Partition as a Strategic Solution?

[gree0232]

It would seem that lines on a map can have an almost mythical quality to US foreign policy interests. Yet history, particularly the longer view, quickly tells us that maps are fungible things. Even in recent history, there are examples of partitioning that have solved geo-political flash points. For example:

#1 - The Balkans. Yugoslavia was multi-cultural mess created to try and make many smaller states a viable strategic block. It was held together by a dominant majority, and a titanic personality. It fell apart, violently. Now that it has been partitioned into countries that roughly resemble the ethic makeup of the various sub-states it is peaceful.

#2 - Czechoslovakia. Another creation of strategic alignment over the concerns of the local citizenry. With the loss of their Soviet overlords, the two parties parted ways in civil fashion - and there is no geo-political rumbling or problems. Partition worked.

#3 - Sudan vs. South Sudan. It would be hard to say that partition has magically solved the problems here, but it has eliminated the war between Northern Sudan and Southern Sudan. Relations between the SPLA and the other rebel factions were hardly monolithic even during the conflict. The recent struggle between the Dinka and the Neur tribes has resulted in a defacto partition along the White Nile. Would a second partition help secure the peace?

In fact, Henry Kissinger frequently referred to one of the most complex geo-political situations as a guide for study: the Schleswig-Holstein Crisis. This was a conflict between the Danes, the Prussians, and the Austrians over where the boundary would be between Denmark and what would later become Germany. It was ultimately solved by Lawrence Steffel, whose demographic and political assessment in the aftermath of WWI definitively settled the border in a manner he proudly proclaimed, "Sufficient enough that not even Hitler bothered trying to change it."

Several of our most intractable geo-political problems would seem to have partition as a ready solution to solve the conflict.

#1 - Israel-Palestine. There appears to be no other solution save the partition of the land along roughly the 1967 border. The retention of os simmering and sometimes openly violent conflict is a destabilizing element across the region. (I openly acknowledge that the solution is easier to identify here than to impose).

#2 - Iraq. Held together by brute force under Saddam and, to no small extent, by the US afterward, there appears little chance of fostering real reconciliation between Shia and Suna Iraq. The Shia government of Al-Maliki routinely preyed upon the Suna, and the Suna routinely fought against a government that saw it as a threat. The result is ISIS. Iraq appears to have been roughly stabilized along sectarian lines. With billions spent, and largely wasted through corruption, the amount of treasure and force necessary to restore 'Iraq' is immense. Whether the Suna will long tolerate that dominance absent overwhelming force is doubtful.

#3 - Syria. Once again, the battle between Suna/Shia/Kurd plays out. The situation is roughly stabilized along these ethic/religious lines. One of ISIS's biggest issues is the alignment of the Middle East by the Sykes Picot Agreement, one that did little to establish politically and economically viable countries. The routine rebellion and political upheaval would seem to validate the point. The partition Syria into rough Shia/Alawite and Suna/Kurd states would seem to solve at least a portion of the problem. Who is left to govern the Suna areas remains and open question.

#4 - Afghanistan. Once again, we have a bitterly divided country that is held together by sheer force. The last time Afghanistan was ably governed was by the Iron Emir, who, much like Saddam Hussein, played the various ethnic groups off against each other and used a comparatively large national Army to sway support by aligning it with forces in the interest of balance. With his death, the country disintegrated. We have been building a 'Nation' there for 15 years, and it is no where near being a viable state precisely because it is not a viable state. Mazar-e-Sharif is very different than Herat which is itself a completely different than Kandahar. Many have already predicted the rough division of Afghanistan along largely North South lines, with steady conflicts for decades often aligning the Northern Powers and ethnic groups against the Pashtu in the South. Why not accept the reality of what armed conflict and culture have already made clear? Is it worth spending billions more to keep Afghanistan as a 'whole' country in name only?

Maps change. Our adversaries seem to grasp this in a way that we do not or will not. Russia has gobbled up small chunks of territory steadily for decades now, setting the strategic table as it believes it must. China isn't just changing the lines on maps, it is creating entire new Islands in the Pacific that just happen to have key economic assets behind that sand curtain. The US, in sharp contrast, seems stuck in attempting to preserve the status quo rather than creating a strategic equilibrium of viable states. I think partition deserves consideration in our strategic planning.

 

[John Fedup]

You noted some successful partitions. The ME is a mess and partition for certain regions make sense but the parties will likely prefer war and a winner take all approach. I am coming to the conclusion we should just let them sort themselves. Any winners we don't like, disable them.

 

[Feanor]

You noted some successful partitions. The ME is a mess and partition for certain regions make sense but the parties will likely prefer war and a winner take all approach. I am coming to the conclusion we should just let them sort themselves. Any winners we don't like, disable them.

Who's "we"? Also consider, the US is effectively an island. And far away. But Europe, and Russia, are not. For them instability in Syria and Iraq means terrorism refugees. They can't just leave it alone, it will cause problems at home and quickly.

