A bi-partisan plan to divide Iraq?

The Democrats have long demonstrated that they are not really an opposition party as far as the Iraq war is concerned. The division plan may ultimately be the policy adopted but at present it still seems the US is trying to forge some sort of unity by giving the Sunni's some power within the central government but the civil strife within the country may generate more support for division as time passes.

White House, Democrats reported in “compromise” talks on Iraqi partition
By Bill Van Auken
26 June 2007


Top Bush administration officials have reportedly opened up talks with leading congressional Democrats aimed at forging a “compromise” plan for reducing US troop levels in Iraq that is predicated on the country’s partition along sectarian lines.

These discussions, first reported Sunday by the Los Angeles Times, are said to involve both US Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Washington’s former ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, who now represents the US at the United Nations.

Citing unnamed government officials, the LA Times said that these two and others “have been quietly talking with lawmakers about how to adjust policy in the months ahead.” The report added, “Among other ideas, they have discussed whether the United States should advocate a sharply decentralized Iraq, a notion that has seen a resurgence on Capitol Hill.”

The newspaper account cast the informal talks as an attempt by the administration to preempt another partisan debate on the war like the one that accompanied the congressional vote last month, in which the Democrats engaged in weeks of antiwar posturing before delivering the votes required to pass the $120 billion “emergency” war funding bill sought by the White House.

It quoted an unnamed administration official as stating that President Bush and other top officials in the administration “realize they can’t keep fighting this over and over.”

The Democratic congressional leadership has indicated that it will renew its bid to attach language proposing timetables for the partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and limiting the length and conditions of deployments in the occupied country.

Leading Republicans as well have indicated that they are expecting a shift in course by September, when the top US military commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker are set to give reports to Congress on the progress of the military “surge” that has deployed an additional 30,000 troops in the country, and on the level of compliance by the Iraqi puppet regime with “benchmarks” set in Washington.

The reported talks are presented by the LA Times largely as a matter of party politics, with the newspaper noting that “the odds of compromise are long,” given the Bush administration’s refusal to accept any withdrawal that would “imperil Iraq” and the Democrats’ reluctance to “sacrifice a crucial 2008 campaign issue if they agreed to a deal with the White House.”

However, the reported talks between the administration and congressional leaders on an alternative policy based on the ethno-religious partition of Iraq have far more significant implications. They provide an indication of the growing desperation within the American political establishment over the deepening debacle in Iraq and a warning as to the level of criminality to which Washington is prepared to resort in order to secure its interests there.

The apparent willingness of senior administration officials to discuss with congressional leaders proposals for Iraq’s partition comes in the context of the failure of the surge to quell resistance to the US occupation or reduce overall violence in Iraq, while American casualties are hitting record levels.

On the day after the publication of the LA Times report, a suicide bomber struck a meeting of US-aligned tribal leaders at a central Baghdad hotel, killing 13 and wounding dozens more. Meanwhile, the past week saw at least 30 US troops killed and many more wounded.

Senior military officers have warned that the present surge cannot be maintained indefinitely without pushing the current strain on the US armed forces to the breaking point.

The proposal to partition Iraq is designed to divide the country into three autonomous mini-states ruled along sectarian lines by the three largest ethno-religious groups—Shia in the south, Sunnis in the center and west and Kurds in the north. It envisions US troops—albeit in substantially reduced numbers—continuing to occupy the country indefinitely on the pretext of conducting “counter-terror” operations, training Iraqi forces and protecting US interests.

All of the so-called “antiwar” bills proposed by the Democratic leadership before it capitulated fully to White House demands also included provisions for this “reduced mission,” which would undoubtedly involve the continued deployment of tens of thousands of American soldiers and Marines in Iraq.

Senator Joseph Biden, a Democrat from Delaware and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has been the most vocal proponent of the partition plan. According to the LA Times report, UN Ambassador Khalilzad, who left the embassy in Baghdad in April, has organized discussions on the plan with Biden and his co-sponsor of legislation proposing partition, the right-wing Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas. Both men are seeking the presidential nomination of their respective parties.

Also sponsoring the legislation are Democratic Senators Barbara Boxer of California and Bill Nelson of Florida, as well as Republican Senators Gordon Smith of Oregon and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

Other Republicans have voiced cautious interest in the plan. Maine Senator Susan Collins, a moderate Republican, made one of the more revealing comments on the proposal. “It’s essentially giving federal approval to ethnic cleansing,” she said. “On the other hand, nothing seems to be working.”

Ethnic cleansing is the inevitable result of the Biden plan, and its supporters routinely cite the breakup of the former Yugoslavia as the model for their proposal.

In Iraq, such an ethnic-territorial division has horrific implications. Before the 2003 US invasion, fully one third of all marriages in Iraq were between Shia and Sunni. Every major city in Iraq is multi-ethnic, and the proposal for partition would turn each of them into far more bloody battlegrounds than they are today.

