, the better the chances. There is an element of faith here that the respective groups don’t want to be ruled by gangs, even gangs from their own conmunities, given a decent alternative. Of course if you accept the view that ethnic cleansing has already gone beyond the point of no return, that the Iraqi army and police are hopelessly infiltrated and compromised by the militias and that Iraq’s three main groups simply hate eachother’s guts with a genocidal passion, partition becomes the default argument and the Surge was a waste of time, effort, money and lives. That’s essentially the libs’ new fall-back position, btw: Iraq is becoming more peaceful not because of the Surge or even owing to tribal moderation, but because previously mixed, ergo conflict-ridden districts have either been forcibly homogenized or are now virtual ghost towns. And everyone can cite chapter and verse for his proposition. I think we should listen to Gen. Petraeus and I’m willing to rely on his considered judgment because I don’t think he has any particular axe to grind. He won’t advocate risking more American lives unless he is deeply and informatively convinced it is worth it.
September 10th, 2007 at 1:19 AM
I think for now, many Iraqis would want whatever the solution is to be a solution that keeps the soccer team togeether.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:31 AM
FWIW, I didn’t hear much from Gen.Petraeus or Amb.Crocker re whether ethnic cleansing itself has contributed to “peace and quiet.” That’s too bad because it’s likely to be a major anti-war talking point from now on. (George Will pounced on it.) Col.Gentile, a respected US commander, has long cited sectarian bias itself as a critical index of future success or failure. Is there any polling data on intra-Iraqi prejudice?