"The fantasy is over, WE must partition Iraq and get out now ...WE should not have gone to Iraq because going to Iraq implied staying and staying implied leaving. Now begins the leaving, and it will be bloody. All else is an illusion... Iraq is no longer about nation building or democracy spreading or reputation enhancing. It is about getting out in the best possible order..." (Simon Jenkins)

Talk about arrogance! Arrogance=df: pride and self-importance in a rude way that shows no respect for other people, e.g. "His arrogance made him unpopular" (links quite appropriately to latest threads).

So much care for what the Iraqi people as a whole thinks and wants!... But images of the last days the American troops spent in Vietnam are back to haunt one, aren't they?

You said it, Simon Jenkins, "this is not about reputation enhancing". Really not.

If the east perceives the west as imperial, then it these same reasons. Look at what British have done in history divided Africa into smaller enclaves. The same old divide and conquer is being again proposed in Iraq

Give Iraq three autonomous regions. Let them rule regionally and meet to decide national problems. This is still a democratic solution for the middle east and Bush could see it as a "victory" The greater fear is that the Shiites begin a consolidation from Iran though Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and more to unite the Muslims in their efforts to overthrow Israel. I think we have set the coalition in motion when we destabilized Iraq. Bush wanted to be a hero in the middle east. He wanted to be greeted by Iraqi's as their liberator. No such luck, instead we have set the wheels in motion for a Shiite consolidation of power.

It was only through establishing 13 independently governed states, that the United States of America was able to achieve consensus for a national government. Why would a region with perhaps even more diverse populations be different?

Why the surprise--Its in the West's tradition: "Divide and conquer." An arrogant tradition, at that.

The West can only succeed as itself unifies in strenght, while watching others divide in weakness.

Iraqis and everyone in the region have known this from the very beginning--that's exactly why it won't happen!

They're not as stupid as the West would like to think.

Over a thousand years of living side by side as neighbors, friends and even spouses: Christian/Shiite/Sunni/Kurd in Iraq have NEVER in history fought a Civil War and NEVER WILL!

This is all about correcting a British cartographers mistake at the end of WWI when they sat down to cut up the old Ottoman Empire.

Well, Thayne... Iraq would be different because they are peoples divided by religiously motivated, mutually exclusive ideologies that do not wish to co-exist.

If Iraq is allowed to splinter along religious and ethnic lines, the result will be a series of smaller weaker entities than can be much more easily co-opted by Iran. Resulting minority (Sunni) states will then be destroyed by the Iranian proxy-states using the first available pretext for aggression.

The result?... the slaughter of untold numbers of the Sunni defeated and an Iranian (Shia) super-state that dominates the most important oil-producing region in the world.

The impact on you?... skyrocketing fuel costs, the economic blackmail of the west and the inevitable necessity for the western world to engage a much more powerful, nuclear-armed Iran militarily.

How do we prevent this? I do not know, but (as the President has been saying) the "cut and run" strategy advocated by the more short-sighted among us is not the answer.

HRJ wrote:
"Why the surprise--Its in the West's tradition: "Divide and conquer." An arrogant tradition, at that."

But this tactic is not an American invention and is being used by al Qaida to forment civil war to weaken the Iraqi government and by Iran which wishes to see Iraq's oil end up under its control and Iraq not an American ally against Iran. None of these should be regarded by the US or Iraq as a good thing.

The divisions in the Balkins cannot be compared to Iraq. It should not be used as a blueprint for "solving" this crisis. The fact that Iraqis continue to fly the Iraqi flag after it was stained by Saddam shows they love their country as a unified entity. Massoud Barzani should be heavily criticized for his insistence on flying the Kurdish flag instead of the Iraqi flag. The US should put pressure on him. We still occupy that place, lets act like occupiers when we need to and push for the unification of a people who have little hate for each other except when it is created by hostile forces.

I am conflicted however. To do this Bush must be more hands on in Iraq, but that is where mistakes are made, then not realized, then not admitted and then ignored or worse claimed to be a success. Anytime you think Bush should "do" something should be a time for second thoughts.

Partitioning Iraq makes sense to me, IF the Sunni are given international guarantees of a reasonable share of Iraq's oil wealth. Otherwise it's a prescription for more of the same horrors we're seeing. With or without formal partition, the US has a moral imperative to help Iraqis move out of neighborhoods and regions where they are in danger of torturous death because of their sectarian background. It's the goddamn least we should do.

Havent we learnt from the previous mistakes of "partitioning" under British empire? Do we need another "Kashmir" conflict raging for more than half a century in an oil-rich middle east?

Hey Barry, I don't understand why partition would give rise to your theory, the way things are now, Shiites could do the same thing in a unified Iraq after a huge decrease in coalition troops. No?
The invasion of Iraq empowered Iran immensely, no matter how you or if you cut up Iraq.

It would be very helpful if the Sunni and Shia death squads were eliminated. These types of activities are driving the two groups apart. If al-Sadr and the Sunni factions could stop these kinds of activities, a united Iraq might still be possible. They would also have to remove al-Qaida from Iraq.
However, it is not up to the West or the U.S. to decide on the future of Iraq. it is up to Iraqis to chart their own future. I think we need to leave Iraq.

Uhm, Divide & Conquer! do you smell some fishy here?

Many countries which percipitated out of the empires of the sixth historical millinum were assembled more along the lines of the colonial powers, instead of the pre-existing ethnic divisions. This has lead to a great deal of difficulty and violence. Iraq was a country essentially built by decree, much as Yugosolovia. Time and again we see these artificial states, decend into chaos shortly after dictatorial power is removed. The same scenario is likely to eventually develop in Syria, Turkey, most of central asia, much of africa, as well as China. We in the America forget that our political boundries are all artifical. We largely use a common language. In the absence of anything but strictly local ethnic divisions, these boundries exist for administrative purposes only. That pointedly is not true for much of the rest of the world. The only way to actually resolve many of the issues may be to desolve the artificial states, and reconstitute nations along ethnic lines. This however will not settle disputes over resources, so some formula will need to be worked out among all the ethnic parties to divide the proceeds from the various resources of the particular regions.