 

[John Fedup]

Who's "we"? Also consider, the US is effectively an island. And far away. But Europe, and Russia, are not. For them instability in Syria and Iraq means terrorism refugees. They can't just leave it alone, it will cause problems at home and quickly.

They have been getting terrorist refuges for years during the relatively calm periods. All the interventions to date seem to have minimal effect and in many cases the situation becomes worse. It seems to me intervention and leaving it alone have the same result.

 

[tonnyc]

They have been getting terrorist refuges for years during the relatively calm periods. All the interventions to date seem to have minimal effect and in many cases the situation becomes worse. It seems to me intervention and leaving it alone have the same result.

Citations, please. Can you please name those terrorist refugees and the years?

You can't have a proper defense policy if you misidentify the threats. To the best of my knowledge none of the major terrorist attacks are done by refugees. There might be minor ones that escaped my notice, because I'm just a guy who read news like any other person, but if so, please enlighten me and tell me how they are statistically significant.

Once you have done so, then maybe we can talk about whether intervention would have the same result as leaving it alone.

 

[gree0232]

Who's "we"? Also consider, the US is effectively an island. And far away. But Europe, and Russia, are not. For them instability in Syria and Iraq means terrorism refugees. They can't just leave it alone, it will cause problems at home and quickly.

And what makes Europe/North America/Japan/China etc. destinations for those caught in the instability of the ME? Good governance.

The West and East lack corruption, have effective and relatively reliable internal security forces, strong judicial systems that are usually not bribable, strong rule of law platforms that are usually supported by the larger population.

This stands in stark contrast to the tribalism and corruption that as wracked the ME. ISIS is not the first observer to point out that the Sykes-Picot Agreement left the Middle East a patchwork of ungovernable tribes and ethnicity. The result is the creation of states like Syria, where being an Alawite means you ave access to economic benefits, justice (even injustice against your opposing tribes), and the lion's share of the 'country' in held in the hands of the 'haves'. For the have nots, there is no real method of redress. This leads to tribal support systems, which are themselves mini-governments in many cases (providing judicial and social support for the have nots) and themselves become targets for the political elite because they are, often correctly, seen as competitors.

In Iraq, the Suna dominated the Shia. Now the Shia dominate the Suna. The same happens in Syria.

If we are serious about creating stability, then perhaps its time to acknowledge that the ME is not a Western multi-cultural society? What strategic benefit is garnered by having 'Syria' rather than three smaller states? An Alawite State, a Suna State, and a Kurdish State?

These three areas are roughly homogenous, are effectively already governing themselves, and are capable of defending themselves. Why not simply push for a formal recognition of the partition of Syria? Iraq? Its defacto dividd already, and the varying interests of the region are pouring in money and weapons to try to make sure their supported element 'wins' - yet if it does, its just the new Alawite ... there are more haves and have nots.

What exactly is the point?

The lines on a map are less important than the people living inside those lines. If formal lines can divide the role of government in a way that better provides for the people within those lines and offers a chance for greater stability, why not?

 

[peterAustralia]

Having watched the news for the last 30 years, I really wonder if these interventions seem to work. I am sure that sometimes they do (Yugoslavia) If perhaps the west focused on good governance of poorer states, then that would be better for everyone, as opposed to supporting short term geo-political interests.

A little history, why was South Sudan not partitioned immediately on Sudan's independence? The answer was that the British did not want to upset Nasser in Egypt with the risk that he might do something silly like nationalise the Suez canal.

So instead of partition, in effect they gave the muslim north the south of Sudan, even though they were religiously, linguistically, ethnically and culturally completely different. The south sudanese did not want the British to leave when they did (I suspect they feared dominance from the north). So they asked the british to come back. Well the British planes came back but were filled with north sudanese soldiers.

Of course a couple years later, it all went to bunk when Nasser went his own way and we had the 1956 Suez crisis. Thus from one decision that probably had little news at the time, and possibly was given little thought, Sudan was placed into two civil wars between the north and south, with 500 thousand killed in the first war followed by a second civil war which lasted 22 years and in which 2 million people died.

And of course now we have the ongoing war in Dharfur where about 300 thousand people have been killed, with more being killed every day

To be fair, if the British knew what was going to happen, I am sure they would have acted differently. And also to be fair, even if there was partition there probably would have been a degree of civil war among the various tribes in both north and south sudan

I guess my point is, what moral authority do these lines on the map have. Colonial powers invaded, drew lines on the map, and now say this is where the borders should be for all time.

So maybe eastern Libya should partition from western Libya, maybe the Sykes Picot accord should be dumped and let Syria and Iraq be partitioned. Rwanda and Burundi have borders that dont make sense... should Dharfur be independent or part of Chad? Should Mali be partitioned between the muslim north and the animist/christian south, or is a war every few years a better way of doing things?

