Senate Partitions Iraq
The US Senate voted for a soft partition of Iraq on Thursday. First they messed up Iraq by authorizing Terrible George to blow it up, now they want to further mess it up by dividing it. It makes no sense to me; the US Senate doesn't even have the authority to divide Iraq. Wouldn't that be for the Iraqi parliament?
The Iraqi political elite roundly condemned the Senate vote. Note that among the more vocal denunciations came from Shiite Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, whose own party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), favors the creation of a Shiite superstate in the south.
Iraq expert Reidar Vissar dissects the Senate vote and says it is, in Iraqi terms, unconstitutional.
The Iraqi government is incapable of even rudimentary auditing and corruption-fighting, according to a US embassy in Baghdad report. The difficulties range from the poor security situation to violent militia elements inside government ministries.
Historian Roger Owen explains why Iraq is doomed to warlord rivalry and chaos in the short to medium term, whatever the US military does in that country.
At the Global Affairs blog, Part four of Barnett Rubin's excellent series on counter-narcotics policy in Afghanistan.
At the Napoleon's Egypt blog, an account of the Nile river battle of Shubrakhit (Chubrakhit, Chabreisse), by General Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, later the father of the author of the Count of Monte Cristo. The Dumas adventure novels were influenced by his father's exploits in the Napoleonic period, though he would only have known them second hand.
Labels: Iraq
posted by Juan Cole @ 9/28/2007 01:34:00 AM
|
Facebook
19 Comments:
Wouldn't that be for the Iraqi parliament?
100% agree. The US has declared Iraq a sovereign state. The US does not have the power to impose a partition on the country. A law would have to be voted by the Iraqi parliament, and I am certain that they will never vote such a law, as currently, according to the latest poll, 89% of Iraqis are against partition, only 11% being for. The oil law has not been voted, and a partition law will be the same. No doubt the US embassy will manipulate the situation, but I would say the task is extremely difficult.
Divide and rule is an ancient adage, though I think it's too much to say the Senate had this in mind from the beginning. It seems they are trying to make the best of a terrible situation. A situation partially of their own making, to be sure.
It is inconceivable that Biden does not already know the issues as presented by the excellent piece by Reidar Visser in your link. He has been working on his "plan" for a long time, and he has staff and government resources.
Biden wants an imposed top-down partition precisely becasue the Iraqi people do not want it. Two of Biden's US-sponsored "factions" already support it, and I am sure some Sunni "leaders" can be found to do the same.
Biden's AIPAC sponsors start everyday now by kicking themselves real hard. They invested so much in promoting the invasion of Iraq and now they face the prospect of a nationalists-led free Iraq to add to their woes, instead of the zombie Iraq under Saddam. They wanted a Kurdistan-like Iraq where they roam and control freely. Now they know that was fantasy, and also know that they can only sell the occupation for two years at the most.
That's why they are desperate to divide-and-rule. Have the Iraqis fight each other forever more.
JC,
You have been doing some excellent work. (as always)
Thank you
I think the US Senate should divide itself.... into what, I don't know. Our best hope (these days) is that everyone will recognize that the US Senate and House of Representatives are nothing but a bunch of clowns.
Clowns who kill.
This was the product of two things: frustration in the Senate at the lack of progress in the war, and Joe Biden's ambition. He bragged about the vote several times in the Democratic debate later that evening as proof that he could get Republicans to turn against Bush.
Senator Biden's colonial law calling for the partition of Iraq is ridiculous - can you imagine the Iraqi parliament passing a law calling for the partition of the US? Also concerning corruption in the Iraqi government, I wonder why some Congressional staff privately call certain members of Congress "prostitutes" for the way they blatantly sell votes and influence? Perhaps the Iraqi parliament should call for an investigation?
Also why did the Senate vote 76-22 yesterday to declare the entire Revolutionary Guard be declared a "terrorist entity" - were they bought off by AIPAC yet again? The US military has carefully restricted their public comments to the Revolutionary Guards QODS force, not the entire Revolutionary Guard. The fact is our corrupt Congress now appears to have lower approval ratings then even the Iraqi Parliament!
We're not talking about strategic geniuses here. We're not talking about people who even have enough talent at the colonialism thing to know when to shut the hell up.
The US legislative branch announcing that it favors breaking up the country is the kind of mistake the British colonialists would never have made during their colonial peak.
But on the other hand, it is honest in a sense. The US has a choice between a stable anti-Western/Zionist Iraq or no Iraq. For the US, the preference is clear and has been expressed consistently with laser-sharp clarity. The US chooses no Iraq.
No Iraq is relatively good for Israel (compared to the alternative), bad for everyone else and terrible for Iraqis.
Just noting though, no Iraq is actually bad for the oil companies, maybe terrible for the oil companies. Even an anti-Western/Zionist Iraq would put its oil on the market and would not pose a threat to US arrangements with the Saudis for example.
Unless the US boycotts an anti-Western/Zionist Iraq from the US side, that Iraq would still buy technology from US companies, as Iran would if given the chance - maybe on terms less favorable than a client would, but a lot better than nothing.
Re Warlord Rivalry and Chaos
April 26, 2007
"Semantic Plethorae"
.
Iraq was governed by brutality before we arrived. It unfortunately is going to be governed by brutality when we leave,...... regardless of timing.
Staying, leaving, deadlines....chimeric illusory words, for at least a decade or three.
Ten plethora's of semantic universes will not change this sad fact.
"......The US Senate voted for a soft partition of Iraq on Thursday...."
