How to Avoid a Return to Iraq
Although the increased sectarian violence in a post-U.S. Iraq has gotten most of the publicity from the international media, there are other telling signs that a bloody civil war there may be in the offing. Much sentiment exists in Sunni majority areas — distrustful of the increasingly autocratic and uncompromising Shi’ite-run regime of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki — to form regional governments with more autonomy from the central government. In fact, a majority of the provincial council of the Sunni-dominated Diyala province requested that the central government hold a referendum on whether the province should form a semi-autonomous region.
Iraq’s constitution [.pdf] allows provinces to create regional governments. The Kurds in northern Iraq have lived autonomously for decades, enjoying their own parliamentary democracy, prosperity, security, peace, and control over their own natural resources, including oil. The Kurds don’t really want to be part of Iraq but have been kept in by autocratic Iraqi governments, the U.S. military occupation, and fears that Turkey would invade if they declared their independence (perhaps inspiring Kurds in southeastern Turkey to join them).
The inclination toward autonomy or separation in Iraq comes from having a government too centralized for a country fractured among Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurdish ethno-sectarian groups and numerous tribes. Although the constitution allows decentralization through the creation of autonomous regional governments, the United States and now the Shi’ite-controlled central government have discouraged such devolution. Despite Vice President Joseph Biden’s advocacy, when he was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate during the Iraqi civil war of 2006 and 2007, of splitting Iraq up into three federal states to quell violence, the U.S. governments of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have discouraged this idea. The United States, as a status quo power, presumably believed, as did the British before them, that control of oil could be best achieved through dealing with a strong central government in Baghdad. Yet Kurdistan is already cutting oil deals with foreign companies without checking in with the Oil Ministry in Baghdad.
Given Iraq’s history of one group — usually the Sunnis — using a strong central government to oppress the other groups, continuation of any significant degree of authority in Baghdad will lead to conflict among the groups for dominance of that government. The Shi’ites want to control the central government to prevent a return of traditional authoritarian Sunni domination. The Sunnis are scared that the Shi’ite-dominated Maliki government is going to repress them as payback for the era of Saddam Hussein — a good bet since Maliki has recently arrested or tried to arrest many Sunnis, including Iraq’s vice president, and purge others, including his deputy prime minister. The Kurds, a traditionally oppressed people, fear repression from any government in Baghdad. Even some Shi’ites have advocated an autonomous region for themselves in southern Iraq. Devolving power in Iraq would reduce and probably eliminate sectarian violence, which is usually associated with nervousness about who controls the central government.
But if local governments were given control over their own security forces, judiciary, and finances, wouldn’t this provide a haven for al-Qaeda and other militant groups, as Maliki’s supporters argue? No, the violence in Iraq was attenuated after 2007 by a Sunni Awakening movement becoming fed up with the excessive violence of their fellow Sunnis in al-Qaeda and working against the group. The local fighters of the Sunni Awakening had better intelligence on the group and how it could be decimated than the faraway Iraqi central government or U.S. forces.
But some argue that because the ethno-sectarian lines in Iraq are not always clear cut, devolving the country into a loose confederation of three autonomous regions could still leave subunits with a mixed population. For example, Diyala province is 60 percent Sunni, 20 percent Shi’ite, and 20 percent Kurdish.
Fair enough, but in my book Partitioning for Peace: An Exit Strategy for Iraq, I noted that the actual partitioning should be left up to Iraqis themselves and that many more regions than three could be created. Academic research shows that the regional boundaries don’t need to perfectly divide ethno-sectarian groups (and those that did might run afoul of tribes that have more than one ethno-sectarian group in them), but they can’t leave a large minority inside a boundary line that will threaten the majority within. Only small minorities, say 10 percent or less, can be left “stranded” without inviting repression by the majority.
What about creating subunits too small to be economically viable? Academic research shows that this possibility is a myth. Besides, any confederation government in Baghdad could be in charge only of maintaining a free-trade area and perhaps a common currency.
After its forces have withdrawn, why should the United States be concerned with the devolution of power in Iraq? Because if power is not decentralized, Iraq is liable to degenerate into a civil war that will make the conflict in 2006 and 2007 look mild. Sectarian violence is already increasing. And of course, the United States, which is responsible for the current mess, may be pressured by the Iraqi central government, other Iraqis, or the international community to return its forces to the internecine bloodletting to stanch the carnage. Although President Obama maintains that U.S. troops will not return to Iraq even if the civil war resumes, pledges of nonintervention have been later broken by previous presidents, especially after elections.
That doesn’t mean that the United States should tell the Iraqis how to organize themselves, but it could mediate any Iraqi-initiated peacefully negotiated devolution. Such mediation at least would be a constructive role for some of the 16,000 U.S. embassy personnel left in the country and might forestall future demands for a return of U.S. forces to Iraq under dire and dangerous circumstances.
Read more by Ivan Eland
- Sometimes, Bad-Tasting Medicine Needs to Be Swallowed – December 27th, 2011
- No War for Oil: US Dependency and the Middle East – December 20th, 2011
- Quit Preaching and Lead by Example – December 13th, 2011
- Pro-Business vs. Pro-Market: What’s the Difference? – December 6th, 2011
- Moderation in Following the Constitution Is No Virtue – November 29th, 2011
Big Al
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Hmm, nothing about the outside forces who are causing much of this violence?
