Senate Endorses Biden Plan To Partition Iraq

Comments (26)

bob wrote on September 26, 2007 1:58 PM:

If a tie is like kissing your sister, what's a non-binding victory?

seanh wrote on September 26, 2007 2:04 PM:

Boy has Biden gotten it right this time. Instead of an American muppet leadership, we need to further increase our influence over national politics. We need to make their decisions for them, without any feedback whatsoever.

Afterall, when the British carved up the Ottoman Empire after WWI, it made possible an inspiration era of peace, understanding, and cooperation in the Middle East. Lets just do it again!

CSIS Report: "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency and the Risk of Civil War" (26 Apr 2006)
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/060501_dividingiraq.pdf
"It is easy to call for dividing Iraq as if that could somehow solve the nation’s problems, and allow the US to exit. There are also some lobbyists calling for Kurdish independence or autonomy who see such calls as the road to their success. The US needs to think long and hard before it supports such a policy. Civil war and division may be inevitable, but the results could be anything but pleasant"

Can't find the numbers now, but I remember seeing Iraqi internal polling that showed an overwhelming opposition within the country to division.

seanh wrote on September 26, 2007 2:06 PM:

I really wish we could still edit posts :(

The name of the document I linked is actually
CSIS: "Dividing Iraq: Think Long and Hard First" (01 May 2006)

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 2:07 PM:

Damn that was quick. They must have debated for what, 30 minutes, on the future of Iraq?

Is anyone giving this any serious thought at all? [sound of crickets] Anybody out there remember what happened in India when the British tried to escape their colonial sectarian problem the same way? [more crickets]

I'm not saying that I know that a unified state is *the* answer -- just that this is a question that needs serious debate, not quickie non-binding resolutions.

Embarrassing.

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 2:11 PM:

seanh was posting while I was writing ... what he said too -- the more historical analogies, the merrier (or, one hopes, the wiser).

gqmartinez wrote on September 26, 2007 2:19 PM:

wes2,
Biden has been talking about this for about a year now. It's been debated in circles for quite some time now. If Senators don't know about the plan by now, something is wrong.

js wrote on September 26, 2007 2:21 PM:

The senate is a f* up place.

keith wrote on September 26, 2007 2:21 PM:

If nothing else, the debate should be pretty damn interesting tonight. I hope Russert is on his game tonight.

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 2:24 PM:

gqmartinez --
I know that Biden has been touting this for some time. What's shocking is that no one else in the Senate appears to have thoughts, criticism, comments, or really anything at all to say on the issue. THAT'S appalling.

bob wrote on September 26, 2007 2:41 PM:

wes2, you just don't know how the Senate actually works in practice. The discussion and work takes place behind the scenes and sometimes in committee hearings and meetings.

What happens on the Senate floor comes after consensus has already been reached for a lot of these things. Things that do get debated on the Senate floor usually end up in a bunch of grandstanding anyway, not serious debate.

seanh wrote on September 26, 2007 2:47 PM:

wes2, the India example is an ever better one. Thanks for mentioning it. Any Indian will tell you (and I only really know this, because I took a few Indian Lit courses) that the Partition was one of the darkest moments in their history. The novel "Train to Pakistan," among a few others, is where I got most of my exposure to this issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Train-Pakistan-Khushwant-Singh/dp/0802132219

Split the country, and you'll split the people. Religious and cultural differences will magnify. Age old animosities and misunderstandings will flare into violent conflict, as opposing groups accuse each other of mistreatment, and exact revenge. Local groups will use violence as a lever to gain favor or advantage in the division. Civilians would dragged into the conflict by local leaders, whether they liked it or not. Sectarian conflict, already out of control, would likely look unlike we've seen before.

The nation may end up divided anyway, but the only idea WORSE than keeping Iraq occupied by American military forces, by my reckoning, would be an American mandated division of Iraq. Granted, I'm no expert, so everyone may well have very different opinions, but history seems to suggest quite clearly that this would be a terrible idea.

