Let's try partitioning the US

Let's try partitioning the US
By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News
Published: October 02, 2007, 00:12


As if they haven't done enough damage bombing and invading a country on false pretences, destroying its culture and leaving it a charred shell of its former self, they - American lawmakers who gave President George W. Bush authority to go to war - now want to divide Iraq up into easily manageable bite size entities.

Isn't Iraq supposed to be a sovereign nation with an elected government? If so, then why is the US Senate attempting to meddle in its affairs by overwhelmingly passing a resolution calling for the country's partition into three, which is tantamount to ethnic cleansing? Not to put too fine a point the shape of Iraq to come isn't their business.

Moreover, even if they had a stake in the country they are responsible for destroying, which they certainly do not, American senators who may or may not have enjoyed a two-day jaunt to Baghdad's Green Zone are not qualified to be the deciders.

The Iraqi government was quick to put a damper on the proposal. Its spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh said "It's the Iraqis who decide these sorts of issues, no-one else".

According to a recent ABC/BBC poll a mere nine per cent of Iraqis favour the break-up of their country.

The Arab League was equally condemnatory. Its Iraq representative Ali Al Garush called upon Arab nations to stand by the Iraqi people in their opposition to the proposal.

Secretary-General of the GCC Abdul Rahman Al Attiyah said partition would make the situation in Iraq more difficult and complicated. Official statements from Syria and Iran were even more scathing.

With so much Iraqi and regional hostility against the plan what are those 75 senators that voted in favour of it thinking? It was Democratic Senator Joseph Biden a presidential hopeful who initiated the vote.

Biden explained his rationale during a news conference. He maintains his proposal offers a way to bring home American troops while leaving behind a stable Iraq. It's evident that his thinking is based on a series of false premises.

First of all the future of Iraq should not be designed around a convenient exit for US troops. Biden and his fellows should understand a simple principle. American troops are the interlopers not the Iraqi people, who have suffered enough already.

Secondly, the partitioning of Iraq into a loose federation of Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish states will not bring stability as he suggests. There would have to be a massive displacement of people, many of whom would end up impoverished or homeless.

Such a division would also lead to friction over natural resources. For instance, Biden's plan calls for just 20 per cent of oil revenues going to Sunnis, who already feel hard done by after losing the political influence they once enjoyed. There is also the question of which mini-state would control oil-rich Kirkuk, an ethnically-mixed city strongly coveted by the Kurds.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that such insular states would not be mutually hostile, further exacerbating existing ethnic tensions.

Thirdly, although many Kurds are amenable to complete autonomy, their neighbours are most definitely not. If a Kurdish state became a reality it's probable that Turkey would invade.

Turkey fears that such an entity would unduly influence its own Kurdish population, which has its own separatist ambitions. Iran also has strong objections.

Fourth, such a break-up would stand as a worrying precedent for vulnerable countries in the region with multi-ethnic populations.

Either Biden is completely clueless and is unaware of the havoc such a breakup of Iraq would wreak, or he harbours a more sinister agenda.

Rendered toothless

If Iraq were to be broken into three, the nation would be rendered toothless for all time in the same way the former Yugoslavia is today.

The US would then have an excuse to stay around in some force "to protect" such tiny fledgling states from each other and from their neighbours. In fact, it would consolidate complete domination of their oil because such small entities would no longer have a voice.

The biggest winner from the partitioning of Iraq would be Israel, whose officials and journalists have long advocated such division.

On the Shalom TV website there is an interview with Joe Biden who refers to Israel as the "single greatest strength America has in the Middle East" and proclaims with pride "I am a Zionist". We should believe him.

Biden claims his plan is misunderstood. He also says that the US has every right to have its say because the US is sacrificing its blood for...well you all know, democracy, freedom etc...oh yes and oil in Iraq. The general reaction in Iraq and the Arab press is outrage at the Senate motion. It really is amazing how completely dense the Senate is about reactions to what it does.
Of course the facts on the ground is that there is a tendency towards exactly this type of division and the recent move of the US to support Sunnis in Anbar will advance this.

Here's a suggestion for the Arab world. How about a vote on the break-up of America?

How about giving California back to Mexico, returning Hawaii to its indigenous islanders and Alaska to the Eskimos and Indians?

Let's restrict Caucasians to the East and West coasts, and package-up a few states in between for African Americans and Latinos. And while we're about it, let's invite foreign conglomerates to buy up the country's oil, gas and timber.

Outrageous ethnic cleansing that might be but that's exactly what Biden and friends think they have the right to do in Iraq. Surely if such uninformed nose-poking is good enough for Washington, it's equally appropriate for the rest of us.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com. Response to this article may be considered for publication


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carving up Iraq: An Arab Viewpoint

Strange isn't it that only an Arab news organ can see the division as part of a divide and rule policy and in line with the PNAC. Probably many Americans still haven't a clue what the PNAC is. This is from the Arabnews.. Note that the plan itself is an idea put forth by a leading Democrat Senator Biden.


Editorial: Carving Up Iraq
29 September 2007

The US Senate motion Thursday that Iraq be divided into three “federal” units for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds gives practical shape to the principle of divide and rule, enshrined in the neocon “Project for the New American Century” that has underpinned everything that the Bush White House has done since the 9/11 attacks gave it the excuse to attack first Afghanistan and then Iraq.