Lots of questions, fewer answers unfortunately

 

[ngatimozart]

And what makes Europe/North America/Japan/China etc. destinations for those caught in the instability of the ME? Good governance.

The West and East lack corruption,

Sorry I disagree about that. The corruption is just somewhat more refined and less open in most cases. There is only one crime with corruption and that is getting caught I live in what is touted as one of the least corrupt nations in the world, but it still happens here.

What exactly is the point?

The lines on a map are less important than the people living inside those lines. If formal lines can divide the role of government in a way that better provides for the people within those lines and offers a chance for greater stability, why not?

Lines on a map a very important. People have died because of them and they define the boundaries of an area. The Sykes-Picot agreement was one drawn up over arrogance and bore no reflection of the actualities on the ground - in this case the ethnography, political and tribal allegiances. It is a classic case of orientalism which is still occurring today with the results being played out on our TV screens in the nightly news.

Unfortunately the present dominant political discourse is dominated by a group of WASP professional pollies who are funded by and beholden to fundamentalist religious groups that preach and teach ideals that denigrate the other and see any that disagree with them as unfriendlies or ultimately enemies. Nothing will change until that discourse is changed and at the moment there are too many vested interests to entertain any change in the near future. Just because one certain political system works for one culture, it is not a given that it will be successful in another.

There is a belief among some, but not all, Westerners that we can live in a harmonious multicultural society. However I actually think that is quite difficult because it involves a fair bit of give and take upon both parties. The preexisting population understanding and accepting the differences of the migrants and the migrants understanding and accepting the differences of the new society into which they are moving. If that doesn't happen then tensions arise and trouble will surely follow if the problems aren't nipped in the bud.

I live in a country which is officially bicultural but we have quite a few issues to deal with and at the moment multiculturalism in NZ is really a step to far. We have an indigenous population (NZ Maori), to which I belong, that was supplanted by a foreign migrant colonial population (British) and we still have tensions between the two due to racism and unsatisfied greviances against the Crown over losses of land etc. Hence until these issues have been sorted out and finally put aside there will never be a fully bicultural NZ let alone a multicultural one.

 

[ngatimozart]

Citations, please. Can you please name those terrorist refugees and the years?

You can't have a proper defense policy if you misidentify the threats. To the best of my knowledge none of the major terrorist attacks are done by refugees. There might be minor ones that escaped my notice, because I'm just a guy who read news like any other person, but if so, please enlighten me and tell me how they are statistically significant.

Once you have done so, then maybe we can talk about whether intervention would have the same result as leaving it alone.

Defence policy is wide ranging and terrorism is just one part of any threat matrix. It is very unwise to orientate your defence policy towards just one threat when others exist. Not all terrorist threats etc., can be reduced to numbers and analysed in a stats package. It just doesn't work that way because you are dealing with a significant number of unknowns and no matter how you may dress a guess up, it is still a guess. There is a lot involved in dark arts of antiterrorism that never makes the light of day and most definitely never into open source material. So just let's say that it's a given and leave it at that.

If you would like sources try Mr Google and develop your own. Do not just rely on news media for your information because they present slanted and biased views in what they like to call the "news". It is best to read wider sources and more than one in order to gain some understanding of what is happening

 

[John Fedup]

@peteraustralia...had diplomats been able to see the future in 1919 many of their decisions would have been different (I would like to think so anyway).

 

[John Fedup]

Citations, please. Can you please name those terrorist refugees and the years?

You can't have a proper defense policy if you misidentify the threats. To the best of my knowledge none of the major terrorist attacks are done by refugees. There might be minor ones that escaped my notice, because I'm just a guy who read news like any other person, but if so, please enlighten me and tell me how they are statistically significant.

Once you have done so, then maybe we can talk about whether intervention would have the same result as leaving it alone.

The distinction between immigrant, refuge, and terrorist crossing a border can sometimes be difficult. Canada allowed the Khadr family into Canada. The father was arrested as a terrorist in Pakistan during a return visit so I guess he wasn't a refuge. Later Canada's PM at the time lobbied for his release. He was a money bag guy for Bin Laden and was killed in Afghanistan so he was a terrorist as was his son. Upon his release by the US the son was deported to Canada. Here he is labelled by some as a refuge (wrong), immigrant (wrong) or citizen (unfortunately correct as he was born here). He also a terrorist (correct) who should have been left In Afghanistan.

 

[gree0232]

Sorry I disagree about that. The corruption is just somewhat more refined and less open in most cases. There is only one crime with corruption and that is getting caught I live in what is touted as one of the least corrupt nations in the world, but it still happens here.

If you think NZ is as corrupt as Iraq or Syria ... I highly suggest you visit there for yourself and compare.

Corruption Perceptions Index -- 2014

The Fund for Peace

It is no accident that the countries generating the current migration crisis feature heavily on both the corruption and failed state index. So, yes, you have it much better than people in Syria do, where the indigenous tribes are literally killing each other rather than taking their issues to a court.

