Balkanization of Iraq

An April 28, 2016 article from the New York Times wrote about the idea of allowing Iraq to be split apart. While some have argued against such a idea based on politicians from outside, those inside Iraq (or by this time, anyone who possesses basic awareness) have argued that such a partition may be the only choice left. Even VP Joe Biden in a 2006 essay he wrote as a senator considered breaking up Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish zones although now he urges the three entities to forget their grievances and to try to make it work. Sorry to say Joe but your past self has more logic than your current self. Iraq throughout it's history has been a quagmire within Islam's history. From the massacre of Ali and his family in Karbala in 680 AD to the Iraq Wars of today, much hardship has plagued this region for centuries. Through the conversion of the Safavids from Sunni to Shia Islam in Iran in the 1500s and the Afsharid dynasty's extension into Iraq and the Caucasus did the roots of the Shia reemerge into Iraq following the descendants of Ali's followers fleeing from the Arab lands to sanctuary in Qom. Years of conflict with the Ottomans ended the Afsharid's hold on Iraq and the Caucasus but the seeds had been planted. The Shia would move back into the Cradle of Civilization but this would not be easy. The Sunni Ottomans kept a firm grip over the land but despite their attempts to suppress any sectarian strife, it could only freeze the conflict not solve it.

 And now for the one agreement that every historian and expert in the Middle East cannot hear without saying, "What were they thinking?!!" The Sykes Picot agreement. Like the Treaty of Berlin that divided up African colonies between the European powers, the leaders of Europe with little to no knowledge of Arab tribal grievances and religious disputes, ending up carving up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into the states we know today. The Kurds also were introduced into the fracturing as the tribes inhabiting the northern mountains of Iraq were brought into the borders of Iraq. When Saddam and the Baathists came to power, they knew they were sitting on a powder keg about to blow up but just like Tito of Yugoslavia, his party chose a different way to control the region: through an iron fist. The secular yet Sunni Baathists took control and suppressed the Shia and Kurds of the country. When the Iran Iraq War broke out, the Sunni Shia sectarian strife began to boil once more. As Saddam used such anti-Persian sentiment and religious ideology to convince his Sunni base to fight against the Revolutionary Iran that was calling for exporting an Islamic awakening that would create pure Islamic States free of monarchies and dictatorships. The problems Sunnis, especially the most devout and puritanical, had with this call: this was coming from a Shia nation and was threatening the secular nation Saddam was trying to keep control over. It's a similar occasion when Pope Pius V issued the Regnans in Excelsis calling Elizabeth I of England a heretic and urging her subjects to disobey and rebel against her. However, unlike Elizabeth who tried to control her protestant governors and advisers from carrying out massacres against Catholics in order to keep her kingdom from descending into anarchy, Saddam did the exact opposite. Shia uprisings were met with brutal reprisals. Massacres committed by men like Ali Hassan al-Majid unleashed genocidal campaigns against rebelling Kurdish factions during the Iran-Iraq War.

 Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the flood gates broke open once again. Past memories of Saddam's brutality lingered in the Shia minds with them seeking retribution. Sunnis, the powerhouse of the Baathists, found themselves ostracized from government as they made up only 40% of the population with the Shia majority dominating the government. The Kurds did the only sane thing by forming their own semi-autonomous regime, their own armies and their own laws. Despite being Sunni as well, the Kurds had no desire to live alongside either of their Sunni or Shia Arab neighbors. They wanted to separate and have their own state. Now the rise of ISIL and the resurgence of Iran's influence over Iraq have plunged the state back into the sectarian mess that it once was in. Now the question is: Should we try to repair a broken state or let it fracture until it is no longer chaotic?

 We remember the horrors of the breakup of Yugoslavia as the Serbs of Croatia and Bosnia unleashed genocidal campaigns against their ethnic neighbors. Croats against Serbs. Serbs against Bosniaks. Serbs against Kosovo. Each side battling each other as death squads and paramilitary organizations sprung up intent on wiping each other out to acquire the territory it wanted while carving out the races they didn't want out of their country. Massacres, rapine and destruction of such insurmountable horror Europe had not seen since WWII. Only with NATO suppressing the Serbian paramilitary forces and introducing a stronger police force to stop the massacres did the horrors stop. But there was one thing it also did: It let the nations break up but kept the proper borders that it agreed upon in the Dayton Accords. The latest breakup occurred with Kosovo that was granted a referendum deciding if it wanted to remain as part of Serbia (a precedent that ended up being usurped by Russia against Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014). Now the same thing is happening to Iraq. My honest advice: let it fail. As much as we may hate to see such people lose friends from across Iraq, the religious strife plaguing Iraq is so severe that not even an Iraqi version of the Treaty of Westphalia can save it. The Imam Husayn Shrine of Karbala and anti-Shiism that plague the Middle East to this day leave the Shia ruled Iraq with a strong cultural identity that influences their roots in the region. The Kurds wish to be left alone to their own devices having established a stronger cultural and national identity that wishes to acquire statehood. For the Sunnis, having lost their control of the state, feel there is nothing left for them. I know it may seem pessimistic to encourage such fracturing but we have to admit when such a state has failed. As Hadi al-Ameri says in the article, "Even if a prophet came to rule Iraq, he wouldn't be able to satisfy all sides."