MotherJones.com | MoJoBlog - Social Issues and Political Commentary: Baker Commission Proposes the United States of Iraq

« As Goes One Republican Editor in PA, So Goes the Country? | Blog Index | Suddenly, Democrats are the Official Morality- and Anti-Terrorism Party »

Baker Commission Proposes the United States of Iraq

The Baker Commission, a bipartisan group set up by Congress, is now proposing the division of Iraq into separate Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. James Baker, former US Sec of State and Co-chair of the commission, says this is the only alternative to Bush's steadfast rule of "staying the course." The division will transfer power to the regions and a skeletal central government based in Baghdad will head up, among other things, the distribution of oil.

It turns out that this is not the first time the division of Iraq has been on the table. According to the Centre for Research on Globalization, the idea was actually part of the administration’s pre-invasion plan.

But like many administration non-plans, this one seems ill-advised.

According to the British Sunday Times, "Many Middle East experts are horrified by the difficulty of dividing the nation." Juan Cole weighs in on his site:

1. No such loose federal arrangement would survive very long (remember the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States?).

2. The Sunni Arabs, the Da`wa Party and the Sadr Movement are all against such a partition and together they account for at least 123 members of the 275-member parliament.

3. The Sunni Arabs control Iraq's downstream water but have no petroleum resources. If the loose federal plan ends in partition, the situation is set up for a series of wars of the Sunni Arabs versus the Shiites, as well as of the Sunni Arabs and some Turkmen versus the Kurds.

And so on.

Comments

Unfortunately, good options no longer exist for the US in Iraq (if they ever did). We are left chosing between bad and worse.

Is trisecting Iraq worse than staying the course in the face of a civil war?

Posted by: disdaniel on 10/10/06 at 9:34 AM

There are no options, only reactions. However, anything that increases the cynicism of government can’t be entirely bad. I’m betting the reactions go as follows:

2006: Democratic slime win 50.0001% of the congress.
2007: Dems start agitating for withdrawal. This causes the fascist to reorganize their base (the mean whites) with the slogan “Help Jesus get even with those-people!!”.
2008: Dems win presidency on “orchestrating a win-win solution for the forces of goodness in Iraq” – which means nothing, as anybody who understand corporate BS-speak understands.
2009: Guilt ridden liberals can’t “just leave Iraq” because America has trashed the country. Liberals push for increased public guilt over Iraq. Fascists continue to organize. Military is running out of “patriots”.
2010: Republican slime win 50.0001% of congress.
2011: White meanness intensifies, liberal guilt intensifies. “Patriots” are still being killed in Iraq.
2012: Fascists win presidency on the “peace with honor” platform.
2013: Draft is started. Republican and Democratic slime ensure there are enough exceptions to keep the upper classes out of the fighting.
2014: Democratic slime win 50.0001% of the congress.
2015: Liberals call for immediate withdrawal. . This causes the fascist to reorganize their base (the mean whites) with the slogan “Help Jesus get even with those-people!!”.
2016: Dems win presidency on “orchestrating a win-win solution for the forces of goodness in Iraq”.
2017: Guilt ridden liberals can’t “just leave Iraq” because America has trashed the country. Liberals push for increased public guilt over Iraq. Fascists continue to organize.
2018: Republican slime win 50.0001% of congress.
2019: White meanness intensifies, liberal guilt intensifies. “Patriots” are still being killed in Iraq, including some “middle-class” “patriots”. But, fewer and fewer whites can recall just who they are trying “get even with” as their loser kids are getting killed in increasing numbers.
2020: Whites vote for a 3rd party (just kidding).

Posted by: John on 10/10/06 at 11:20 AM

See OUT OF IRAQ NOW by George McGovern and William R. Polk for a rational analysis and what a appears to be a difficult but realistic plan for withdrawal now.

Posted by: Dave Johnson on 10/14/06 at 10:03 AM

Nobody invited the US to go into Iraq in the first place. Bush and his gang invented a bunch of lies and YOU were too willing to believe them. Of course, Americans had to flex their muscles and it did not matter who was at the other end. YOU had to make a point and the world had to watch awed. Yes, there hubris and not only on the part of the government. Now that the modern Atilas have destroyed, plundered, assassinated and things have become a little too hot for confort, it is time to leave. Yes, leave, or even better, escape before it is too late. But the world knows that YOU caused this tragedy and YOU cannot simply say that it was Bush's actions. Haven´t YOU elected him twice?! YOU can wash your hands out of the problem if you like, but it will be useless because they are bloodied.

Posted by: Jaime Galarza on 10/18/06 at 7:52 AM