The architect of the Project, Richard N. Perle — nicknamed by Washington insiders “The Prince of Darkness” — was closely associated with the administration hawks, not least former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. A past adviser to both the Pentagon and Israeli’s right-wing Likud Party, Perle believes that US military power has to be extended worldwide, to control key resources, including oil. That Perle has since become a public critic of the Iraq invasion has nothing to do with any change of heart. Rather he blames the incompetence of the administration in the key post-invasion period, where lack of proper planning and grossly optimistic assumptions about the reactions of Iraqis to Saddam’s ouster led to chaos. Yet this may itself be a subterfuge. It is precisely because the invasion plunged Iraq into anarchy that the idea of dividing the country up has now gained leverage.

And leave it to the Democrats in the Senate to indulge the idea that America has any right to divvy up Iraq in the first place. This crass violation of the sovereignty of a country was put forward by leading Democrat Joe Biden, whose party is busy trying to figure out how to distance itself from a war that has become unpopular with American voters while at the same time maintaining a hawkish stance toward the global war on terror. Good luck.

Domestically, carving up Iraq like a holiday turkey is indeed an attractive solution to America’s quagmire problem. US electors might back an extended US military commitment in the country if they were assured that partition could bring peace and US forces would come home with their heads held high, this time chanting “Mission Accomplished” and meaning it.

From an Iraqi point of view, division is anathema. Leaving aside the outrageous proposition that the future of Iraq should be decided in the US Congress and not by Iraqis, partition would tear apart the many mixed communities that still live together in harmony and take pride first and foremost in being Iraqis, not Shiites, Sunnis or Kurds. A partitioned Iraq would draw front lines along which hothead radicals from each community, often manipulated by cynical politicians, could confront each other sure that their rears was secure. Divided, no Iraqi community could resist outside interference. And no doubt Washington would underwrite the autonomy of each “statelet”, giving it the right to interfere as and whenever it wished just as it has done with the Palestinian elections.

Is it any wonder the Arab world finds an arrogant Senate vote on the destiny of Iraq unacceptable and utterly contemptible?

Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq

This is from the Washington Post.
It seems that there is a bi-partisan agreement that it is appropriate for the US Senate to rule on how Iraq should be divided and organised. I wonder what the US would think if Russia or China passed a resolution indicating what States there should be in the US and what the relationship should be between them and the federal government. Of course they would think that Russia or China had no business doing that and that it was an insult to US sovereignty.
THe US acts as if it were an occupier and the real sovereign power in Iraq. Of course it is and acts such as this show that talk of democracy in Iraq is for public consumption.
Unfortunately for the US it cannot always determine what will happen in Iraq. Certainly events on the ground are already tending in the direction of three regions but there are some nationalists including Sadr and many of the Sunnis who want a strong central government. The US plan is likely to excacerbate the civil and ethnic strife and result in even more ethnic cleansing.

Senate Endorses Plan to Divide Iraq
Action Shows Rare Bipartisan Consensus

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 3:38 PM



Showing rare bipartisan consensus over war policy, the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed a political settlement for Iraq that would divide the country into three semi-autonomous regions.

The plan, conceived by Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), was approved 75-23 as a non-binding resolution, with 26 Republican votes. It would not force President Bush to take any action, but it represents a significant milestone in the Iraq debate, carving out common ground in a debate that has grown increasingly polarized and focused on military strategy.

The Biden plan envisions a federal government system for Iraq, consisting of separate regions for Iraq's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish populations. The structure is spelled out in Iraq's constitution, but Biden would initiate local and regional diplomatic efforts to hasten its evolution.

"This has genuine bipartisan support,and I think that's a very hopeful sign," Biden said.

One key Republican supporter was Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who under strong White House pressure last week abruptly withdrew his support for a proposal to extend home leaves for U.S. troops. Numerous Republicans considered supporting the extension, but they backed off when Warner reversed his stance. The veteran GOP lawmaker called the vote on the Biden plan "the high-water mark" for bipartisan efforts on Iraq this year.

Warner said the vote represented a de facto acknowledgement of the now widely held view that Iraq's long-term problems cannot be solved militarily. "This amendment builds on that foundation," said Warner. "This amendment brings into sharp focus the need for diplomacy."

The resolution collected an unusually diverse group of co-sponsors who disagree sharply on other aspects of the war, in particular how long U.S. combat troops should remain. The list ranges from conservative Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), a GOP presidential contender, to liberal Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.).

"We can't walk away from Iraq," said Hutchison. "That would make all the sacrifices that have been made irrelevant. But we do have a potential solution that can save American lives in the future."

Boxer said: "I see here a light at the end of a very, very dark tunnel. A darkness that is impacting our nation. It's impacting the Senate. In a way, we are paralyzed."

The vote also was a political boon for Biden, one of the Democrats' most respected foreign policy voices, yet a long-shot for his party's 2008 presidential nomination. The floor debate, which started last week, provided the struggling candidate with a moment in the spotlight -- and Biden made the most of it. He spent hours on the Senate floor, held two news conferences, and placed an op-ed Monday in the State, a newspaper in Columbia, S.C., an early 2008 primary state.

Two of Biden's competitors, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), voted with him. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) missed the vote, as did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a GOP presidential candidate and a leading war supporter.

Biden has made his Iraq plan the centerpiece of his 2008 candidacy, and he will likely herald his Senate success in a Democratic debate tonight in New Hampshire.