Also, "cut and run" is such a preposterous glossing over of the facts on the ground. Only until the president comes to terms with the fact that Iraq is totally out of our control that he will realize that whether we leave now or 10 years from now, Iraq will explode. TIME TO FACE THE UGLY TRUTH OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S ACTIONS.

Michael -

By your logic righteousness should not oppose evil unless victory is pre-determined. Or, put more simply, if you can't win don't try.

Pathetic.

Right should always oppose evil. . . but which is which depends a whole lot on which side you're standing on.

Governments aren't made overnight. The fact of the matter is there are terrorist in Iraq ratchetting up the violence to deter democracy. Of course Iran doesn't want a democratic Iraq, they would gain nothing but lose a lot. What our press doesn't emphasize is the progress being made in different parts of the country. There is a reason the citizens of Iraq voted, they want to be free. It is our duty, like it or not to spread the freedom we take for granted. We are not at war with another country, we are at war with terrorist who want to sieze the oil fields and cause chaos. We need to stay the fight and finish the cause because that is what America was founded on 'freedom'. Stand behind your government in this time of crisis. Ask any politician (Democratic or Republican) if America would better be served by a free Iraq or a divided Iraq. I assure you that they will say a 'free Iraq'.

I'm confused. Help me understand something here. If everyone (Republican and Democrat alike) says that there is no tie or connection to Iraq or Saddam to what happened on 9/11. Then why is the war in Iraq considered to be a war on Terrorism. And why are they Terrorist.

Did I miss something? Did they attack us ? Did they threaten to attack us ?

David:

Well said.

It must be the history of Virginia that reminds you and I that "a nation divided against itself cannot stand."

Some of these other folks (that are more geographically challenged) seem to have trouble remembering the lessons of the past.

It's curious that Michael in CA is so well versed on "the facts on the ground" in Iraq.

What unit did you serve in Mike?

As one of my friends Gan pointed out, the British faced with the same quandry not 50 years ago partitioned a secular country India into two countries on religious lines. Unfortunately (a lesser known fact) the riots and killings that followed due to this partition and the subsequent migration of communal population can dwarf the holocaust by many measures. Now we had a secular Iraq, governed by (okay I agree) a dictator who probably did not have better records in human rights, but did atleast have an understanding of his own culture and was atleast open to a lot of ideologies (ex. a majority of women had jobs in baghdad during saddams rein).Well now that the US occupation has removed the control and reduced it into a nation of squabbling control freaks, especially the religious fanatics who are backed by money and who can command a faction of the population through bribes and persuasion. If we segregate the country into these religious factions and divide geographically, it will just remain a big sore point for future. A lot of innocent lives will be lost in the process, folks living in the same place for centuries will be uprooted and atleast 2 sets of generations will have to pay the price.
Please one, it was stupid to invade Iraq in the first place without a concrete plan to handle the country, two dont jump into another foray filled with madness. Rather let the Iraqis handle themselves, there will be a little more deaths, but end of the day things will work out better for the future.

jman:

O.K. I'll go slowly. Saddam Hussein ("SD") was the leader of Iraq. SD was known to provide financial support and haven to terrorists. Numerous terrorists took refuge in that country during his rule (with his blessing). So, to say there is "no tie or connection to Iraq or Saddam" is wholly incorrect.

SD had previously displayed his intentions regarding his neighbors by attacking Iran, Kuwait and his own Kurdish minority.
His continued rule in that strategically located nation greatly hindered any US efforts to "get at" the people behind the 9/11 attacks.

By his own testimony, SD harbored great ill-will against the US and would have acted upon any opportunity to harm us that presented itself. He needed to be removed... and good riddance to him.

So, the answers to your questions are: 1) yes, you missed something, 2) yes, he attacked us (ask Kuwait), and 3) yes, they threatened to attack us (see the text of numerous SD speeches given during his rule.)

Finally, it doesn't matter if the terrorist were in Iraq to begin with. The are, unquestionably, there now. I would must rather deal with them "over there" than here at home... And yes, that includes people in other western nations as well.

1. Saddam Husssein had NOTHING to do with the attack of 9/11.

2. The Taliban in Afghanistan, who harbored OBL and Al Qaeda, did.

3. Troops were pulled out of Afghanistan to fight in Iraq.

4. The Taliban is now resurgent in Afghanistan, and Iraq is in the midst of a sectarian civil war.

5. "We need to stay the fight and finish the cause because that is what America was founded on 'freedom'. Stand behind your government in this time of crisis."

6. What are we fighting for? What is the cause you want us to finish? How will you tell when Iraq is "free"? How many American lives is it worth?

Just asking...

You're right, Barry, I thought it was totally stupid to invade Iraq, a country that was already contained. There was no good reason to invade when we did. None. No, I wouldn't try to melt Antarctica if I couldn't.

What unit was I in? I don't think it takes a tour of Iraq to see how awful it is. Scores of bodies found daily in Baghdad? These are Iraqis being killed. Much of it is Iraqi on Iraqi violence. How exactly are we going to stop this?

I have yet to hear a point by point argument why staying is better. Unless we're staying forever, our influence won't change this country, and certainly not the region, in a way that benefits us.

What Virginia has to do with Iraq is completely beyond me. Napoleon and Hitler had a few historical lessons we could learn also, Bar.

I would love to see a free Iraq. But invading a totally alien country halfway across the world is not a way to spread peace and democracy, unless you plan to keep it, a la Tibet.

Hey Barry,

What unit of the Iraqi Republican Guard were you in? Tell us more about those terrorists you harbored.

Not sure I wouldn't "keep it" if I were in charge.

That seemed to work for Rome.

So by your logic, Barry, we could invade and bomb the hell out of Mexico since so many illegal immigrants are coming here, and in a few months it wouldn't matter why we invaded, just that we did, and now we have to fight all those nasty Mexicans who don't want us there. Nice. That sounds like a plan, don't you think?

A " Free Iraq "? The concept does not exist.

" Stay the fight "? Who, the limited forces there from the USA? The US has 300 million residents, very few are or ever will be, in Iraq. Americans are not fighting in Iraq, by and large. A small underclass is doing the patrolling, to effect the political will of the current scene.

