About three weeks ago, as I was driving back from Tennessee, I happened to hear an interview with Stephen Biddle from the Council on Foreign Relations. He was talking about the fact that the current conflict in Iraq has more to do with different groups within Iraq attacking each other than it does with Iraqi groups attacking US troops. While there are certainly some who attacking Americans, this is not the main source of unrest. Notice how often we hear of bombings in market places and attacks against members of the Iraqi government.

This got me thinking of more seriously of an idea I have had about a way forward in the mess in Mesopotamia.

The current borders of Iraq and indeed all of the Middle East were drawn up by the British and French in the wake of World War I. Prior to 1932, Iraq did not exist. Despite this, the US policy in Iraq right now seems to be assuming that the current borders make sense when in fact they don’t. If you look at a map, the borders don’t follow any natural divides, nor do they reflect the ethnic makeup of the region. For example, the drawing of the map after WWI took no notice of the fact that a third of the population of Baghdad was Jewish. Instead, they just set up an Arab state.

Why, then, are we attempting to keep Iraq whole? It is not like it has any historical precedent. Would it not make more sense to divide it up along ethnic lines? If the primary source of the hostility is Sunnis fighting Shiites, Shiites fighting Sunnis, and Shiites and Sunnis fighting Kurds, why not send everyone to their own room. This is how my mother handled things when my brother and I were fighting.

This approach worked well in the Balkans in the wake of the collapse of Yugoslavia. It put an end to ethnic violence. Everyone got a share in the power, but it was a share that they themselves controlled. If we followed this approach in Iraq, it would alleviate worries about Shiite reprisals against the Sunni minority. It would protect the Kurds from ethnic violence. And it would give democracy a chance of actually succeeding in the region.

As you can see from my hastily drawn map above, the different groups already are somewhat settled according to their ethnic and religious identity. This map, of course, is oversimplified and does not show the pockets of groups that live outside of their majority area. And we would also have the problem of what to do with the region around Baghdad, which is a mix of Shia and Sunni. Surely, however, such problems are no more difficult to solve than the current difficulties. Some people would have to move, but many are already moving because of the violence. Wouldn’t they prefer to be moving because they had a chance at peace?

I think another benefit would be that the international community would be more likely to support this idea. The UN was the one that orchestrated this in the former Yugoslavia, and troops from different UN countries could be the ones that helped defend and build each of the independent countries. I think an international presence instead of a US presence would also decrease animosity towards the governments in each country.

I know this idea has been floated around a bit, but it has not been discussed as much as I think it should. What do you all think? Is it feasible? Is it workable? Is it better or worse than our approach now? If we truly believe in democracy, shouldn’t we at least put this idea before the Iraqi people and let them decide if they want to pursue it?

Permalink