chekmate

Why can't we just split it up, and give pieces to it's neigbors? Why can't we just break up the country into it's different ethnic regions, and make a couple/few new countries?

Why do we even need Iraq?

Soyin Milka

It depends on who you mean by "we".

Turkey, Iran and Syria don't want an independant kurdish state. The shiites in the south are likely to give islam a very important place in their government if they are given a mini-country.

Who would trace the new boundaries?
How could prevent fighting between the three new mini-states and their neighbors? There's a lot of oil in Irak.

Splitting the country in three would make it harder for any foreign government (Including the US) to have a heavy hand over all that oil. The three mini-states can have different foreign policies toward the USA for exemple.

There's a lot of messy things that could happen from spliting Irak in three parts or more. It's going to be complicated enough as it is already.

Soyin

Nataraja

Heck, giving chunks of Iraq to its neighbors might actually give the US an opportunity get some ass-kissing out of a few Middle Eastern nations. It would also give involved parties a large segment of their population that have their own reasons for desiring peace.

Then again, it could also cause more problems than solve. When meddling in the affairs of other countries, trouble is often the greatest reward.

Sakpo

Personally I think the just thing to do would be to give the Kurds a country, with oil, and U.S. protection. Instead, of course, we'll continue to be friends with the Turks (who are engaged in a campaign of cultural genocide against the Turks in its borders and don't give a shit about human rights) and allow the Kurds to continue to be screwed over. If the U.S. was really into making sacrafices for just causes in the middle east the Kurds would be near the top of the To Do list.

Koyaanisqatsi

I think the real reason we won't split it up has already been presented, but not necessarily fully reallized. We want them to cheaply mine the oil.

In other words, we want a slave state that will produce their oil according to our dictate, but without all of the muss of occupation and unions and the like.

We just want Iraq to do what we want it to do when we want it to do it, but we don't want to have to actually be the ones supplying the labor force to do it, because that costs.

As for who ends up doing that, we don't really give a shit, so long as the ones in power know who is really in power. S.O.P. Americana.

Sakpo

You're right. And a multi ethnic multi religious Iraq will be a divided Iraq. They hope that'll make the client state more managable by keeping the opposition divided and creating a role for a "uniter" of sorts (why, a U.S. puppet could fill that role nicely, say thanks Iraq 'cause you're welcome...).

Cap'n Jack

Some of the longest, ongoing disputes between countries are over where borders are defined. Changing borders in a long established country would potentialy lead to conflicts over where the borders should be and who gets what.

PsycheDelia

maybe bush can ask blair for advice on this. the brits have a glorious history of drawing arbitrary lines on the map and then walking away to watch the resulting bloodshed from a distance as the sun finally did set on the british empire.

and of course, the created iraq, as churchill's granson recently said:

Cap'n Jack

I doubt Blair had anything to do with th British Empire. A country shouldn't be held accountable for actions of people who have long since been consigned to history.

Grumpy

To be fair, this is the dictator who deposed the revolutionary who deposed the monarchy which Churchill installed. And since the American CIA bankrolled the ouster of the revolutionary (General Abdul-Karim Qasim) who overthrew the monarch (King Faisal II), the UK is not wholly to blame.

But it would be nice if somebody apologized.