A House Divided

President Lincoln famously observed that, "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Perhaps that's true, but perhaps it is sometimes better for a house to divide.

One of the cornerstones of U.S. policy toward Iraq has been to maintain that nation as an integrated whole. This, of course, proves problematic when you recognize that the nation is divided into three distinct ethnic groups who don't trust each other, and who live in relatively discrete geographic regions - the Kurdish north (20% of the population), the "Sunni Triangle" (20% of the population), and the Shiite south (60% of the population). It is also problematic when the Shiite majority would probably vote for some form of Islamic theocracy over secular democracy, and the U.S. would prefer not to have another Shiite Islamic state situated next to Iran.

Another cornerstone of U.S. policy for the region has been to "keep Turkey out of the conflict" by preventing the formation of an independent Kurdish state in the north. Even while protecting the Kurds from Hussein during the period between gulf wars, through a northern "no fly zone", the U.S. actively discouraged the Kurds from taking action which would be seen as a move toward independence or statehood.

This approach reminds me of a couple of other nations - the former colonial India, and the former Yugoslavia. India held together under colonial rule, but as soon as the colonial power departed the nation divided along ethnic lines into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh - and India and Pakistan are still in conflict over Kashmir. Yugoslavia held together as a nation under the unifying control of Marshall Tito, but after his death it collapsed into an ugly civil war and split into Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia - with foreign troops remaining in place years after-the-fact to prevent renewed hostilities. Heck - even Czhechoslovakia split into Chechia and Slovakia after the fall of communism.

Perhaps, rather than trying to create an unnatural coalition among the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunnis, the Bush Administration should do something that would be more likely to bring lasting stability to the region. That is, recognize that Iraq is not likely to stabilize as a unified nation and that, if it is no longer desirable to impose a Hussein-style tyranny to hold the nation together, the better approach may be to divide Iraq into states which are more amenable to stable, democratic governance.

With a "sorry, Turkey - it has to be done", the Bush Administration could structure a Kurdish state made financially stable by a fair allocation of Iraq's northern oil fields. (Reasonable measures could be taken to reassure Turkey that this would not destabilize its southern regions or inflame its Kurdish population.) The aversion to a Shiite state may make the division of the rest of Iraq a political impossibility, but if the goal truly is to set up a model democracy for the Middle East, isn't "Kurdistan" a good place to start? And wouldn't it benefit Bush to be able to point to a stable, secure Kurdish democracy as he enters the 2004 election season?

Comments