The break up of Iraq has already happened, look beyond the political rhetoric to the actual reality. Deal with reality and minimize the inefficient use of US funds. As an Army vet myself, I feel for the last American to have todie needless in this catastrophe that has but the US at a serious competitive disadvantage in our race against China for world domination and influence.

"A small underclass is doing the patrolling, to effect the political will of the current scene."

Did you just call the US Army a small underclass?

The Army cannot be an underclass, it is an institution. The underclass are the individuals who do the dirty work, do their time, get out and move on. Few vets ever vest in any federal pension system; unlike Federal civil servants, Vets need 20 yrs to get any pension benefits.

Is the Army an underclass? Certainly not the Generals who take care of themselves with monster pensions, sucking the ass of Congress et al, to benefit themselves at the expense of the rank and file, wearing their colorful ribbons and lying to the public at press conferences that would do any seasoned politician proud. I never thought I would see Vietnam replicated, and yet it is here and it's name is the tri-republic of Iraq.

The impoverished enlisted ranks, who average less than 5 yrs in the military, they are the underclass, they are the ones dying in Iraq, or surviving to come home to an underfunded VA, bereft of the benefits of non-combatant Federal civil servants.

It is the height of hypocrisy for our elected officials to place value of Iraqis over US citizens placed in harms way. Look at the drone video released surreptitiously today by an outraged insider; our US leaders prefer to tread water and risk US troops lives on the ground, in the name of public image. It is disgusting.

Hate to tell you this Barry, but you're not Romans.

Romans were willing to work hard and make sacrifices for their empire. Most Americans can't even find Iraq on a map because they've never bothered looking. Your people lacks the attention span necessary for world domination Roman-style.

Just how many more american lives are you willing to sacrifice and how many more billions of dollars (money we don't have) are you willing to waste in this bloddy mess called Iraq, just so you do not have to admit you made a mistake invading it in the first place ???

Barry must have supported the toppling of Saddam without a plan to win the peace. If we are so concerned about Iran, the Bush administration should have given the smallest bit of thought to that, but they left such matters up to Feith and Wolfowitz, and now we are in the proverbial quaqmire. Bottom line Barry is Bush does not have the resolve nor the political capital to add the significant number of troops it would take to secure Iraq as both Kristol and Lowry are now calling for. This isn't about cutting and running - this is about nonplanning, nonlearning, inflexibility, incompetence, and an inability or unwillingness to put a real effort behind it(i.e. the troop levels advocated by Shinseki). But hey, at least Bush is consistent with everything he does...

That's the only way to go. The U.S. should assist in setting up a means of funneling money from the oil revenues into a neutral bank. Then making sure the money is equally distributed.
The biggest impediment to making the Sunnis feel they're getting a fair shake, is to make sure the money is equally distributed. Has anyone seen the ads the Kurds are doing on television. They already "partitioned" themselves away from the others.

My questions are only for The Washington Post. I understand there are +/- on the
content about Iraq. Both sides are entitled
to their opinion.
Question:
If I made public one of many Top Secret items
I was informed on while a Naval Officer I was
subject to very dire consequences. Is there
some "waiver" in the federal law for your
commercial organization that I'm not aware
of? Does "Top Secret" apply only to non-journalists?

By all accounts George Bush is dead set on keeping Iraq together and reacts with hostility to anyone who suggests partition. I don't know why he feels that way, but I think he's absolutely right on this one issue.

In any case, he's repeatedly promised that Iraq would remain intact, and has often mentioned it as a necessary prerequisite for victory.

This bill, we all knew it was coming, but it's a frightening development. It contains the seeds of much greater violence to come.

The split in the governing coalition is a big deal because it shows that on this most fundamental question, which is probably a question of war and peace, Sadr and his Mahdi Army will side with the Sunni parties against the new Shiite establishment of SCIRI and Dawa. In other words he'll join the insurgents against the army and government.

Since Sadr and the Sunnis also have the backing of Alawi's little faction, they should have a majority in the United Iraqi Alliance. But of course SCIRI and Dawa will have an overall parliamentary majority with the support of the Kurds, who back anything that weakens the central government.

If they try to force this through, violence will escalate dramatically. Baghdad and the Sunni heartland aren't going to just let the southern oil go. The UIA will split in two, half the government will turn on the other half, and there'll be a hot civil war.

This autonomy bill also poses a major threat to what's left of US Iraq policy.

Hakim is Iran's protege, his proposed Shiastan would be an Iranian satellite.

Pursuing this policy would surely put an end to the bizarre cooperation between the US and the Islamists of SCIRI and Maliki's Dawa, a group that previously bombed the US embassy in Kuwait, executed Americans on hijacked airliners, and had a major hand in the Beirut Marine embassy bombing.

Would the US side with the supporters of Iraqi Arab unity, as its current policy demands? These are America's deadly enemies - the Sunni insurgents and Moqtada al-Sadr.

What side is America going to pick in this split? I don't see how it can back either.

It will be left with no friends, no relevance, no influence and no purpose.

The Kurds have yet to make their big bid for independence, but that's coming too. Kurdistan will be like a new Israel in the region, hated by all its neighbours. But unlike Israel it will be heavily outgunned.

Of course Americans are sentimental about Kurds as they are about Israelis. So Kurdistan will be a burden to America for decades, since only constant American nannying will protect it from the awesome hostility of rump Iraq, Iran, Syria and above all Turkey.

Kirkuk and Mosul are ethnic timebombs waiting to explode. The likelihood is that war would be triggered either by ethnic clashes in these cities or disputes over oil revenue and rights. Thousands of Kurdish Peshmerga militiamen would desert the Iraqi Army, robbing the central government of some of its most reliable units. The beleaguered Baghdad government would have little choice in the short term but to let the Kurdish north go.

The Kurds have managed to insert their forces into both Kirkuk and Mosul. Will they be able to resist making a grab for them? Locally, Arabs of both sects, Turkmen, Chaldeans and Assyrians greatly outnumber the Kurds in Kirkuk and Mosul. They will launch an insurgency against the local Kurdish troops that will turn these cities into major new centres of violence. In fact in Mosul there's already frequent armed conflict between Kurdish troops and the mostly Sunni Arab police.

