|
Q: How do you define a partition of Iraq?
A: My
observation is that Iraq is already partitioned. You
have all these militias running around with guns and
the U.S. hasn't disarmed many of them because they
are helping with local security. But the problem is
that this thing has turned into "sectarian
violence," as the president likes to call it, or
"civil war," as other people like to call it. What
they need to do is have a conclave and manage the
partition of the country. Iraq is going to break up
because it already is broken up, and it can either
be done on a peaceful basis or one that is very
nasty and violent. I think a "managed partition" is
the best way.
Q: Are we talking about breaking Iraq into
three parts -- for Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis?
A: Not
necessarily. I don't think it's going to be that
easy. What's going to happen is that they are
probably going to have a bloody civil war. It'll be
wherever the armies are. If one beats up on the
other one, then the boundaries will be changed. When
you have a war, it's hard to determine what will
happen. A peaceful partition would probably be three
or more parts.
Q: Can this partition be imposed on Iraq by
the United States?
A: No, I don't
think so. You have to let them sort it out. They
should have done this before. It may be too late
now, but it's still the best hope for the place. The
Kurds and the Shia don't really want to be a part of
Iraq. When you have 80 percent of the population
that doesn't want to be in the country, that's a
problem. The Sunnis are the only ones who don't want
to break up the country. The main reason is that
they think they will be a rump state with no oil. If
the Shia and the Kurds give the Sunnis some oil,
they will be willing to go their own way, too.
Q: What's the principle behind the partition
-- decentralizing power and local autonomy?
A: Yes.
Decentralization. The main fear of each group, the
reason the Kurds and Shia want their autonomy and
the reason the Sunni are fighting an insurgency, is
that each group fears that the central government
will be used to oppress the other group. So they
either want control of the central government, or if
they can't get that, they want to be removed from
it.
Q: What are the upsides of a partition for
the U.S.?
A: If every
group were confined to its local areas and they all
knew what the boundaries were, and they would police
people of their own ethnic or religious group, then
it might reduce the chances of civil war. And of
course then the al-Qaida terrorists would be the
outcasts. If they were still bombing, even in the
Sunni areas, the Sunni militias would turn against
them because they are outsiders. I think you could
actually reduce Iraq as a haven for al-Qaida, as
well, because the security would be increased. This
also provides the Bush administration with a way of
saying, "Well, we toppled Saddam Hussein and we gave
the Iraqis the best change for peace and
prosperity." If there is peace in Iraq, people
aren't going to care if there's one Iraq or three or
four Iraqs.
Q: Would we, the United States, play a role
in the partition?
A: I think we
can mediate it, but I think it must be done fairly
quickly. We see these negotiations dragging on now
because nobody has an incentive. Negotiations can
happen real fast if there's an urgent need. If the
U.S. declares it's going to pull out, I think you
will see the Kurds and the Shia become very
receptive to negotiating a settlement.
Q: Is there any interest in the Bush
administration for a partition?
A: I don't know.
I think they would do this only as a desperation
move. The problem is, if they wait too long, even a
partition isn't going to work because the civil war
is already started. Unless they stop it, it's going
to get worse.
Q: Why is the Bush administration wedded to
re-creating a strong central government?
A: The president
is still holding on to the idea that we're still
going to have military bases there. They want them
on the Gulf, but the Shia areas are not going to
allow that, and they're the ones closest to the
Gulf, and that's where the significant amounts of
oil are. I think that's one reason the
administration is still clinging to the idea of a
unified Iraq. The other is just probably
bureaucratic inertia.
Q: What's Iraq going to look like in 2008?
President Bush said our troops will still be there.
A: I liken it to
the pilot with two engines on fire who does not look
for an alternate landing strip but tries to continue
on his course to his original destination. He's
probably going to crash and burn, and I think that's
what's going to happen in Iraq. I don't think we're
going to make it for another three years there. I
think there's going to be a civil war in Iraq if the
president doesn't change course. The public won't
stand for U.S. forces being caught in a civil war.
If all hell breaks loose in Iraq, those forces will
be coming home much, much sooner -- to the electoral
peril of Republicans. I don't think they have
another three years to wait.
www.sitnews.us
Top |
® 