Substantial minority populations, like the hundreds of thousands of Turkomans concentrated in the area of Kirkuk, would be disenfranchised and prey to expulsion as part of this partition. Their plight would bring with it an increased potential of Turkish intervention against the Kurdish state.

The essential attraction of such a plan for those in the administration and the US Senate who are now reportedly discussing it is not its prospect for reducing sectarian violence in Iraq—just the opposite would be the inevitable result. Rather, it is a classic example of the old colonial strategy of divide and rule being played out once again in the Middle East.

The division of the country into three relatively powerless statelets would pave the way for the carve-up of Iraq’s oil resources by US-based energy conglomerates, which would dictate their own deals to the newly “autonomous” regions.

The seeds for such a political dismemberment have already been planted. First, the occupation authority headed by L. Paul Bremer institutionalized the division of the spoils within the Iraqi puppet regime along ethnic lines. This was followed by the adoption of a new constitution in 2005 which included the right of “regions” to form their own security forces and manage their natural resources.

The drive to implement a new oil law—the most important benchmark imposed by Washington on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki—only serves to deepen sectarian divisions.

The announcement Monday that the new US-dictated law had been approved by the Iraqi cabinet and would go to the parliament for debate was accompanied by a storm of criticism that the al-Maliki government had caved in to pressure from Kurdish separatists to cede even greater control over the distribution of oil revenues.

The law opens up Iraq’s oil sector to exploitation by foreign corporations for the first time since the early 1970s. Critics of the law have warned that it will represent a profit bonanza for foreign energy conglomerates, while depriving Iraq of both control over its resource and the lion’s share of the benefits derived from its exploitation.

Issam al-Chalabi, who served as Iraq’s petroleum minister from 1978 to 1990, told the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram that the new law is a “ready-made recipe to divide Iraq.”

The concept of partition has been most actively promoted by supposed “liberals” identified with the Democratic Party, such as Peter Galbraith, the former US ambassador to Croatia under Clinton, and Leslie Gelb, a former assistant secretary of state in the Carter administration and columnist for the New York Times, both of whom have written extensively on the proposal.

Biden, while posturing as a critic of the Bush administration over the Iraq war, himself voted for the 2002 resolution authorizing the US invasion and has voiced his full support for the illegal policy of “preventive war.” His central criticism of the White House was the failure to send in more troops after the US invasion of 2003.

That Biden’s plan for carving up Iraq is now getting a greater hearing within the Bush administration is only another indication that the Democrats, no less than the Republicans, are prepared to carry out the most heinous crimes against the Iraqi people in pursuit of the key objective that has driven the war from its outset: the securing of unchallenged US hegemony over the Middle East and its strategic energy resources.

Senators push for Iraq division option

One senator at least recognises it may be "slightlly arrogant" for the US to think it should determine the political makeup of Iraq but even this understatement is exceptional. Republicans and Democrats are united in their arrogance for the most part. The real concern is not for the Iraqis but for security of investment and oil supplies. However there is no sign of security improving much or even of the benchmark oil law making it through parliament since it is opposed by Kurds and some Sunnis as well.




By Rob Hotakainen - McClatchy Newspapers

May 6, 2007




Washington — Sen. Sam Brownback says there’s only one sure way to bring peace to Iraq: Divide the country into three states and separate the warring factions.

With Congress and the White House at loggerheads over a proposed timetable to end the war, the Kansas Republican is part of an unlikely Senate duo that’s promoting the plan to partition Iraq. Brownback and Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, both candidates for president in 2008, say it would give breathing room for Sunni Muslim Arab, Shiite Muslim and Kurdish leaders.

“I do not agree with setting a timetable for pulling out of Iraq,” Brownback, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in an interview. “The day we pass that is the day al-Qaida declares victory. ... This three-state, one-country solution is your only viable political solution.”

At the first nationally televised debate for 2008 Republican presidential candidates, on Thursday night, Brownback touted the plan when he was asked whether he’d differ in any way from President Bush on the Iraq war.

Some political analysts say it could be a risky move for Brownback, who might lose favor with conservatives by bucking the president.

The Bush administration, which is aiming to unite Iraq under one strong federal government, dismisses the plan. But it’s winning attention on Capitol Hill because it’s coming from two senators at opposite ends of the political spectrum, both with serious foreign-policy credentials.

Biden, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said the plan would allow the three states to make decisions involving “their local police, their education, their religion and marriage — the very things they’re fighting over.” He said the Iraqi federal government would be responsible for common interests such as securing the borders and distributing oil revenues.

Opponents contend that political solutions can’t be imposed on the Iraqis.

“It’s awfully hard for us, and frankly maybe slightly arrogant of us, to try to decide what politically will work for that country,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Congress had to return to the drawing board last week after Bush vetoed a war-spending bill that would have forced him to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq by Oct. 1.

