Partition of Iraq: Sunnistan
Iraq is a mess. The current situation is not what we had counted on in 2003. Sunnis and Shia are killing each other on the streets of Baghdad, in what can only be termed “uncontrollable, retaliatory, neighborhood-wrecking, hundred dead a day, but-not-civil-war-yet, sectarian violence.” There is no political will for an increased American troop presence.
So, let’s stop trying to occupy that segment of the population most resistant to our presence - the Sunni. At the same time, let’s permit the de facto separation to happen, as shown on the map.
A few comments. Baghdad, Mosul, and Kirkuk have Sunni Arab neighborhoods. With some gerrymandering, the borders of Sunnistan can snake into these cities to encompass Sunni neighborhoods. To illustrate, a detail map of a divided Baghdad is shown (click to enlarge):
Diyala province, to the northeast of Baghdad would not be assigned to Sunnistan, thus providing a continuous connection between Kurdistan and southern Iraq (Shia-stan). The western desert, while part of Sunni Anbar province is thinly populated and could be secured by relatively few American and Iraqi government forces; this could also permit Baghdad and Shia-stan to communicate with Jordan. The borders along Kurdistan, as shown, run well south of the current three Kurdish governates; that could change, but the Kurds will want a presence in Kirkuk.
The Iraqi constitution permits provinces that are so inclined to group together in autonomous regions. That could follow from this stage later on. In the short term, Sunnistan as drawn on the map, merely represents Sunni areas not occupied by American forces, but still theoretically part of a unified Iraq. Clearly, the Iraqi government would be free to exercise whatever control it could over this area (without any American boots on the ground).
So … what’s wrong with this plan?
WaPo reporting from Iraq
Shiites Press for a Partition of Iraq
Three Options in Iraq
Why the violence has declined in Iraq
Using the “C” Word