Bottom line, it's just a stupid plan. How exactly does Biden propose we even enforce a division? How could you possibly propose a division, and a withdraw? I don't see how he would ever convince the Iraqis to cooperate, without intense American pressure (i.e. continued or escalated military presence).

kjoe wrote on September 26, 2007 2:54 PM:

I think not voting on this and on the Kyl Lieberman thing sets up Obama to make a good point tonight:

quit wasting time with meaningless crap.

mopper wrote on September 26, 2007 2:57 PM:

I'm glad somebody beat me to the punch of invoking India/Pakistan partition (which only fanned the flames of conflict) and earlier British attempts at partition in the region.

This is heading nowhere good.

And that's all looking at it from a consequentialist viewpoint. But what about a right's viewpoint? As in, what right do we have to partition Iraq? Answer: none. Frighteningly imperialistic on Biden's part. I don't pretend to have the answers to Iraq's myriad problems and those of the surrounding region, but I strongly suspect they'll involve a reduction of American imperialism. The assumptions behind Biden's plan and this Senate measure are incompatible with the posture necessary to achieve some measure of peace.

And seanh--yes, Iraqis are strongly against partition, in every single poll I've seen on the issue.

Coonsey wrote on September 26, 2007 3:01 PM:

I remember when Biden first announced this idea, a long time ago for sure. I said then that I thought it was a good idea. Much better then what we were trying to do that hasn't apparently worked yet.

I'm sure this vote will be on Biden's Commercials for president AND if that doesn't work, possibly on Hillary or Obama's run for Presidency, him being their running mate.

I think he'd make a great Pres or VP. Always have liked him.

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 3:01 PM:

bob -- I take your point about floor debates vs. other forms of consideration. BUT, do you have any evidence that committee hearings were held on this? That experts were consulted? That other plans were considered? I haven't heard of anything. And, like seanh, I rather doubt that partition is such a transparently good idea that the Senate can simply consense around it without giving it ANY formal consideration.

mopper wrote on September 26, 2007 3:16 PM:

wes2--my understanding is that votes are only brought to order when the outcome is pretty much pre-determined. Like, for example, Bush pulled his nominee for chief counsel for the CIA today because he knew he didn't have the numbers to get the guy through the vote.

The vast majority of this stuff is pre-determined and done to maximize propaganda. If the Dems bring up a bill and it is then defeated, chances are they knew it was going to be defeated in advance and brought it up anyway, judging that the reward for bringing the bill up in the first place out-weighed the negatives associated with defeat at teh hands of the Republicans.

Most of this stuff is decided days/weeks/months in advance, over the phone, in the senate "cloakroom", etc. Most speeches are given as a kind of show.

Sometimes, you see bills brought up that are considered very important, and the people bringing it up might not have the votes but give a real, impassioned speech on teh Senate floor detailing why those opposed should change their minds. But that's very rare, and expecting it regularly is an overly-romanticized vision of the Senate.

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 3:33 PM:

mopper8 -- thanks for Senate 101, but I stand by my last post -- do we have ANY sense that the Senate spoke to experts, diplomats, held hearings, considered alternatives? No. I don't think it needs to be in the floor debate, but I think this is an important enough question (albeit in non-binding, advisory fashion) that I'd like SOME indication that the Senate considered 1) viewpoints and expertise other than their own, and 2) different approaches rather than just partition. That hardly strikes me as overly-romantic.

BobE wrote on September 26, 2007 3:34 PM:

Agree, absolutely appalling.

FUBAR.

Since Hillary voted for this, that tells me she is looking at adding Biden to her team, probably not as Veep (Obama if he takes it, otherwise Bayh), but probably as SecState or SecDef. I can't believe she's so stupid as to support this imperial nonsense, its a non-starter with the Iraqis themselves. They know it guarantees civil war, what with all the mixed provinces and cities (Mosul, Kirkuk, etc.).

Madness.