Was that a run around of sort to get Kurdistan consign its oil field to you know who. It will not work because there are 2 pipelines route for that Iraqi oil to run through, a northern route through Turkey that can be taken out daily, if not hourly, and a southern pipe that recently Syria agreed to revamp and open. The problem with this one, is that it run through my home town, Homs and even literally through my own swath of agriculture land, and there are many reasons why I am unhappy with life that someone should take into account. The yoke on the jackass plow is constantly coming with close proximity to damage that pipe. LOL....Maybe Congress can pass a law banning World populace from farting!!! It is a lot more worthwhile endeavor and productive use of time than what they have spent the past 60+ years legislating.
Take a look at the 3:1 super-majority on the Iraq Federalism resolution. A majority of the Republicans endorsed a measure authored by Dem. committee chair and candidate Biden. Warner, Web, McConnel, Brownback, Pat Roberts, Dodd, Lieberman voted for, with Hillary. Feingold, Hagel, Dole and Lindsay Graham against. McCain and Obama not present.
I wonder if Team W gave the Biden resolution a nod. They didn't fare much better on S-CHIP, which they were actively opposing.
Enabling/accelerating federalism in Iraq is now the officially unofficial bipartisan Plan B that Warner, Lugar and even McConnel were talking about last Summer.
GIve a listen to Wes Clark (scan to 9:50) in his recent Cspan Washington Journal appearance. He may not be 'right', but it sounds like informed professional opinion. He unloads it like a straight intel dump. ' Sectarian cleansing advances in B'dad. Sunni's arming against attacks from an Iran-backed Shiite South. Trouble in Kirkuk.'
Front-runner Hillary should rate classified briefings for her 4-star senior military advisor. If he's not due that much in his own right.
International and Iraqi players may be passive in the face of US policy chaos, waiting to see how things shake out to seek advantage. That is proving tragic for Iraqis, expensive and destructive for US interests.
We need a bipartisan Iraq policy here in the US, so that our internatinal partners can play a constructive role.
...wouldn't a partition of Iraq be a boon to Iran? It would further cement Iran's pre-eminence in the Gulf region, it seems to me, to have their formerly mortal enemy divided into 3 pieces.
I happen to think that partitioning is such a good idea, that it should be used much more often. You can read my own partition plans here:
Partitioning the World
Or you can just wait until you hear about it on the news next week. And yes, my presidential exploratory committee does have the authority to do this. I gave it to them personally.
That's interesting. I had always thought that the elder Dumas was an illiterate like several other revolutionary French generals, though I can no longer recall where I gained that opinion.
"We need a bipartisan Iraq policy here in the US, so that our internatinal partners can play a constructive role."
There is one; it has no name other than Victory, and consists of killing as many Iraqis as possible so the permanent occupation can become smoother as time goes forward. This policy is essentially the same for all propaganda industry-backed candidates in "both parties."
So, will the three new nations be called "Regular", "Premium", and "Diesel"? Or will they be called "Exxon-Mobil", "Texaco", and "Chevron"? Curious penguins want to know!
And oh, the fact that over 60% of Iraqis oppose partition? Irrelevant. Expecting Exxon-Mobil to share territory with Chevron is just asking for sectarian warfare, doncha know?!
- Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Probably just a coincidence, but a few days ago, the Baath Party posted a statement warning that the policies of inciting Arabs to leave Kirkuk was the prelude to a US-sponsored plan to split Iraq into three powerless statelets. By pushing soft partition, we'll validate their preconceived notion that we just want to dominate the Middle East and particularly, the Arabs who live in it. My guess is that is not in our long-term interest.
Avid Reader
Dr. Owen, in explaining the ascendancy of the Warlords, captures the weakness of the so-called central government:
"Without the power over their constituents that comes from their ability to provide them with resources ..."
.
Somebody check my math.
If we are spending $12 Billion a month in Iraq - over and above the annual DOD and State budgets -
and if there are about 25 Million Iraqis left,
It looks like we are spending about $480 per Iraqi per month to accomplish or not accomplish whatever is happening in Iraq.
With that kind of money, we could not only pay the salaries of the al-Anbar Resistance fighters to stop shooting at us,
the essence of the "Anbar Awakening,"
we could make the entire population dependent on welfare checks from us.
Instead of spending the money on 2,000 lb bombs to destroy homes and businesses,
we could distribute the money in food stamps or rent credits and earn or buy or rent the genuine (or effective) allegiance of the local population.
Is there anyone in the White House or on the policy staff at Foggy Bottom who knows anything about human nature ?
Folks want to live in peace, to be left alone.
They want to eat and have clean water to drink.
Since we can afford to just give them what they want,
why not give it to them ?
Isn't it worth at least experimenting with doing the right thing, after 4 years of forcing them into hell ?
Broken record:
the only way to salvage any shred of success anymore is "Model Communities."
Replace those expensive Expat USAID contractors/ Co-op implementers with locals who can get the job done - the authentic indigenous local community leaders.
Right away, this eliminates the need to have Blackwater Mercenaries escort USAID staff through the streets, fending off the imagined attacks of unarmed civilians.
Hire the local leaders as our contractors to run aid, reconstruction and development programs, and to enforce local security.
Yes, that creates a bunch of little fiefdoms, but they are stable fiefdoms.
At this point, we should be thinking less about how this can result in a surrender ceremony on the deck of an aircraft carrier,
and more about how to ameliorate some of the harm we've done.
your avid student
Note that among the more vocal denunciations came from Shiite Vice President Adil Abdul Mahdi, whose own party, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), favors the creation of a Shiite superstate in the south.
Of course, now that the US senate thought it right to intervene in Iraqi affairs, he is in a very bad position to push the same idea : it will always (and correctly) be seen as an American proposal. This just makes him look like an Amerian stooge.
Post a Comment
<< Home