Turkey is fuming at America for destabilising the Kurdish issue and now effectively harbouring PKK terrorists such as those who detonated bombs in Turkish tourist spots last week. If America can invade Afghanistan over 911, the Turks feel, they should be free to invade Kurdistan over PKK bombings. They've repeatedly tried to get the US to understand how seriously they take all this but the Americans don't seem to get it. Quite ironic really.

America broke its promise to Turkey to keep the Peshmerga out of Mosul, where they have no business being. The US kicked them out twice, but finally let them in to help fight insurgents when the police resigned en masse over Falluja. Turkey has already sent special forces into Iraq. Turkey also sits on Kirkuk's oil pipeline to the Mediterranean. It will not tolerate an independent Kurdish state on its border, but will find a way to invade, probably claiming that it's coming to the defence of its ethnic Turkmen brothers suffering Kurdish violence in Kirkuk.

Turkey, like Iran, has recently been shelling northern Iraq. Moreover, this is not in response to the recent PKK bombings in Turkey, because it was happening before them. The fact that Iraq is being shelled by a US ally is naturally pretty embarrassing to the US military, and General Caldwell, while admitting it was happening, seemed less than eager to talk about it.

That's right, Turkey, a NATO ally, has been shelling Iraq. America just doesn't get no respect anymore.

Unlike the Americans, who are just pretending to believe Iraq's future is vital to their security (since they'd clearly impose the draft and raise taxes if they meant it), Turkey really does consider this an existential question. They've tried every diplomatic and military channel to communicate their earnestness to the Americans, but it just hasn't sunk in.

It might seem mind-boggling hypocrisy that the Americans in Iraq have allowed the communist terrorists of the PKK to set up training camps in Iraq, especially when this group is on the State Dept terror groups list, and they've killed more Turks than al Qaeda ever killed Americans. But these double standards are old hat to the Turks, who know the US government is all mouth and no ears.

So they tried shelling Iraq. And sure enough, the Americans are now making noises about finally getting around to checking out those local PKK terror training camps the Turks have been nagging them about. I guess force is the only language these Americans understand.

The background facts are the following.

1. The Coalition Forces have an insufficient number of troops in Iraq. There is no Western government willing to contribute more troops to Iraq. The current force of about 200,000 troops is insufficient.

2. Most Americans are opposed to the war.

Allow me to explain the second fact. The threshold for genuine support for a government-initiated military operation is "I am willing to pay higher taxes to support the operation."

When intellectual bigots claim that most Americans support the war, the bigots are using a different notion of support. That notion is "I support the war as long as I need not make any sacrifice for it." By that standard, you could legitimately claim that most Americans supported the Iraq War in 2003. However, such support is fickle, and a slight change in the political winds could vaporize the support.

However, by the tougher standard that I am proposing, even in 2003, most Americans did not support the war. Which standard should we use in assessing American support for the Iraq War? The answer is the tougher standard that I propose.

Anyhow, given the 2 background facts, the only way to bring peace to Iraq is to partition it and to share the oil profits in accordance with the size of the population in the 3 partitions: Kurdistan, Sunni-town, and Shiite-town. How will each partition achieve and maintain peace?

People achieve peace when they are willing to fight for it. The Kurds in Northern Iraq are clearly willing to do so. Whenever a Sunni or a Shiite enters the Kurdistan, the Kurds register the Arab in a list (of potential troublemakers) maintained by the Kurdish government. If he were to commit any violence, the Kurds would know right away and would eagerly kill him.

The Turks may cause problems by, for example, invading Kurdistan. Those problems can be fixed by a combination of political pressure and economic pressure from the European Union and the United States. If pressure tactics do not work, then expulsion from NATO and 50 bunker-buster bombs dropped from B-52s onto Ankara will work.

As for the Shiites, most of the violence against them is currently caused by marauding Sunni thugs. In an autonomous Shiite-town, the Shiite paramilitary would simply slaughter all the Sunnis who linger in Shiite-town. That solution may be bloody, but it does fix the problem.

As for the Sunnis, most of the violence against them is currently caused by marauding Shiite thugs. In an autonomous Sunni-town, the Sunni paramilitary would simply slaughter all the Shiites who linger in Sunni-town. That solution may be bloody, but it does fix the problem.

Note that in this 3-partition solution for Iraq, there is no need whatsoever for Western troops. We exploit the ethnic hatreds in quickly bringing peace to both Sunni-town and Shiite-town. There has never been a problem in Kurdistan, and there never will be because the Kurds are basically a bunch of proto-Westerners committed to secularism. Western troops need not intervene to help the Kurds because they are eager to do their own funding. Still, NATO must continue to use air power to protect the Kurds from both the Turkish bastards and the Sunni/Shiite barbarians in the non-negligible chance that the Muslims gang up against the Kurds. We cannot allow the Kurds, who are committed to Westernization, to be overrun by Islamic thugs, who are committed to the bigotry of Islam.

Anyhow, the partition proposal works and should be implemented immediately.

Say, Atheist, remind me, is Baghdad an autonomous Sunni town or an autonomous Shiite town?

Do you recommend "simply slaughtering" the three million Sunnis, or the three million Shia, or perhaps even the one million Baghdadi Kurds?

What about Kirkuk and Mosul? There's about five major ethnic groups in each of those cities. Which four should be slaughtered?

Are you planning to bomb Turkey before or after Iran?

Since a terror group based in Iraqi Kurdistan blew people up in several Turkish cities and tourist towns last month, doesn't Turkey have the right to invade Kurdistan under the Bush Doctrine? Or is it just America that gets to react that way?

Whatever tough standard you may propose to get the US public off the hook, the fact is that support for the war hit 76% when Baghdad fell. Most Americans did support the war in 2003, whatever they may say today.

Most did so with the same lazy arrogance about rearranging (or ending) the lives of people they know nothing about that I detect in your comments.

If you're going to play God, you should really work on the omniscience bit.