Antiwar.com, right.
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:32 pm
Like Who, Big Al?
Israel? BP and Exxon? China? Russia? The folks hanging out in the American Embassy in Baghdad's Green Zone?
Do You know?
jgmoebus
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:38 pm
IE: "That doesn’t mean that the United States should tell the Iraqis how to organize themselves, but it could mediate any Iraqi-initiated peacefully negotiated devolution."
On what possible basis would ANYBODY in Iraq pay any attention whatsoever to efforts by the US to mediate ANYTHING in that country, let alone "peacefully negotiated devolution"? Except at gun point?
On what possible basis is the United States QUALIFIED to mediate AnyThing in that country, especially "peacefully negotiated devolution"? Except at gun point?
Steven Frans
January 3rd, 2012 at 5:58 am
Ever heard of the Salvador option? http://www.brussellstribunal.org/BritishBombers.h…
This so-called civil war is in large part an imperialist creation to divide and conquer. The sectarian violence is instigated by US backed counter-insurgency groups and Iran supported proxies. Furthermore, Muslims don't attack eachothers religious holidays, except for some fanatic lunatics (supported by US's good friend S-A.) And that constitution you're referring to is illegal under international law (because it was put in place under foreign occupation) but lead to a political system based on those previously unimportant notions as Shia and Sunni. You need to distinguish between cause and consequence.
How All Things Media Big & Small enable war (C.I.) | thecommonillsbackup
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:11 am
[...] Ivan Eland has an important piece on Iraq at Antiwar.com. I hope to bring that into the next entry but in case I don’t have time or space, I’m linking to it here and will try to include it in the snapshot today. [...]
The ongoing political crisis (C.I.) | thecommonillsbackup
January 3rd, 2012 at 7:44 am
[...] you there is only one way to do something, run like hell, especially if you’re at an airport. Ivan Eland (Antiwar.com) makes an argument for partitioning without sounding like he wants your first born. But what I want to emphasize here [...]
Vote Against the Establishment (and other news…) » Scott Lazarowitz's Blog
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:54 am
[...] Ivan Eland: How to Avoid a Return to Iraq [...]
Strider55
January 3rd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Regarding Diyala province and any other mixed-population area: When Britain partitioned its newly-independent India colony in 1947, millions of Hindus and Muslims were on the wrong side of the lines. Over the next year the lion's share of them migrated across the new borders. So many Muslims were in the east that the new Muslim nation of Pakistan had to be split in two. (That eastern exclave seceded in 1971 and became Bangladesh.) So I suspect if a three-way partition of Iraq occurs, a similar (though much smaller) migration will occur.
Isn't it odd that Iraq shows the necessity of ethnically homogenous regions, while here in the US the leftists are shoving "diversity" down our throats 24/7 while proclaiming it a "strength"? In fact, diversity is a fatal weakness and recipe for disaster, and Iraq is Exhibit A.
andy
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
That the obvious and historically utterly unprecedented falsehood, "diversity is strength" could become commonly accepted just shows the power of brainwashing, massmedia, and general ignorance.
jgmoebus
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:54 pm
Hmmmmm…. help me out here, Strider55 and andy….
What are you guys actually, really talking in favor of? Some sort of Ethnic or, even better, Racial "Purity"?
In the real world of mountains and rivers and forests and oceans and meadows and swamps and deserts and such, monoculture is extreme weakness and a preliminary stage of collapse and eventual total destruction.
Are you suggesting that the species of economic/political/social Humans is exempt from this widely observed ecological phenomenon?
andy
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:01 pm
I am talking about realities sir, which can be observed all throughout history. Diversity is not and never has been a source of "strength". To claim otherwise is simply to be dishonest, naive or a misguided fool.
jgmoebus
January 4th, 2012 at 12:00 am
Nice try, andy, but you didn't answer either of my Questions.
What are you talking about: Ethnic purity? Racial Purity? Some other kind of "Purity"?
And, do you think human beings are exempt from the widely observed and acknowledged ecologiocal phenomenon that bio-diversity is indeed strength?
For some reason, you strike me as one of those Social Darwin types. So, i'm asking: do the rules of evolutionary biology and the importance of diversity apply, or not?
Steven Frans
January 4th, 2012 at 6:01 am
First, shia and sunni isn't about ethnicity.
Second, (forced) migration has already taken place in Iraq: 2 million internal refugees and 2 million that left the country. But that was not by choice, those people fled the occupation's and externally fuelled sectarian violence, splitting up 'mixed' families, leaving behind their beloved country in fear of being killed for a previously irrelevant notion (see for example http://www.alternet.org/world/73103/ )
Third, diversity can be defined in many ways, you're talking about ethnicity, but what about, color of the skin, language, religion, sexual flavor, political orientation, intellectual capacity, socio-economic position, … Political and economic elites will always find ways to make people fight eachother instead of opposing the real threat, namely elite and imperial power: state and capital.
andy
January 4th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
I don't think diversity is strength. You seem to think otherwise. I think everything in human history suggests I am right and you are wrong. I also think Botany and human nature are disconnected.