The key point being that disputes WITHIN these entities are generally governed in a peaceful manner, with some form of judicial processes that are accepted by the wider population. Why do you think ISIS has focused so much on governance?

http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/ISIS_Governance.pdf

Lost in the Western demonization of ISIS is the reality on the ground for many people - ISIS was actually an upgrade in government. That is how bad things were on the ground.

What should not be lost is that the current migration crisis is being triggered by events that are upsetting even this balance. The bulk of migrants are from Syria (where both the regime and ISIS are under extraordinary pressure from their regional allies and are suffering as a result), Iraq (where a replacement of government seems to have done little to reverse the corruption that undermined the stagnated military), and Afghanistan (where the steady withdrawal of NATO forces have left the people vulnerable to either the Taliban or, as we discovered, child rapists).

Prior migrant crisis came from the same parts of Africa that are also doubled up on that index.

It is no accident that these people are fleeing to Europe.

PeterAustralia makes a great case about the imposition of unsustainable borders.

Wholesale re-drawing of the maps in unfeasible, but we can clearly see the conflict zones. We can clearly see the rough boundaries that have been shaped (and like South Sudan were already known before the eruption of violence) and there seems little reason to keep trying to force the recalcitrant parties to stay in a state ... that is pretty clearly not a state in anything but the magic lines of map.

Both Syria and Iraq require the happy marriage of Shia and Suna - and it is clearly not going well. Perhaps its time to let them divorce?

 

[John Fedup]

@gree0232....it Shia vs Sunni and turf as well as tribal conflicts which is why this mess just won't get better a time soon.

 

[tonnyc]

If you would like sources try Mr Google and develop your own. Do not just rely on news media for your information because they present slanted and biased views in what they like to call the "news". It is best to read wider sources and more than one in order to gain some understanding of what is happening

Are you serious? Because by using this excuse I can make any sort of claims and not have to back it up.

Do you know that the JF-17 is superior to the F-35? You don't think so? Go look it up on Mr. Google and develop your own sources. Do not just rely on news media for your information because they present slanted and biased views in what they like to call the "news". It is best to read wider sources and more than one in order to gain some understanding of what is happening.

That, ngatimozart, is not the level of discourse I expect from this forum. But that's the sort of talk you can expect once you get used to dismissing a person's request that someone else back their claim(s) with data by telling them to "Google it".

John Fedup's single example is disappointing. Omar Khadr is a Canadian citizen by birth. No question about that. Ahmed Said Khadr might qualify, except that his radicalization happened in the University of Ottawa, and not in Egypt or Pakistan or Afghanistan. No background check at the time he entered Canada will peg Ahmed Said Khadr as a terrorist, because he didn't turn into one until he was already in Canada.

But you know what, I think I made my point about providing sources. John Fedup at least tries, and while I remain unconvinced, he at least took the time to answer my request.

So instead, I'm going to address the thread's topic.

I agree with John Fedup about not messing any further in the Middle East because that place is a mess. I may disagree with him on the matter of "terrorist refugees", but there is a clear link between the number of Syrian refugees and the war in Syria. This places a significant economic burden on the countries hosting the refugees. Intervention in other Middle East countries will just add to the number of refugees. In fact, the sooner Syria returns to peace, the sooner the refugees can return.

I doubt the feasibility of partition. The theory is nice, but any partition imposed by an outsider is going to result in feeling of unfairness. This then results in violence as the locals ignore the partition and try to grab what they think is their fair share. In other words, no different from when the British tried it when they left the region. A superior force might be able to enforce the partition, but who's going to bankroll it and for how long? Because as soon as the money dries out and the superior force leave, the locals will ignore the partition and try to grab what they think is their fair share, and things will repeat themselves. This holds up not just in the Middle East, but pretty much anywhere in the world. See the partition of India and Pakistan for an example outside the Middle East.

Best leave it to the locals to sort it out themselves. Sure, be a diplomatic mediator and try to help them negotiate something. Maybe offer suggestions. But if the locals don't want to do it then it really doesn't matter how the US partition the place, because it will go FUBAR very soon.

 

[Feanor]

If you think NZ is as corrupt as Iraq or Syria ... I highly suggest you visit there for yourself and compare.

Corruption Perceptions Index -- 2014

The Fund for Peace

It is no accident that the countries generating the current migration crisis feature heavily on both the corruption and failed state index. So, yes, you have it much better than people in Syria do, where the indigenous tribes are literally killing each other rather than taking their issues to a court.

Re-read his statement. Nowhere did he equate the two.

They have been getting terrorist refuges for years during the relatively calm periods. All the interventions to date seem to have minimal effect and in many cases the situation becomes worse. It seems to me intervention and leaving it alone have the same result.

There's a big difference between a terrorist refuge and a terrorist state. I'd rather have Saddam Hussein then ISIS. Interventions have not had minimum effect. They've had a huge effect. Not always a positive one, in fact frequently not, but significant effect none the less.