The background facts are the following.

1. The Coalition Forces have an insufficient number of troops in Iraq. There is no Western government willing to contribute more troops to Iraq. The current force of about 200,000 troops is insufficient.

2. Most Americans are opposed to the war.

Allow me to explain the second fact. The threshold for genuine support for a government-initiated military operation is "I am willing to pay higher taxes to support the operation."

When intellectual bigots claim that most Americans support the war, the bigots are using a different notion of support. That notion is "I support the war as long as I need not make any sacrifice for it." By that standard, you could legitimately claim that most Americans supported the Iraq War in 2003. However, such support is fickle, and a slight change in the political winds could vaporize the support.

However, by the tougher standard that I am proposing, even in 2003, most Americans did not support the war. Which standard should we use in assessing American support for the Iraq War? The answer is the tougher standard that I propose.

Since the Coalition Forces simply cannot stop the spiraling violence, they should leave Iraq. There is absolutely no point to sacrificing American lives for a lost cause. Iraq is a lost cause.

We should not attempt to impose a unified democracy on the Iraqis. If they really wanted it, then they will build it themselves. With the exception of the Kurds, most Iraqis do not give a damn about a democracy. If they want to kill each other, then their animal-like behavior is none of our business. We should turn our backs on them.

There is one caveat. We definitely should help people who are committed to Western ideals. In Iraq, exactly one major group supports Westernization. We do not need to impose democracy on that group. That group is building a prosperous democracy without any prodding from us Americans. Of course, I am referring to the Kurds.

We should defend Kurdistan with the full power of Western military might (= NATO + Japanese military forces).

The conclusion is obvious. We partition Iraq into 3 regions: Kurdistan, Sunni-town, and Shiite-town. Kurds currently living outside of Kurdistan will be allowed the opportunity to move to Kurdistan. Sunnis living outside of Sunni-town will be allowed to move to Sunni-town. Shiites living outside of Shiite-town will be allowed to live in Shiite-town. All this population re-alignment must be completed by a set date, say, 2007 January 1. After that date, if you insist on identifying with the Shiites but actually live in Sunni-town, then, well, you know the risks. Your life is your problem.

Who is determined to be a Kurd will be based on self-identification just as being American is a matter of self-identification. Kurdistan will effectively be an independent nation like the United States. Anyone can be a Kurd under the stipulation that open displays of Islam will be banned. If you claim to be a Kurd but your wife walks about in a veil, then you will be deported for lying. You will be deported straight into one of 2 hell-holes: Shiite-town or Sunni-town.

We Americans should not care about who self-identifies with being a Shiite (to qualify for residence in Shiite-town) or a Sunni (to qualify for residence in Sunni-town). Let devout Muslims kill each other. We should not care.

We should, however, care about who identifies with being a Kurd. The Christians, the Jews, the Buddhists, the Atheists, etc. are all free to identify as Kurdish citizens in the autonomous region called Kurdistan. The only stipulation is that they observe and respect the secularism that exists there. Unlike the Shiites and the Sunnis, the Kurdish citizen have and will continue to enforce basic civil rights. The exception is that open displays of Islam will result in deportation since an open display of Islam means that you lied in claiming to culturally identify with the Kurds, who are strictly secular.

We Westerners must protect Kurdistan from from Shiite-town, Sunni-town, and Turkey.

Scan through the last 100 news articles about the Kurdish terroritory (also known as Kurdistan) in Northern Iraqi. Read about the freedoms and the prosperity in Kurdistan. Read about how Kurdistan is experiencing the remarkable political and economic developments that resemble what Eastern Europe underwent. Note that these developments are based on a strict secular foundation like that in France.

If we allow the Turks, the Shiites, or the Sunnis to destroy Kurdistan, we Westerners should hang our heads in shame. Expel the Turks from NATO and protect Kurdistan.

Pull our troops out of Iraq. Let the Sunnis and the Shiites kill each other. Their barbarism is none of our business as long as they leave the Kurds alone.

The key point to remember is that Sunni barbarism and Shiite barbarism is solely the responsibility of the Sunnis and the Shiites, respectively. No one -- not Americans, not Japanese, not Swedes, etc. -- is forcing the Sunnis and the Shiites to act like animals. They are voluntarily acting like animals. We have no responsibility to sacrifice American lives to stop the Sunnis and the Shiites from acting like animals.

Iraq has never been united before so the partition would serve the interest of USA and Iraqi people, for USA we can easier control Iraqi border and collecting the insurgents in one corner (Sunni area), and it will be easier to attack insurgency there and they have not petrol card to use against us.
For the Iraqi people we can secure safety for at least 80% percent of the population and with this step US can show a determined political resolution for Iraqis and Iraqi neighbors.

So, Atheist, you expect all Iraqis to move into ethnic enclaves by January 1st. That would mean perhaps 8-9 million people, including two-thirds of Baghdad, uprooting themselves from areas where their families may have lived for thousands of years, over the course of the next three months.

I have to ask, are you joking? You're certainly not in the moving business. What you suggest would be logistically impossible even in a country at peace.

"Who is determined to be a Kurd will be based on self-identification just as being American is a matter of self-identification."

That's nice. Have you double-checked that with the Kurds?

There is no American language, but there is a Kurdish language, and only the Kurds speak it. They know who the Arabs and Turkmen are, and their hatred for them is typically just as passionate as the hatreds further south.

The Kurds have already been implicated in campaigns of violence and intimidation against the ethnic groups clustered around Mosul and Kirkuk. I notice that you pass over those cities' future status without comment, by the way. Since so many of their inhabitants aren't Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, or Kurds they hardly fit into your neat three-sided picture.

I'm sure the Turkmen, Assyrians, Chaldeans etc would be fascinated to hear that you're offering them the opportunity to become part of Kurdistan. I gather the Peshmerga have already extended that invitation and the citizens of Kirkuk and Mosul responded with gunfire and IEDs.

Their vaunted freedoms are not so complete as you claim, according to Kurds who don't belong to the dominant factions of the KDP and PUK.

