|
Partitioning Iraq could reduce U.S. troop
requirements 7.3.2007
By Jeff Cantor |
|
|
|
March
7, 2007
President Bush has asked that the critics of his war
in Iraq produce their own plan rather than just
criticize the current plan. Having served in Iraq
from 2003-2004, I can offer one possible
alternative.
I understand why President Bush is sending more
troops to Iraq. The current level of sectarian
violence is causing mayhem and instability
throughout Baghdad as well as most of the country.
Additional troops, theoretically, will provide a
greater presence, thus giving the U.S. military more
muscle and a greater ability to respond to emerging
threats. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I
do understand it.
Before I discuss a solution, you need to understand
some of Iraq's history. What we know as Iraq today
was a part of the Ottoman Empire for roughly 700
years. Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by
British and French forces at the end of World War I,
when the Allied powers defeated the Turks.
In 1920, Britain imposed a Hashemite monarchy on
Iraq and defined the territorial boundaries without
taking into account the politics and different
ethnic and religious groups in the country. From the
first day Iraq was created by the British, there was
ethnic strife and tension. This would prove to be
one of the largest problems that would eventually
lead to a civil war in modern-day Iraq.
It is said that those who ignore history are doomed
to repeat it. Taking into account this history, I
would like to propose the following solution: |
Jeff Cantor is a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and
was the Task Force Kirkuk Civil Affairs Commander
from 2003-2004. He is a Marlboro Township
councilman.
Photo: internet |
It is time to split the country into three separate
countries. There needs to be Kurdistan in the North,
Shiastan in the South and Sunnistan in the center. I
use the terms Shiastan and Sunnistan to denote the
ethnic majority of those places. There is already
Kurdistan, although it is not recognized by the
United States.
Unfortunately, there is a huge rift between Sunnis
and Shias, one that will not be repaired anytime
soon. At this point, there is no motivation for the
two sects to come together. As much as we would like
to get everyone at the same table, working together
to establish one nation, it will never work, unless
you put a brutal dictator in charge to stem any
issues. This has worked in the past in Iraq and
Yugoslavia, as well as many African nations and the
former Soviet Union. But we do not want to be known
as the nation that has created and employed a brutal
dictator in Iraq, just to save face on the current
situation.
The Kurds are our true allies in the region. We have
worked closely with them in the past, and they like
the American presence. When we invaded Iraq, my unit
came through the north in the Kurdish areas. The
Kurdish Peshmerga (militia) fought side by side with
us against the Iraqi army. We could drastically
reduce our military footprint over there and move
the remaining troops up to the north to provide a
presence in the area. If needed, we could respond
with military force anywhere in the region.
We could provide humanitarian assistance to
Kurdistan and build a strong partnership helping
them to rebuild their own country, mostly using U.S.
Agency for International Development funds. Our
military footprint would need only be two brigades
or a division at most, to be on hand to help the
Kurds provide a safe, secure environment around
their borders, and train them to assist in the
global war on terror.
The capital of Kurdistan is Kirkuk, an oil-rich
city. Since I was the civil affairs commander in
Kirkuk for about a year, I understand the situation
there and know this would work. The major issue we
would have with this solution is Turkey. The Turks
hate the Kurds and would be opposed to the creation
and recognition of Kurdistan because they feel the
ethnic minority in Turkey would want to do the same
thing. However, through diplomatic means, we could
convince the Turks to allow Kurdistan on their
border.
The other threat is the spillover effect to regional
partners, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc. I don't
see this happening on a major, regional conflict
level, although it is happening in a covert manner
now. Sunni and Shia Arabs and religious groups have
fundamental differences that cause a schism between
the two groups that is extremely difficult to
repair. This must be taken on by the Muslim world,
not the United States.
The creation of three separate countries from the
original Iraq would enable the United States to
significantly reduce its military footprint, as well
as create a more hospitable environment to work in.
Our regional allies, the Kurds, are much more likely
to work with the United States and provide support
for us in the region.
This would allow us to significantly reduce American
casualties, keep a presence in the region and create
a partnership with a country that has many natural
resources and would be willing to construct a
partnership with us.
Jeff Cantor is a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and
was the Task Force Kirkuk Civil Affairs Commander
from 2003-2004. He is a Marlboro Township
councilman.
app com
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 