Online Journal
Front Page 
 
 Donate
 
 Submissions
 
 Announcements
 
 NewsLinks
 
 Special Reports
 
 News Media
 
 Elections & Voting
 
 Health
 
 Religion
 
 Social Security
 
 Analysis
 
 Commentary
 
 Editors' Blog
 
 Reclaiming America
 
 The Splendid Failure of Occupation
 
 The Lighter Side
 
 Reviews
 
 The Mailbag
 
 Online Journal Stores
 Official Merchandise
 Amazon.com
 Progressive Press
 Barnes and Noble
 
 Links
 
 Join Mailing List
Search

Commentary Last Updated: Oct 4th, 2007 - 01:16:07


Let's try partitioning the US
By Linda S. Heard
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 4, 2007, 01:14

Email this article
 Printer friendly page

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 9 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 colleagues 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.

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 British specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She welcomes feedback and can be contacted by email at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor

Top of Page

Commentary
Latest Headlines
Baseball been berry good to me
US detention centers in Iraq, better than the Hilton?
Are heterosexuals really the best parents?
Peace summit: Historic moment or big yawn?
Praxis, not doxa
Darfur: Why should we care?
American lockdown: Law enforcement out of control and beyond the pale
Haider Abdul-Shafi: passing undefeated
An anti-imperialist case against a nuclear Iran
The Iraq occupation and the coming war against Iran: Political wickedness and moral bankruptcy
Are thugs who defend �American interests� lesser thugs?
For Iran, no nukes is not good news
Blackwater�s bullets over Baghdad
Who killed the antiwar movement?
9/11 isn�t �over,� Mr. Friedman
Dissenting at your own risk
Our Bonhoeffer moment
Let's try partitioning the US
A Q & A for the people of a forsaken republic: Addressing the origins of the 'Whose-Your-Daddy Nation'
The Anti-Empire Report-2: Anti-Semitism. Don't settle for imitations