You seem lost in the Bushian narrative of a simple dichotomy of good and evil, in which all the Arabs are black-hatted, moustache-twirling, evildoing bad guys, while all the Kurds are white-hatted friends of Freedom.

That must be why you continue to offer no solution to the problem of the PKK, who have murdered thousands of Turks and Turkish Kurds, and recently even blew up some of my own (British) countrymen visiting Turkey.

While America claims carte blanche to take over any country that ever hosted a terrorist, the Turks have no rights of self-defence at all in your world. If they try to act against the terrorists on their border, you propose bombing their capital with B52s. What hypocrisy.

Sadly for you, your government and army is not feeling quite so full of beans as you do. Because the Turks HAVE just used force across the border, and the Americans responded by backing down.

And that happened while numerous US forces are still in Iraq. Yet you propose protecting Kurdistan for decades after pullout, even if it means the creation of a hostile Turkish-Iranian nexus.

Given the childlike attention span of the US public and government, why should anyone believe they will remain focussed on Kurdistan in the long term? Americans' priorities will change and their attention will drift. But I guarantee you that the Turks' attention won't.

"...open displays of Islam will result in deportation since an open display of Islam means that you lied in claiming to culturally identify with the Kurds, who are strictly secular."

That's funny, cos I've been to Kurdistan, and it's full of mosques. Does getting on a prayer mat and praying to Mecca constitute an open display of Islam? Better get ready to deport all the Kurds from Kurdistan.

God help us! Atheist's comments are a chilling reminder of Germany's disgusting plans of the past.

From a layman's point of view:
Iraq was a war, that didn't need to be fought at the time we went in!!
And now is not the time to be wondering what to do about it!!
We are now, neck high, in the confusion, that we brought to Iraq!!
No quick fix, is going to make life in Iraq better!!
No easy decision, is going to come out of this mess!!
Our own beliefs, are the major problems!!
We can't keep thinking that we can force democracy on others, and need to let others, make their own choices!!
There were no signs, saying America, come a give us some of that freedom, that we live!!
The way to the truth, and what to do, is done, bye putting ourselves, in the shoes, of the other guy, how would I feel if a 140,000 men with guns standing in my yard, killing all males of age to join the military, bombing towns, with women, and children, dying for a cause, that is not their choice!!
The war on terror, was not in Iraq, and their is no fact, that says it was!!
Splitting up Iraq, is just as bad, as us being there in the first place!!
Now maybe America needs Mr Hussein, to help bring peace to Iraq, and we are in no position, to do that, on our own, because, we didn't go in with enough troops!!
If we lose, then we look bad to the rest of the Middle East, and that we can't handle our own affairs!!
The war on terror, is growing, and we are tied down with Iraq, and lost sight of our goal, about the war on terror!!
The enemy is just waiting us out, bleeding our military, and money, just like they said!!
Time to get smart, or is it to late, good question there!!
The billion dollar question, is what do we do, to correct this mess we made??
Good luck on an answer, because we cannot stay, and we cannot leave!!
Iraq is broken, and we did a good job of doing just that!!

Davidy Kevin: "...the partition would serve the interest of USA and Iraqi people...with this step US can show a determined political resolution for Iraqis and Iraqi neighbors."

Five minutes' Googling on "Bush Iraq unified" turned up all this:

"The only path to a future of peace is the path of unity." GW Bush

"The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq." GW Bush

"The United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors." GW Bush

"...the overwhelming majority (of Iraqis) want peace and a normal life in a unified country." GW Bush

"...what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country." GW Bush

"And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment." GW Bush, presidential address to American people, eve of invasion.

"We will help you build a peaceful and representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And then our military forces will leave. Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent and sovereign nation that has regained a respected place in the world. ." GW Bush, Presidential address to the Iraqi people, eve of invasion.

So please explain how reneging on its solemn promise to maintain Iraqi unity would show "determined political resolution" on America's part.

In fact, the partition you're suggesting is not an American idea at all, but an Iranian one.

Hakim, who is behind this bill, was groomed in Tehran by Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers for the sole purpose of bringing Iraq's Shiites (and the southern oil) into Iran's orbit.

That's what SCIRI is. The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and organisation devoted to exporting the Iranian theocratic revolution to its nearest neighbour. SCIRI announced this bill just days after a series of talks between Hakim and Iranian leaders.

And Barzani, the Kurdish leader, met with Iran's envoy Mohammed Khatami just two days before announcing that he was taking down Iraqi flags throughout Kurdistan.

This is an Iranian plot and not even a secret one. They are openly pushing to fragment Iraq. In fact they're taking the piss out of you, because Barzani and Hakim's moves -- which are putting the final nail in the coffin of America's Iraq policy -- were actually announced while Khatami is in the US on a speaking tour.

Many Americans who want partition of Iraq see it as a form of revenge against the Sunnis for resisting the occupation.
But in fact, if Iraq really were fragmented into Shia south, Sunni centre, and Kurdish north, the people who would be the least displaced would be the Sunnis, and the most displaced would be the Shia, notably the Shia of Baghdad.

This whole idea that partition will end sectarian violence is based on a completely false simplification of Iraqi demography. There are many millions of Shia in the centre, and some have also been transplanted in northern Kirkuk in recent decades. Most Kirkuk Arabs show no sign of wanting to leave, despite Kurdish harassment.

Baquba, just to the north of Baghdad, contains a large Shiite population, and Samarra, further north, boasts Iraq's most famous Shia mosque. And Shiites are the largest group in Baghdad.

The Shiites of central Iraq are Sadr's biggest constituency, which is why he's throwing in his hand with the Sunni Alliance. But Sadr still has plenty of support in the South. Just two weeks ago, he threw the Iraqi Army out of Diwaniyah, capital of Diwaniyah province. After a sharp battle, his Mehdi Army fighters took 20 Iraqi government soldiers prisoner and executed them in the city's main square.

What's more, this army unit was none other than the 8th Infantry Division, the supposedly combat-ready division that was handed over to Iraqi control with much fanfare a few days after this debacle. Far from avenging their comrades and their humiliation, the 8th Infantry Division was still, last I heard, sitting outside town asking Mr Sadr "pretty-please-can-we-come-back-in-we-promise-to-be-good".