And what makes Europe/North America/Japan/China etc. destinations for those caught in the instability of the ME? Good governance.

The West and East lack corruption, have effective and relatively reliable internal security forces, strong judicial systems that are usually not bribable, strong rule of law platforms that are usually supported by the larger population.

This stands in stark contrast to the tribalism and corruption that as wracked the ME. ISIS is not the first observer to point out that the Sykes-Picot Agreement left the Middle East a patchwork of ungovernable tribes and ethnicity. The result is the creation of states like Syria, where being an Alawite means you ave access to economic benefits, justice (even injustice against your opposing tribes), and the lion's share of the 'country' in held in the hands of the 'haves'. For the have nots, there is no real method of redress. This leads to tribal support systems, which are themselves mini-governments in many cases (providing judicial and social support for the have nots) and themselves become targets for the political elite because they are, often correctly, seen as competitors.

In Iraq, the Suna dominated the Shia. Now the Shia dominate the Suna. The same happens in Syria.

If we are serious about creating stability, then perhaps its time to acknowledge that the ME is not a Western multi-cultural society? What strategic benefit is garnered by having 'Syria' rather than three smaller states? An Alawite State, a Suna State, and a Kurdish State?

These three areas are roughly homogenous, are effectively already governing themselves, and are capable of defending themselves. Why not simply push for a formal recognition of the partition of Syria? Iraq? Its defacto dividd already, and the varying interests of the region are pouring in money and weapons to try to make sure their supported element 'wins' - yet if it does, its just the new Alawite ... there are more haves and have nots.

What exactly is the point?

The lines on a map are less important than the people living inside those lines. If formal lines can divide the role of government in a way that better provides for the people within those lines and offers a chance for greater stability, why not?

Why not? Because actions have consequences. And those need to be well considered before acting. That having been said my reply was to a particular thing he said. He said "let them sort it out and disable the winners". I was pointing out that this is not a good approach, and may lead to more significant consequences then actual intervention, depending on how it gets "sorted out".

 

[John Fedup]

There's a big difference between a terrorist refuge and a terrorist state. I'd rather have Saddam Hussein then ISIS. Interventions have not had minimum effect. They've had a huge effect. Not always a positive one, in fact frequently not, but significant effect none the less.

Besides Hussein, you could add Assad and Gadaffi as well.. Bad as they were, they were less trouble than what is coming IMO. Can't speak for those that had to put up with these tyrants but looking at what followed them I am guessing most might accept this fact.

 

[gree0232]

Re-read his statement. Nowhere did he equate the two.



There's a big difference between a terrorist refuge and a terrorist state. I'd rather have Saddam Hussein then ISIS. Interventions have not had minimum effect. They've had a huge effect. Not always a positive one, in fact frequently not, but significant effect none the less.



Why not? Because actions have consequences. And those need to be well considered before acting. That having been said my reply was to a particular thing he said. He said "let them sort it out and disable the winners". I was pointing out that this is not a good approach, and may lead to more significant consequences then actual intervention, depending on how it gets "sorted out".

All actions have consequences, including taking none at all. What you wrote above is simply not logical, because if we avoided ANYTHING that has consequences ... then we would never do anything, including nothing - because that too has consequences. Buch such circular logic you can justify literally anything or discredit literally anything.

What is being discussed is whether partition, the re-arraging of the map (particularly of the ME, but including African conflict zones) into more coherent and governable states would be a good or bad policy - or some other option.

If the only means of disagreement is a generic disagreement that allows you to continuously disagree with the policy recommendation, its simply not helpful.

Generally speaking, when people are killing each other by the tens and hundreds of thousands ... there is usually something driving the fight. If we identify root causes (or in military speak, a 'center of gravity'), then we can align forces (diplomatic, economic, information, and military) toward that problem set and push it toward a resolution where ... hundreds of thousands of people stop killing one another as a means of conflict resolution.

If the problem is that the states consist of ethic and religiously diverse and, key here, separate cultures that have difficulty coexisting as equals (i.e a lack of multiculturalism) and this is driving them into a series of rebellions and insurgencies that are terribly destructive ... what would be the solution?

Gee, actions have consequences is a pretty sound avoidance of the issue entirely.

Gee, let them sort it out ... works well until hundreds of thousands of people desperate to flee the conflict zone show up on your door step ...

Gee, let them sort it out ... works well, until you realize that Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the US are all pouring in arms (and literally dropping bombs) to try to 'solve' the problem ... and it clearly isn't working.

Gee, after its all sorted out, then we'll bomb the winners ... is kinda the opposite of letting the sort it out and basically just promises everyone in an entire region punishment at the hands of dehumanized military apparatus that will kill for killings sake ... and actions ... they do have consequences.