Jessica L Caruso wrote on September 26, 2007 3:54 PM:

Spending time voting on nonbinding resolutions is just silly. The troops are still there and they are no closer to coming home now that they were before this vote. Please do something that means something.

stlounick wrote on September 26, 2007 4:13 PM:

Seriously, folks, what foreign policy do you think we've been indulging in since the Cold War ended--it's called imperialism. This is just one example of it rearing its quite ugly head.

And my sense of it is that the Senate simply does not have to pay attention to small-time folks like American voters--heck, they have the world crowd to play to.

Sigh. We seriously need a House cleaning before we get nations banding together and declaring us a rogue nation.

slcathena wrote on September 26, 2007 7:09 PM:

Barack/Edwards, dude, this is money. Partitioning Iraq is one of those ideas that only works in Washington, no serious scholar of the region actually supports it. You have a golden opportunity to blast them, please take it.

Plus, if you're Barack you get two shots out of this:

1) Stop wasting our time

2) See, these are the types of DC solutions that don't take into account the nuances of the region. DC politics=getting it wrong.

Acadamia is on your side, my friends. Use it.

wes2 wrote on September 26, 2007 7:25 PM:

Ditto SLC

Here, for more support, is Juan Cole on the topic of partition

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/30/iraq_partition/index1.html

dhs wrote on September 27, 2007 12:13 AM:

Re: Biden's plan for "partitioning Iraq"

Iraq was held together by violence and torture by Saddam Hussein. Hussein was also an arch enemy of Iran. We removed Hussein and thus left a power vacuum in the region. The carnage in Iraq should have been anticipated, as also the rise of Iran's influence in the region.

The U.S. is an occupying force and insists that the Iraqis work out a political resolution; but we are dictating the terms of that political settlement: a Democratic, pro-American country with 80% of its oil signed over to American corporations. This is not going to happen, no matter how long we stay.

If we were to pull our troops out the country would quickly, and probably violently, disperse into three factions: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia. And there would no doubt be bloody battles over land, oil, and water. There is nothing we can do to prevent that, whether we stay or go. Iran would have influence over some of the Shia, but not over the Sunnis or the Kurds. Ultimately some kind of balance of power would be reached.

Whether you like the outcome or not, Biden is right that some kind of partition will be the ultimate outcome. That is exactly what happened in the old Yugoslavia; and it will happen here, no matter what we do. We can stay in Iraq for 50 years, and when we leave, it will probably split into these three factions.

The only thing wrong with Biden's plan is that it is being proposed by the Occupiers; it is really up to the Iraqis to settle it. If we want to mitigate the carnage and bloodshed after we pull out, we should make a serious effort to bring the U.N. into the area to try to control the violence. But our objectivity is gone, and we need to recuse ourselves from the process.

The scaremongering by the Republicans to keep us in the war is pure nonsense; but the Democrats lack the political courage to rebut it.

wes2 wrote on September 27, 2007 9:31 AM:

dhs -- if it is that obvious that some form of partition is going to happen, no matter what, then why are most Iraqis (other than Kurds) opposed to the idea?

Lesson from India: those provinces where Partition was imposed saw extensive and unbelievably brutal blood-letting. Other regions where there was sectarian diversity but no imposed division had much less conflict (until quite recently). The "only thing" wrong with the Biden plan as you see it, is quite likely the element that will ensure it is a bloodbath.

Let's call a spade a spade. Politicians are seizing on the idea as a way to wash our hands of the whole misbegotten Iraqi situation. It is a political figleaf. But that doesn't mean it is a smart idea or a feasible idea or even an ethical one.

dhs wrote on September 27, 2007 10:28 AM:

wes2

Iraq is a bloodbath now. Are you arguing that the U.S. keep forces in Iraq to ensure that the country remains united?

wes2 wrote on September 27, 2007 12:14 PM:

dhs,

Iraq is not a bloodbath on the level of the post-Partition violence in India. Singh's book is excellent on that score, if you're curious. It can get worse...much worse.

And no, I've never suggested that U.S. forces in Iraq is the answer. I just don't think partition is a meaningful strategy for anything but domestic political consumption.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)