So Sadr has the wherewithal to mess up the south if he wants, and he will, because this partition would divide his support in two.

Not one of the three proposed regions will get peace.

There's a widespread but misguided notion that in the event of partition the Kurds will somehow automatically get the northern oil while central Iraq ("the Sunnis" in simplistic American parlance) gets the sand.

First, there ARE oilfields in central Iraq, some quite old but some that have yet to be developed. One of the biggest oilfields in Iraq is the East Baghdad field, and there are also oil prospects in the western desert of Anbar province.

As for the northern oilfields, the biggest ones aren't even in the current Kurdish Autonomous Region. The Kurds have asked that Kirkuk and Mosul be included in their final region, but no-one agreed, not even SCIRI who are pushing this autonomy bill. The Kurds currently have forces in both cities, but they are not welcomed by a definite majority in Mosul and about half of Kirkuk.

The actual status of Kirkuk and environs (and thus much of the northern oil) is supposed to be settled by a referendum in November 2007...if they can last that long without going to war. Kirkuk, with its large Turkish-speaking minority, is also a special city to the Turkish government. Turkey has specifically said it won't allow Kurdish control of Kirkuk, even within a federal Iraq, never mind a sovereign Kurdistan.

In any case, the Kirkuk field has been pumping since 1927 and is nearing the end of its productive life. The Kurds would be wiser developing the new oil prospects deep within ethnic Kurdistan. Their traditional heartland - Dahuk, Irbil, and Suleimaniyeh provinces - are potentially the richest in Iraq outside the great southern fields of Rumeila and Qurna.

The Kurds wouldn't have much trouble keeping the revenue of fields they developed themselves within true Kurdistan, especially if this oil came online after the revenue split from the existing oilfields is negotiated. It would be far easier for the Kurds to remain within a federal Iraq and do this than to go independent and make a military grab for the ageing Kirkuk field.

The Kurds' desire for independence is entirely understandable. But it's also very unwise. It's often pointed out that they are the world's largest ethnic group - about 25 million strong - without its own state. But a sovereign Kurdistan carved out of Iraq would only contain a quarter of the Kurds.

It's no accident that the Kurds have historically been ruled by neighbouring groups. They are surrounded by vastly more powerful peoples: Turks, Arabs, and Persians. The harsh military realities that brought centuries of Kurdish subjugation haven't really changed. The Kurds still aren't strong enough to stand alone.

They, alone of the peoples of Iraq, have a real chance at peace and prosperity, maybe even democracy, right now within a federal Iraq. They should take it. They are only safe within a federal Iraq. Out there on their own, in that part of the world, they will be eaten by wolves.

Remember what befell the Armenians? I really worry that the Iraqi Kurds could yet be the biggest losers of all in this godawful war.

It's increasingly obvious that Joe Public USA is going to be all in favour of three-way Iraqi partition. Bush's opposition to the idea will only make it more popular.

The American public went into this war displaying their usual lazy arrogance about overturning foreign people's lives without even bothering to find out why. Never mind fact-checking the Administration's absurd lies about WMD, most Americans didn't even bother looking at a map to see where Iraq was. In fact most still can't find Iraq on a map, according to the National Geographic Survey.

But as this reality show enters its fourth season, Americans are getting bored and looking for a way to change the channel. They want to get back to Oprah and the new season of Survivor.

So when Iranian agents suggest an apparently painless way to extricate themselves, most Americans will jump at it. As usual, without checking the facts. After all, this is a country whose president only found out a few weeks before the invasion that Iraqis are split between Sunni and Shia sects.

Don't be suckered. You Americans owe it to the Iraqis to take the time to find out what the hell you're doing, before you make one more decision about their lives and the future of their country.

Americans who advocate partition are achieving a near-impossible feat: being even dumber about Iraq than their president is. Partition does not offer an easy way out of Iraq. It will be a bloody nightmare.

OD,

There are actual commercials on fox news that talk about all the great qualities of the Kurdish people in Iraq. The commercials use the tag line "the Kurdish People, The other Iraqis"

I'm afraid the breakup is underway and long planned. I think it was known all along (they knew it during the first gulf war, thats why they did not take out Saddam then) that it was highly probable that once Saddam was removed the country would split up in three parts.

In retrospect, it seems even more probable that if you send in vastly less soldiers than your military advisors suggest and allow the infrastructure to be destroyed by looting and then allow insurgencies to run out of control that you are almost guaranteeing the division of the country along ethnic lines.

I suppose if your over arching mission is to move the war to Iran and Syria, this arrangement would naturally create an environment that would help to pull the Iranians into the conflict or at least create the impression that they are interfering. They will of course assist the Shia portion and will be villified by the US for doing so.

In the end, we get a secure base of operations (the Kurdish North) with which to foment war against other countries in the region, which is also very oil rich.

No other competing power will decisivley take the whole countries oil supply under any circumstances, and we can ensure that the Sunni and Shia sections continue to maintain low level warfare agaisnt each other which makes taking substantial amounts of oil out of those regions difficult or impossible for some time to come for anyone else.

Again, if you suppose that the plan was always to bring the war to Iran and syria, this actually seems like a very desirable outcome; We get stable, oil rich bases in a region populated by people who do support us completely, a chance to futher villify the Iranians for the run up to the war while keeping the flow of a lot of oil moving in our direction while hampering our competitors ability to get very much at all.

I desperatley wish this was not so, but it seems like an utterly reasonable assesment of the situation.

God willing, there will be a major political shakeup in this country that will undermine the neocons ability to pull this off.

J

OD,

I forgot to add another peice of supporting evidence to the breakup theory.

It is curious in the extreme to, on one hand, suggest that we are in Iraq to bring democracy, freedom and advancement to the Iraqi people while on the other hand saying that the purpose of the war is to attract terrorists from all over the Middle East to come to Iraq (a place where there were virtually no terrorists before)and fight so that we will not have to fight them on American shores .

The president may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but he certainly understands that the Iraqi Shia and Sunnis would be outraged by this statement while the Kurds (who already live in a secure and nearly autonomous area) could care less and are even enthused, becuase they know that it will lead to their independence.