There are mechanisms by which states come into existence, and those mechanisms can be exercised and even encouraged in cases where it is clear that a diverse population is not going to peacefully co-exist.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Broadly speaking to all and to none in particular - play nice - or get evicted

conviction is no excuse for poor behavior

 

[Feanor]

All actions have consequences, including taking none at all. What you wrote above is simply not logical, because if we avoided ANYTHING that has consequences ... then we would never do anything, including nothing - because that too has consequences. Buch such circular logic you can justify literally anything or discredit literally anything.

What is being discussed is whether partition, the re-arraging of the map (particularly of the ME, but including African conflict zones) into more coherent and governable states would be a good or bad policy - or some other option.

If the only means of disagreement is a generic disagreement that allows you to continuously disagree with the policy recommendation, its simply not helpful.

Please consider the context of my replies. They were replies to specific statements made by others, not general statements in their own right. I'm not disagreeing in a generic manner, I'm disagreeing in a particular manner. I think that inaction is not a good course of action to take, and I do think that there needs to be a clear policy on the Middle East. I also think that this policy needs to be grounded in the reality that exists, not in wishful thinking or idealized desires about what we would like it to be. In this sense I think the policy needs to look at previous interventions, and consider why they have failed to achieve desirable results. I objected to his attitude of "why not try? might as well". Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part, but it seemed to me that he was advocating the type of ill-advised adventurism that has caused many of today's problems.

Generally speaking, when people are killing each other by the tens and hundreds of thousands ... there is usually something driving the fight. If we identify root causes (or in military speak, a 'center of gravity'), then we can align forces (diplomatic, economic, information, and military) toward that problem set and push it toward a resolution where ... hundreds of thousands of people stop killing one another as a means of conflict resolution.

If the problem is that the states consist of ethic and religiously diverse and, key here, separate cultures that have difficulty coexisting as equals (i.e a lack of multiculturalism) and this is driving them into a series of rebellions and insurgencies that are terribly destructive ... what would be the solution?

Is that the problem? Is ethnicity and religion at the root of the conflict? Or is there another cause? Realistically speaking France wasn't ethnically or culturally a single country until almost the Renaissance. As late as the 1500s many of the provinces were speaking different languages (Montaigne grew up speaking Perigord). At some point a nation-forming process had come about out of the religious violence that was ripping apart France of that time period to produce centuries of fairly unified and easily identifiable French culture. Is splitting the Middle East into ever smaller provinces for every minority that's willing to lop off a few of their neighbors' heads a solution? Or will it simply encourage more tribalism and separatism?

There are mechanisms by which states come into existence, and those mechanisms can be exercised and even encouraged in cases where it is clear that a diverse population is not going to peacefully co-exist.

There are powerful parallels behind the Middle East today, and the Thirty Years War. It's not at all clear that splitting existing states over and over again will solve anything. It could end with a plethora of micro-states all in constant small wars with each other, or even in a series of failed states. Not to mention that getting support behind that idea would be hard. If you can split Iraq, why can't you split Georgia? I think the approach will have to be more complex then that. The Kurds certainly could be made a state of their own, by combining Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistans. Of course that would be opposed by Turkey, and while Iraq and Syria could be forced to accept this as a status quo with enough Western pressure (letting Assad retain what he can of the rest of Syria with western tolerance, could sell Russia on letting a pro-Western Kurdistan emerge), Turkey would not. And Turkey is not only a NATO member but also a major trading partner for many western countries. Turkey could even end up on the same side as Russia, if faced with a pro-Western Kurdistan. Russia could sell their opposition to an independent Kurdistan (and it's UN veto) in exchange for Turkey tolerating Assad. Note just how many problems emerge with even a fairly obvious case like Kurdistan which really should be its own state.

However plenty of the territories involve populations intermingled quite closely, and clear geographic boundaries are hard to draw. And in many cases a "manifest destiny" type approach is at work where the groups in question feel that it is up to them to be the state-forming mechanism, and to conquer and turn the rest into their territories. Prime example, ISIS is now in Sinai, as well as Iraq and Syria. Do you think they're fighting over freedom for their nation state, or conquest?

 

[gree0232]

Please consider the context of my replies. They were replies to specific statements made by others, not general statements in their own right. I'm not disagreeing in a generic manner, I'm disagreeing in a particular manner. I think that inaction is not a good course of action to take, and I do think that there needs to be a clear policy on the Middle East. I also think that this policy needs to be grounded in the reality that exists, not in wishful thinking or idealized desires about what we would like it to be. In this sense I think the policy needs to look at previous interventions, and consider why they have failed to achieve desirable results. I objected to his attitude of "why not try? might as well". Maybe it's a misunderstanding on my part, but it seemed to me that he was advocating the type of ill-advised adventurism that has caused many of today's problems.

You are not disagreeing in a specific fashion, you are disagreeing in a highly generic and loose fashion.

Actions have consequences ... yes they do. That does not actually disagree with any specific action. And yet it can also agree with ... well, any specific action.