Brownback said the stalemate gave Democrats and Republicans a chance to come together to end the four-year-old war. And he said the United States couldn’t sustain the war with one-party support.

“There’s a chance for both sides to show statesmanship on this,” he said.

Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia who’s advised the Kurds, is among the most enthusiastic backers of the plan. Galbraith, who’s written a book on the subject, argues that most Iraqis don’t want civil war but have rejected the idea of a unified Iraq. He said Iraq’s new constitution would allow the country’s three main groups to establish their own regions, each with its own government, army and control over oil resources.

When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked about the partitioning plan recently, she noted that Iraqis aren’t advocating such a structure.

“I don’t think it is practical, particularly along ethno-sectarian lines, to divide Iraq up and give authority based on your sectarian identification, to say there’s a Shia part of the country, a Sunni part of the country, a Kurdish part of the country,” Rice told RealClear Politics. “Baghdad is a completely mixed city. What becomes of Baghdad? ... If you try to do this, I think you’re going to have an explosion.”

A Conservative voice: Bush Appeases Iran

This is certainly a different viewpoint from most I should think. Sullivan is correct that allowing some democracy in Iraq gave the Shias a lot more clout in Iraq and Iran as well since some have close relations with Iran. This was no doubt a non-intended and problematic result of US policy in Iraq. As for the Kurds being great allies of the Iranians that is news to me. Of course they are willing to ally with Iraq Shias in order to have a joint policy that will assure Kurds control of oil in the Kurdish sector.
Eventually the US may pursue a three mini state policy but I doubt that is happening as yet. The US hopes that there will be a compromise on the oil bill that will assure control and revenue sharing that will include the Sunnis, for otherwise the insurgency is bound to continue.
Anyway it should be clear given the present buildup against Iran and the aggressive stance against Iranians in Iraq that to speak of appeasement is just a bit odd. Hakkim's own compound was raided and Iranians arrested.


by Scott Sullivan
Bush Appeases Iran in Iraq
January 31, 2007 12:00 PM EST



The Bush Administration, with its push for Middle East "democratization," opened the way for Iran's takeover of the Palestinian Authority via Hamas, Lebanon via Hezbollah, and Iraq via the pro-Iran militias. Thanks to these Bush policies, long criticized by the Arab states, Iran fast is becoming the dominant power in the Middle East.

Now, after delivering the Middle East to Iran, President Bush says he wants to stop Iran. Bush is shameless. This week, Bush is talking tough, even to the point where his officials are leaking press stories about US military strikes against the training camps for Iraqi insurgents in Iran.

Is President Bush serious about stopping Iran in Iraq? No. Bush is posturing in order to placate the conservative base of the Republican Party. Bushs loss of this political base would collapse what remains of public support for his Iraq policy.

President Bush is in a delicate position. Bush must appear to confront Iran in Iraq while his true policy is to hand over Iraqi political power to Iran. Hence, Bush issues his shoot to kill policy against Iranian agents in Iraq while giving way to Iran and its Iraqi Kurdish allies on the following issues.

First, Iran is pushing for Iraq's political partition into mini-states so that Ian can annex Basra and its oil reserves (whereas the Kurds want to annex Kirkuk and its oil). This predatory Iranian policy on Basra has US support. This week, the top Iraqi politician aligned with the US, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, again called for Iraqs partition into Kurdish, Shia, and Sunni mini-states.

Second, Iran and its Kurdish allies are blocking final agreement on Iraqs national petroleum law, which would bring Iraqs oil industry under Baghdads control. Without agreement on a national petroleum law, Iraq will subdivide into mini-states. In fact, Hakim's high-profile statements this week in favor of Iraq's partition, accepted by the US, were intended to help bury Iraqs petroleum law. The Iranians and the Kurds want the three emerging mini-states to set policy on oil.

Third, the US wants the monopoly of force in Iraq to belong to the pro-Iran groups. Such groups would include the Kurdish peshmerga militia, the Hakim-controlled Badr Brigades, and those elements of the Iraqi army and police under Badr Brigade/Hakim control. The anti-Iran militias such as Muqtada al-Sadrs Mahdi Army and the Sunni groups are being disarmed and disbanded.

Fourth, the US does not object to the arrival of a large number of Iranian colonizers and Iranian investment in Iraq. Iran is preparing to annex southern Iraq and Basra, while leaving embattled Baghdad to the US.

In short, under President Bush's policy, Iraq - at least southern Iraq and Basra - now belongs to Iran, while the Kurds, Irans ally, will take Kirkuk and northern Iraq. The US will be stuck with the Sunni province of al-Anbar, impoverished and radicalized by the loss of oil revenues, and with a large al-Qaeda presence. What President Bush opposes is that Iran would resort to force to push the US out of southern Iraq. For President Bush, the US will withdraw from Iraq on its own timetable, not one set by Iran.

Iran-Watch.com