I will repeat it again, if your true mission is peace and stability, these contradicting statements make no sense at all and even appear to worsen the situation, but if your mission is to take the war to Iran by creating a desparate and hopeless situation ( for the Shia and Sunnis any way)which helps to further villifiy Arab and Muslim people then this makes perfect sense.

J

The National Intelligence estimate indicates that the Iraq war has increased radicalism and terror world wide, helping to facilitate the metamorphsis of Al Qaeda
into many thriving sub cells in countries throughout the world.

This administration has avoided forcing the Israelis to relenquish the occupied territories, while actually emboldening them to substantially worsen matters by vastly increasing West Bank settler populations and helping them fight an abortive and useless war in Lebabnon.

At the same time, they have chosen to start a war in Iraq that has only served to increase terrorism worldwide while probably breaking Iraq up into waring factions.

Do you think they ARE actively seeking to create WWIII or not?

Regardless, Bush is certainly the worst president (including his administration) in US history.

J

It's all really quite simple, guys. Either we pull out of Iraq with the best partition plan in place we can manage so we can re-start the real war on terror, or we wait until we have created enough terrorists to carry out multiple successful attacks here in America, in which case we WILL pull out of Iraq, because we'll need the army RIGHT HERE. George Bush probably wouldn't mind having the army to command against us. Remember how badly he wanted to revoke Posse Comitatus during Hurricane Katrina?

We think Bush's policy of staying the course in Iraq is crazy, but in another way it makes quite a bit of sense. See Richard Clarke's "Ten Years Later."

Were we to re-focus the war on Afghanistan and the global cells, we might stand half-a-chance of convincing on-the-fence Muslims that we are engaged in a righteous cause against the people who attacked us, as their religion understands the concept of revenge that is narrow in scope. But no amount of jawboning about spreading democracy in Iraq will convince them we are not there to steal their oil, convert them to Christianity, and use their women as prostitutes. Bush says we cannot afford to pull out of Iraq, and that works for him. But the rest of the country outside his small, rich faction, cannot afford to stay.

http://ralphlopezworld.com

I'm no political strategist, so permit me to ask the following of the more enlightened in this forum:

The challenge of partition is naturally in the execution. I assume that initiating the partition in stages would be most feasible, with the de facto state of Kurdistan achieving independence sooner than later while the Shia- and Sunni-majority areas were of greater initial focus by US forces. Turkish objections would naturally be incredibly strong. Could Turkey be swayed by negotiations to A) disarm the PKK, and/or B) some EU/US movement to streamline Turkey's EU ascendency? Would either/both of these be sufficient or realistic?

If Iraqi Kurdistan were to be granted self-determination, would it be possible to maintain a stable Iraqi federation with the remaining Sunni/Shia arab areas, or would any hopes of unity be shattered by Kurdish secession?

I think we need to get out now because Iraq is never going to be able to take care of themselves until everyone else leaves them alone.

Ralph and Wally,

A break up is, as OD suggests, not a good exit strategy for the US, unless you subscribe to the idea that the Bush administration and all the other Noecons do, that our real goals should be to divide and conquer just about every major country in the ME, leaving Israel as the Dominant player.

On the other hand, it may not be avoidable at this point, although a change n congress and the administration might help move us in the right direction.

Perhaps we might still have a chance as long as Israel does not make our job there even harder by continuing to exacerbate the situation in Lebanon, although it is certainly in Israels Interest to try to incite as much violence as possible in order to drag us towards greaters wars (against countries that their furthest right contingent considers to be enemies of Israel) in the region.

Bringing in NATO and or UN forces might help to diffuse the attacks and lessen the calls for sectarian violence. Certainly, soldiers from a country other than one whose president says " we want to draw terrorists into Iraq so that we do not have to fight them on our shores" might be viewed as somewhat more friendly and credible.

Honestly, the more I consider the outrageous nature of Bush's statement about drawing the terrorists into Iraq so that we can fight them there instead of here, the more disgusted I am by the whole thing. It's as though he's painting a big red target on our soldiers inadequate body armour that says " I am trying to draw terrorists into your country. Shoot me before I succeed".

If there was a group of people running around America whose sole mission was to draw terrorists into America and away from their own country, what would our reaction to them be like I wonder? On the other hand, that describes AIPAC's and the Israeli settler movements relationship with Congress and the current administration pretty well, I suppose.

J

J:

"it is certainly in Israels Interest to try to incite as much violence as possible in order to drag us towards greaters wars (against countries that their furthest right contingent considers to be enemies of Israel) in the region."

Agreed. But look at what happens in this country when one suggests the Far Right Israeli lobby get its wings clipped (and I make a distinction, you should see some of the Israeli Left I see at protests, even more anti-occupation than me!) You go from being a distinguished professor of foreign relations like Stevie Walt to suddenly being just another anti-semite.

J:

"it is certainly in Israels Interest to try to incite as much violence as possible in order to drag us towards greaters wars (against countries that their furthest right contingent considers to be enemies of Israel) in the region."

Agreed. But look at what happens in this country when one suggests the Far Right Israeli lobby get its wings clipped (and I make a distinction, you should see some of the Israeli Left I see at protests, even more anti-occupation than me!) You go from being a distinguished professor of foreign relations like Stevie Walt to suddenly being just another anti-semite.

Ralphlopez,

Those days are rapidly coming to a close. The Walt and Mearsheimer paper is actually indicative of the This. I doubt either Walt or Mearsheimer have suffered as a result of their findings nor do they care about the spurious cries of anti semitism, first, because they predicted it would happen, and second, many of their findings are, as you suggest, passionatly embraced by many Israelis and American Jews, so anti settlement might apply, but not anti semitism.

Look at Senators Lincoln Chafee and Chuck Hegel. They are not afraid to criticize our policies regarding Israel and the role they play in increasing terrorism and threats to the US (Like 9/11).

It's starting to become the case that responsible people who care about the future and security of the US are shrugging off baseless claims of anti semitism in their quest to put this country back on a sensible and morally justifiable course.

J