You call partition adventurism, at the same time you demand that we 'respect the situation on the ground'. What exactly do you think is driving the case for partition? One that a retiring Army Chief of Staff admits might be necessary in Iraq, and one that Putin in openly engaging toward with the deployment of Russian forces in the Alewife area of Syria? These people do not want to live together, so why are we attempting to force them into unhappy marriage in which the husband and wife are attempting to stab each other to death every night? THAT seems like a pretty adventuresome relationship ... one forced by lines on a map, and lines on a map can be changed - something Putin has proved time and again in recent years.

Your solution to this? Do nothing and let them sort it out might seem at first case to be OK. It rests, unfortunately, on a false assumption - that what is playing out is a 'Syrian/Iraq' rather than regional (perhaps international) concern. There are four main players WITH backers: The Shia-Alawites: Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, Shia Iraq (and regional Shia expats), The 'moderate' Suna: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ISIS: global jihadists, Saudi Arabia, Suna Iraq (that illicit trans-national network that proved so vexing to the US in the Iraq War), and the Kurds: restricted support from the USA and West so as not to upset Iraq or Turkey.

So we let this all play out toward ... a giant refugee crisis in Europe as people flee the rapidly deteriorating situation? We let the lines harden but not acknowledge them? We attempt to let one side win, even as we acknowledge that life for any of these factions under the other is ... impossible. There is a reason that there has been a series of rebellions over the years.

US policy in this circumstance is incoherent. Instead of backing a party we have ... decided we don't like any particular party, kinda agree with the Alawite's but not Asad, really don't like ISIS and want to destroy it (but only softly), the Kurds, our natural partners, are neglected and left with a rump state we will not recognize, and our main partner is aligned with our regional competitor Iran ... and is best at syphoning off money and equipment that leaves a rump Army incapable of fighting ISIS ... who we do want to hurt ... leaving us backing an ineffective Iraqi state rather than the Kurds.

We spent $500 million training a force that defied knowledge on the ground and was quickly 'destroyed' precisely because it is not a power in the fight. Its throwing money at an idea and not at 'the reality on the ground'

Yet the last part of your solution is the one I take the most umbrage at. Just bomb/attack/denude whomever comes out on top? There is a flippancy to that statement that belies the complexity of the situation and offers the promise of only more horror devoid of any solution save more violence. As an Afghan Vet, I returned from my last tour horrified by the senseless violence that was eating our young men. And when you attempt to talk about this with the American public ... you get blank stares. I just have a visceral reaction to the empty and ill considered threat of force (Apologies). That is especially so when it is applied without real consideration to what that force might achieve, and it will achieve something ... Iraq more than proved that.

So that leave us with what else? There are other options on the table.

#1 - Pick a faction. Which one is the most capable of governance? Stability? Back it and allow it to crush the others and re-impose security albeit with known inequality, into the area.

#2 - Do nothing. Pull US involvement out of Iraq and Syria completely and let them do as they will. Focus US efforts on humanitarian efforts to deal with the refugees. Stop the bombing, the training, etc. With the regional powers aligned as described above, the situation will eventually resolve itself (no war lasts forever). Having left the situation however, the US must then accept whomever comes out on top and work to help make it a stable government in the ME.

#3 - The UN Security Council was created specifically for cases such as these. There is a reason the five members were chosen, and it is because they have the power to impose solutions. It is precisely this geo-political power that allowed the West to impose the boundaries of the Sykes-Picot agreement - and series of lines we now know are fundamentally flawed. Should the US, with Russia, China, and two of our own NATO partners decide carve up Syria ... acknowledge the rump states ... and pledge to use force to stabilize the NEW boundaries ... it would be a done deal.

The rebels are suddenly not fleeing Asad's brutality - they would be invading Alawite areas. Asad would be defending a rump state and a people facing reprisal attacks, and any attempts to force his rule back on the Suna would be clear aggression.

Would there be detractors? Sure. There are to any action. But it begs the question about what the goal is in these areas. Is the issue about building credible and stable states? Or forcing people into states whose sustainability is questionable?

The Russians are putting their money where their mouths are. We? Are putting a lot of money into ... nothing.

Is that the problem? Is ethnicity and religion at the root of the conflict? Or is there another cause? Realistically speaking France wasn't ethnically or culturally a single country until almost the Renaissance.

The Franks were as ethnic and linguistically different people when Rome conquered them. It is one of the reason, like Serbia emerging from Yugoslavia, that the Franks were able to form a viable state when Rome fell - and why history has graced us with Charlemagne.

The steps Charlemagne took to subdue his Germanic neighbors are absolutely brutal, involving tactics that would not be dissimilar to ISIS today. As we can see today as well, Germany is a coherent state on its own - precisely because the people were ethnically and culturally distinct from the Franks/French.

