Iraq a repeat of Yugoslavia?

[Indus]

One of the most revealing things I've been listening to over the PBS News Network is that the Iraqi government won't give different groups money or weapons for their daily paychecks or to fight ISIS. Our money goes to the government of Iraq and it's just pocketed by the top 1%.. another example of corruption..

So ISIS is just the catalyst but it seems there's no will to have a united Iraq by the Iraqi's. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if Iraq was broken up just like Yugoslavia became Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro etc?

 

[Jhhnn]

One of the most revealing things I've been listening to over the PBS News Network is that the Iraqi government won't give different groups money or weapons for their daily paychecks or to fight ISIS. Our money goes to the government of Iraq and it's just pocketed by the top 1%.. another example of corruption..

So ISIS is just the catalyst but it seems there's no will to have a united Iraq by the Iraqi's. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if Iraq was broken up just like Yugoslavia became Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro etc?

I thought that was the whole point- to fracture Iraq so that they'd never be a threat to Israel or KSA & the gulf sheikdoms.

When you look at it that way, the invasion really was mission accomplished.

Corrupt govt? Kinda like Afghanistan, I suspect. The international banking community loves 'em dearly. Laundering & hiding their money is a real pleasure & oh so easy.

 

[blastingcap]

One of the most revealing things I've been listening to over the PBS News Network is that the Iraqi government won't give different groups money or weapons for their daily paychecks or to fight ISIS. Our money goes to the government of Iraq and it's just pocketed by the top 1%.. another example of corruption..

So ISIS is just the catalyst but it seems there's no will to have a united Iraq by the Iraqi's. Wouldn't it be a lot easier if Iraq was broken up just like Yugoslavia became Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, Montenegro etc?

That's been proposed (Sunnistan, Shiastan, Kurdistan regions), but the problem is that most of the oil is in Shiastan. Some in Kurdistan. Not much in Sunnistan.

Therefore the big winner in an Iraqi fracturing is Shiastan, Kurdistan sort of wins as well, and Sunnis lose.

Sunnis used to be the favored sect for many, many decades and under Saddam Hussein. Sunni Arabs still haven't come to grips with the flip-flop in power, and they certainly won't agree to an Iraqi division which leaves them with little oil.

Nevertheless, I'm starting to think that's the only way out. Chop up Iraq and Syria along sectarian/ethnic lines, even if the Sunni Arabs are pissed about all the oil they lost.

 

[fskimospy]

Kurdistan would be the big winner, depending on the status of Kirkuk. In fact, they have been trying to leave Iraq for a very long time. This would be a very destabilizing move though as Turkey and Iran have large Kurdish populations next to Iraqi Kurdistan that would very likely want to secede and help create a greater Kurdistan. The reason why the central government has kept delaying the Kirkuk referendum is to keep that region's oil out of the Kurds' hands in order to hopefully make any proposed state less economically viable. The Sunnis would be the big losers though, yes.

Iraq splitting up would be a major destabilizing influence in an already pretty fucking unstable part of the world.

 

[Genx87]

Kurdistan would be the big winner, depending on the status of Kirkuk. In fact, they have been trying to leave Iraq for a very long time. This would be a very destabilizing move though as Turkey and Iran have large Kurdish populations next to Iraqi Kurdistan that would very likely want to secede and help create a greater Kurdistan. The reason why the central government has kept delaying the Kirkuk referendum is to keep that region's oil out of the Kurds' hands in order to hopefully make any proposed state less economically viable. The Sunnis would be the big losers though, yes.

Iraq splitting up would be a major destabilizing influence in an already pretty fucking unstable part of the world.

Would it ultimately be destabilizing? Modern Iraq is more of less a drawn country by the League of Nations from the remnants of the Ottoman empire. Within these borders are three distinct group of people. None of them want anything to do with each other. Without a Dictator or Monarch with strong western backing we see what happens.

I think splitting the country along party lines could help stabilize within these regions over a longer term. Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds could all have their own country. Right now we are trying to force these people to work together. The results are the Kurds flipping the bird to Baghdad, Sunnis are overrun by ISIS, and the Shiite are increasingly needing Iranian help to force the Sunnis to stay part of the country.

Even if Iraq manages to drive back ISIS. Im not sold on them being able to hold any real power in these lands as the militia they are using decide to keep the land for themselves.

The Iraqi invasion was a disaster. But I'm not sure they could had picked a more fractured country population wise to destabilize. Which makes it an even bigger mistake to think anything positive would come from it.

 

[blastingcap]

Would it ultimately be destabilizing? Modern Iraq is more of less a drawn country by the League of Nations from the remnants of the Ottoman empire. Within these borders are three distinct group of people. None of them want anything to do with each other. Without a Dictator or Monarch with strong western backing we see what happens.

I think splitting the country along party lines could help stabilize within these regions over a longer term. Sunni, Shiite, and Kurds could all have their own country. Right now we are trying to force these people to work together. The results are the Kurds flipping the bird to Baghdad, Sunnis are overrun by ISIS, and the Shiite are increasingly needing Iranian help to force the Sunnis to stay part of the country.

Even if Iraq manages to drive back ISIS. Im not sold on them being able to hold any real power in these lands as the militia they are using decide to keep the land for themselves.

The Iraqi invasion was a disaster. But I'm not sure they could had picked a more fractured country population wise to destabilize. Which makes it an even bigger mistake to think anything positive would come from it.

Although I agree that Iraq is ALREADY destabilizing the region, I think your characterization is wrong.

"The results are the Kurds flipping the bird to Baghdad, Sunnis are overrun by ISIS, and the Shiite are increasingly needing Iranian help to force the Sunnis to stay part of the country."

should read:

The results are: Shia Arabs' corruption and oppression of Sunni Arabs, Sunni Arabs undergoing civil war (some are pro-unity, a subset of whom want semi-autonomy like the Kurds have; some are pro-Daesh; some are in the middle), and Kurds taking the opportunity to consolidate their autonomy after decades of oppression by Saddam and years of broken promises by the Arabs in the federal Iraqi govt in Baghdad.