Splitting Iraq Up

The violence seems to have no end. The current government cannot stop it. And the US can only keep Iraq from turning into total chaos. With US public opinion on the low. Democrats are likely to be the majority in Congress, which will mean less support for the Iraqi war.

Now why...Don't they split Iraq up in 3 different regions? Have the Sunnis, #tes, and Kurds. They can have representatives/governors, and have a central government. Wouldn't that solve the problems? I mean, Sunnis and #tes are already leaving their homes and trading with each other due to the violence...

What makes you suppose they won't war against each other for the land they beleive is theirs?

Indeed isn't the future of your scenario playing out right now?

Originally posted by SteveR
What makes you suppose they won't war against each other for the land they beleive is theirs?

Indeed isn't the future of your scenario playing out right now?

Maybe if they build a wall. Like the Berlin wall, separating them. There will no doubt be some violence still, but not to this degree. Segregate the people. Build a wall with electric wires with guards. Do something. I know how drastic that sounds, but it is better than what is going on now and what may happen later on.

Didn't the British (as well as most other Empires) have a pretty disasterous record of repeatedly redrawing the world map, and the eventual result has fanned the flames of conflict ever since.

A while ago I started a thread in regards to an artice on "redrawing the map of the Middle East", here's the article:

www.armedforcesjournal.com...

Looks like a recepie for disaster if you ask me, people are people and therefore are never happy with their lot.

Deny, then what is there to do? The violence will NEVER stop. 150,000 US troops won't be there forever. Other countries troops won't be there forever. The only other way to solve it is put in another dictator like Saddam. Because democracy ain't gonna cut it.

There already is 2 Iraq's. The Kurds control the north and NO ONE goes up there unless they want to die. Saddam had to gas em because he never could control em. Building a wall would be insanely expensive and wouldnt work unless the coalition forces patrolled it and then theyd be sitting ducks. The 2 tribes have always warred and they always will, its just a tribal deal of the ME. They will either go into full scale civil war or it will die down to "usual" levels.



From talking with a friend of mine in the Army that was over in Iraq for a year and is getting ready to go back the Kurds are ruthless suckers that dont hesitate to kill ya if you pose a threat but he said they LOVE Americans( and I would imagine the Brits and other allys). He said when you arrive they'll bring out a bunch of fruits and veggies and go kill a goat for you to eat. He said they dont hesitate to prepare a feast for Americans. And I dont doubt that a bit because if you think about it under Saddam they were gassed and killed but now they pretty much just tend o themselves and arent bothered. They have their own President and govt, it aint bad for them.

theotheriraq.com...

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maybe if they build a wall. Like the Berlin wall, separating them. There will no doubt be some violence still, but not to this degree. Segregate the people. Build a wall with electric wires with guards. Do something. I know how drastic that sounds, but it is better than what is going on now and what may happen later on.

I emphasize with the sentiment but we need a long lasting solution to this. I'm not sure how well Hadrians wall would work in the 21st century.

I agree, sadly, that there really doesn't appear to be an end in sight for the ongoing tragedy in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I do believe that the coalition that invaded did the Iraqi people a great disservice by having no really clear plan on how to administer the country after the war.

Military administration will always be unpopular, and apart from providing an amateur police force they will find themselves in utterly alien territory. "Where are the civilian administrators?" as Niall Ferguson asks in his book "Colossus", as well as an army of occupation Iraq needs an army of beaurocrats to organise the whole sorry mess!

Armies are not a versatile tool outside the arena of warfare and in Iraq they appear to be under siege in a hostile environment. We've sent them in and abandoned them with a task that they not been trained for and have proved themselves incapable of achieving.

I wish there was an answer to solve the problem, but I think we've left it too late.

[edit on 13-8-2006 by DenyAllKnowledge]

The violence won't stop just because they are seperated into different nations or regions. It'd maybe even worsen.

The ONLY way there will EVER be peace there is if everyone sits down and work things out peacefully.

This new gov't in Iraq is trying to accomplish that. It may not be easy, it may take a while, but it's the best thing we've got to actually working our way towards a peaceful Iraq.