As late as the 1500s many of the provinces were speaking different languages (Montaigne grew up speaking Perigord). At some point a nation-forming process had come about out of the religious violence that was ripping apart France of that time period to produce centuries of fairly unified and easily identifiable French culture. Is splitting the Middle East into ever smaller provinces for every minority that's willing to lop off a few of their neighbors' heads a solution? Or will it simply encourage more tribalism and separatism?

And yet France is a far cry from Napoleon's grand vision of the French Empire. The rise and the fall of the French Kingdom is well documented, and the slow growth of the empire over time held some gains (Alsace-Lorraine), but reversals in others (the Rhineland, etc.)

The stabilization of borders seems to have prevented what was not just a generational problem of war between the french and Germanic Kingdoms, but a conflict that lasted thousands of years (on and off). Again, it is yet another example, like the solving of the Danish/German border by Lawrence Steffel after WWI.

Changing a map by force is a very deliberate process, and, in the day and age, not one prone to success. The problem for the current conflict areas is that the map lines are not like the French-German border, but borders that contain BOTH Germany and France, with the other always trying to seize the apparatus of the state to oppress the other.

Like it or not, but tribalism and religion are closely aligned in the ME. ENTIRE tribes are one or the other, religion is not an individual choice in this region. And tribes and religions are in strife. There are already tribal systems in place that allow rough cooperation between like minded tribes - who already govern themselves beyond the control of the Central government (both during peace and war).

What exactly are we driving at here?

There are powerful parallels behind the Middle East today, and the Thirty Years War.

The 30 Years War began the process of consolidating the hundreds of Germanic Kingdoms, with states like Prussia and Bavaria emerging as regional players in the aftermath of the war. If there are any parallels to be drawn, it would be that all this territory was considered the Holy Roman Empire on a map, and yet, underneath, it was a hodge podge of Kingdoms and fiefdoms, each playing each other off against the other while outside states routinely interfered in the process. That is precisely what is happening in Syria and Iraq today. Its the grand Caliphate, only its not ... and the regional players are dabbling in very destructive manners.

Unlike the Germanic Kingdom's there is no uniting Nationality or culture to paste this all together. (The Holy Roman Empire includes Germany, Austria, The Czech Republic, and parts of Croatia).

If you can split Iraq, why can't you split Georgia?

Georgia is split. And Crimea is now part of Russia. Belorussia is also split, and the Baltic states evidently fear that the same could be, and will be, done to them. Mr. Putin has no problem changing boundaries when he believes his strategic interest is at stake. The same goes for China ... who is literally building Island in the Sea.

And Turkey is not only a NATO member but also a major trading partner for many western countries. Turkey could even end up on the same side as Russia, if faced with a pro-Western Kurdistan. Russia could sell their opposition to an independent Kurdistan (and it's UN veto) in exchange for Turkey tolerating Assad. Note just how many problems emerge with even a fairly obvious case like Kurdistan which really should be its own state.

All of these problem exist anyway. That is why a policy must accept leadership and imposition of a solution. Jimmy Carter got it right - of all people. But the dabbling incoherence of not offending the Turks (who are mightily offended anyway) is not a reason to avoid using our power to keep a destructive war going pointlessly.

However plenty of the territories involve populations intermingled quite closely, and clear geographic boundaries are hard to draw. And in many cases a "manifest destiny" type approach is at work where the groups in question feel that it is up to them to be the state-forming mechanism, and to conquer and turn the rest into their territories. Prime example, ISIS is now in Sinai, as well as Iraq and Syria. Do you think they're fighting over freedom for their nation state, or conquest?

ISIS in the Sinai like the AIDS virus in a patient. Its not an effective state there, and has both Israel and Egypt crushing it. The transnational nature of jihadists has existed as a coherent force since at least the Soviet-Afghan War - and it is precisely these divisions and injustices that groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS exploit - to the point where we are so fearful of a handful of miscreants that we would rather surrender our civil liberties in fear than use our strength to simple say, "Enough, you cannot play in the same sand box? Then you each get a separate sandbox!"

Is it difficult? Sure. So is any alternative.

But if the goal is a stable Middle East ... then we have to acknowledge that the Sykes-Picot agreement is part of the problem of stability. If we do not impose an equitable solution, then the situation on the ground will likely impose one violently - and it may be both less equitable and less stable over the long run.

Whatever happens, what is needed is something that looks like a plan. Russia has one - keep Assad in power! We ... are bombing ISIS, but not enough to effect any real change (their combat with their rivals eats up more of their resources than does our very expensive air campaign) ... arming but not arming the Kurds ... arming the Iraqi Army ... who runs away due to corrupt leadership and arms ISIS with billions in highly effective combat equipment time and time again.

Partition may not be the best solution, maybe not even a good one ... but its a hell of a lot better than what we are doing on the ground. That we are changing intelligence reports to make the case that the ribbon we placed on the pile of dung is actually making it look pretty is ... not fooling anyone. (At least no one who cares and is knowledgeable at any rate).