The Balkanization of Iraq

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

If you look at the map below, it will be obvious that most of Iraq's oil is 
in the Kurdish controlled north and the Shiite controlled south:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_oilfields_1992.jpg

In the May New York Review of Books, Peter W. Galbraith argues for what 
amounts to the breakup of Iraq:

The best hope for holding Iraq together­and thereby avoiding civil war­is 
to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent 
possible, the system each wants. This, too, suggests the only policy that 
can get American forces out of Iraq.

"In the north this means accepting that Kurdistan will continue to govern 
its own affairs and retain responsibility for its own security. US 
officials have portrayed a separate Kurdistan defense force as the first 
step leading to the breakup of Iraq. The Kurds, however, see such a force 
not as an attribute of a sovereign state but as insurance in case democracy 
fails in the rest of Iraq. No one in Kurdistan would trust an Iraqi 
national army (even one in which the Kurds were well represented) since the 
Iraqi army has always been an agent of repression, and in the 1980s, of 
genocide. The Kurds also see clearly how ineffective are the new security 
institutions created by the Americans. In the face of uprisings in the 
Sunni Triangle and the south, the new Iraqi police and civil defense corps 
simply vanished...

"In the south, Iraq's Shiites want an Islamic state. They are sufficiently 
confident of public support that they are pushing for early elections. The 
United States should let them have their elections, and be prepared to 
accept an Islamic state?but only in the south. In most of the south, Shiite 
religious leaders already exercise actual power, having established a 
degree of security, taken over education, and helped to provide municipal 
services. In the preparation of Iraq's interim constitution, Shiite leaders 
asked for (and obtained) the right to form one or two Shiite regions with 
powers comparable to those of Kurdistan. They also strongly support the 
idea that petroleum should be owned by the respective regions, which is 
hardly surprising since Iraq's largest oil reserves are in the south."

full: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17103

Although Galbraith has liberal credentials (son of John Kenneth), he is no 
slouch when it comes to the art of breaking up countries to benefit US 
imperialist aims, as is evidenced by his post as US Ambassador to Croatia 
during the 1990s.

To show how tuned in he is to the real needs of imperialism, as opposed to 
neoconservative fantasies, he gets a ringing endorsement from NY Times 
editorialist David Brook, who does not mince words:

>>Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue 
that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, 
he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three 
divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil 
war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up 
violently," Galbraith says. "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by 
Winston Churchill."

One of my other calls yesterday went to another smart Iraq analyst, Reuel 
Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise 
Institute. Gerecht's conclusions are often miles apart from Galbraith's, 
but they have one trait in common. Both of them begin their analysis by 
taking a hard look at the reality of Iraqi society. Neither tries to 
imagine what sort of constitution might be pretty to our eyes or might be 
good in some abstract sense. They try to envision which system comports 
with reality.

Gerecht is also upbeat about this constitution. It's crazy, he says, to 
think that you could have an Iraqi constitution in which clerical 
authorities are not assigned a significant role. Voters supported clerical 
parties because they are, right now, the natural leaders of society and 
serve important social functions.<<

full: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html

The one thing that is not mentioned in Galbraith or Brooks's articles is 
oil. It is obvious that the Sunnis are opposed to the new constitution 
because it would leave them impoverished, if the logic of Balkanization 
goes full cycle. It is interesting that they are supported by Sadr's 
guerrilla army whose main social base is in the Baghdad slums rather than 
the Basra bazaar.

>>BAGHDAD, Aug 26 (Reuters) - A hundred thousand Iraqis across the country 
marched on Friday in support of a maverick Shi'ite cleric opposed to a 
draft constitution that U.S.-backed government leaders say will deliver a 
brighter future.

The protest could reinforce the opposition of Sunni Arabs who dominate the 
insurgency and are bitterly against the draft.

Supporters of young Shi'ite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr, who has staged two 
uprisings against U.S. troops, also protested against poor services during 
their marches, stepping up the pressure on the government.

A hundred thousand Sadr supporters marched in eight cities, including 
30,000 people who gathered for a sermon delivered on his behalf in a 
Baghdad slum district.

They hardly noticed a huge government poster which read "One Nation, One 
People, One Constitution", instead seeking guidance from Sadr who inspires 
fierce devotion in his followers.<<

A new more complicated situation might be facing the Iraqi resistance. If 
imperialism and its local allies plunge ahead with the break-up of Iraq, it 
will have the effect of creating a more *class* based resistance. However, 
by tearing the country apart geographically and allowing the relatively 
oil-free middle to fend for itself, it will be able to concentrate its 
forces in the north and south and construct barriers of the sort that you 
find in the West Bank today. American GI's and quisling troops will man 
checkpoints at the entrances to both regions. While the Sunni-led 
resistance might have made imperialist rule over the middle of the country, 
more far-sighted elements of the American ruling class might have decided 
to write off this portion just as the Israelis wrote off Gaza.