Biden wants to split Iraq into three regions

[ProSense]

in LBN:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2256867&mesg_id=2256867

[Mass]

1. Not really new. He said so several times.

Kerry also said it could be necessary if the rest fails, but that we needed to hold the "Dayton-like" meeting first in order to know (rather than imposing that to others once again).

Juan Cole on partition.

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/settling-iraq-before-it-blows-up.html

[ProSense]

2. Here's his op-ed in the NYT

Op-Ed Contributors
Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq

By JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR. and LESLIE H. GELB
Published: May 1, 2006

A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords,which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year.

Now the Bush administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments in Iraq, has a similar opportunity. To seize it, however, America must get beyond the present false choice between "staying the course" and "bringing the troops home now" and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals.

The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests. We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/01/opinion/01biden.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ProSense]

3. Here is the clincher:

As long as American troops are in Iraq in significant numbers, the insurgents can't win and we can't lose. But intercommunal violence has surpassed the insurgency as the main security threat. Militias rule swathes of Iraq and death squads kill dozens daily. Sectarian cleansing has recently forced tens of thousands from their homes. On top of this, President Bush did not request additional reconstruction assistance and is slashing funds for groups promoting democracy.

Snip...

Fourth, the president must direct the military to design a plan for withdrawing and redeploying our troops from Iraq by 2008 (while providing for a small but effective residual force to combat terrorists and keep the neighbors honest). We must avoid a precipitous withdrawal that would lead to a national meltdown , but we also can't have a substantial long-term American military presence. That would do terrible damage to our armed forces, break American and Iraqi public support for the mission and leave Iraqis without any incentive to shape up.

[Mass]

4. By 2008 - Thanks but no thanks.

[Mass]

5. keep the neighbors honest???

[ProSense]

6. Loaded statetment.

Which neighbors? Iran...

[babylonsister]

7. This may be the only way to find any kind of peace in Iraq.

I thought this right after they invaded, after realizing how fruitless that invasion would be.
The US was stupid to think they could resolve thousands of years of religious conflict. It
doesn't work in Israel, what makes them think it would work in Iraq?

[Mass]

8. Partition is not necessarily a bad solution, but why does Biden think

that the Iraqi are going to agree to that any more than to something else (particularly when it comes to oil revenues sharing)? How does he propose that we enforce that? By keeping US forces there?

I dont think that a solution that would be perceived as imposed by the US would work, whatever the solution is. This is why they need to involve neighboring countries and all the factions in talks that would help find the solution, not dictate the solution from afar.

[babylonsister]

9. Totally agree; we should not be dictating how they solve their

political and religious problems. And I also am dead-set against keeping our troops there for a second longer than absolutely necessary. I want them out of there yesterday!

[karendc]

11. In the Iraq hearings last week

(informal House hearing) and afterwards, at lunch with the Iraqi women, it is clear what a horrific idea this is.

One of the women (you can see her photo on the front page of the Democracy Cell Project website) is a Shi'a married to a Sunni. They have continually emphasized (and this was true of the Iraqis we met in England as well) that the tribal issues were never a problem before, and if we left them alone, would be solved again.

There is no situation so badly deteriorated that it cannot be made worse by well-meaning interventions, done clumsily. This entire invasion was done as badly as it could have been done. They are capable of fixing what we have broken. One of my favorite quotes from last week's hearings: "Did you all ask the British to help you draft your Constitution, once you got rid of them and their policies?"

[karynnj]

12. What a great question

It also seems that the problems in that whole extended area - Pakistan, India, Israel, Jordan, Iraq etc seem to partially go back to borders drawn by the British as the empire ended.

[wisteria]

10. My 2 cents worth on this- I think it will lead to more infighting,

governmental confusion and mistrust and a lack of authority in some areas. I don't like the 2008 withdraw either. However, like others here have said,we should not be instructing the Iraqi's how to run their county. They need to be making these decisions.

When I think of division, I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's "A House Divided" speech on the possible succession of the South from the Union over slavery.

"In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed."

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I realize the situation is different in Iraq, but I just don't see how dividing the country into three sections will really resolve the issues that divide them in the first place.It just divides the problems into three parts. I see greed and self-interest being a problem, oil divisions and profits issues, law enforcement, and acknowledgment of the central governments authority on certain matters as possible conflicts which would continue to escalate into violence and instability.

I am no expert on these matters. This is just my 2 cents as I said before.

[saltpoint]

13. Whether it's the best plan or not, it's not the worst.

Watching the Bush administration operate in the Middle East gives everyone an idea of the worst option.

Kerry, Biden, and others have presented thoughtful options and alternatives. I'd listen to them way before I'd trust Dubya.