Whether or not partition of Iraq had better be something that the Iraqis decide themselves -- somehow. I gurarantee that if it's seen that the United States imposes or even favors that result, it will be a non-starter and possibly lead to further bloodshed all over the Middle East.

"Americans should pray that Iraqis heed the fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia late last week, forbidding inter-Muslim bloodshed."

Why? Seriously, why? The more the Ummah is frenzied with burning, bombing and beheading itself, the less time and resources it has to burn, bomb and behead the "uncovered meat" of the infidels. And the ongoing situation in Darfur (as well as the Iran-Iraq war, killer of about a million people) demonstrate that inter-Muslim massacre raises not a peep of protest in the so-called "Arab street," much less the "moderate" Muslims in Western countries . . . so, what's the downside?

Withdraw our troops. Let the Saudi Sunnis and the Iranian Shiites start savaging each other like little dogs locked in a hot car. Believe it or not, the oil's not going to dry up; they still desperately need to sell it. And let's use the money we save on things like health care, reducing the deficit, developing alternative energy sources -- and heavily monitoring mosques in our own territories.

Apart from SCIRI's Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, who in Iraq actually favors partition? I am seriously skeptical of Americans asserting that they know what Iraqis want or need. The SCIRI membership of the Iraqi congress may have voted for a federal plan recently, but how do we know they speak more for their constituents than out of fear of displeasing their party's leadership?

The reason that partition is attractive to American politicians like Hutchison and Biden is because it flatters them; insofar as they both voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2002, if partition is the eventual result, the chaos they helped create with their votes can be retrospectively seen as "inevitable" because supposedly the Iraqi state was never a tenable solution.

Juan Cole talks of "the selfish interests of all the political actors inside and outside Iraq" and then, just a few paragraphs later, writes: "With two-thirds of the globe’s proven petroleum reserves and 45 percent of its natural gas, the Persian Gulf hinterland of Iraq is key to the well-being of an industrialized or industrializing world. Long-term political instability in this region could drive petroleum prices so high as to endanger the world economy." He then writes that "Americans should pray that Iraqis heed the fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia late last week, forbidding inter-Muslim bloodshed" -- not for the sake of the Iraqis, but for the continued material comfort of Americans.

Apparently the continuous flow of oil is more important than whether or not the Iraqis continue to slaughter each other. Cole could be an adviser to the Bush regime.

Cole says that partitioning Iraq is not the answer -- and I wholeheartedly disagree with him -- yet he offers no other workable solution.

Robert Crook

Sacramento

the fighting probably and the economic instability certainly, will not remain confined to the middle east. They can't even sell the oil if the facilities are blown up, and if the fighting spreads to eastern Saudi Arabia, which it could, we could see a disruption of the worlds energy supplies which would be totally unprecedented. Saudi production has never been seriously curtailed for the long term before.

most of the rest of the world will suffer far more than Americans will if there are sustained high oil prices. Not to say that Americans won't feel it too.

Quote:

"Apparently the continuous flow of oil is more important than whether or not the Iraqis continue to slaughter each other. Cole could be an adviser to the Bush regime."

I'm very outraged against this war, but I'm going to step away from that for a minute to be a "realist" and remind that nations have always gone to war to secure critical resources: water, farm and grazing land, access to rivers and transportation, etc.

Oil is a critical enough resource underlying the American society and economy that it makes sense that we would be willing to fight for it (as it also would make sense for us to invest massively in alternative energy development).

In Iraq, however, war to get to the resource was not necessary. Saddam Hussein was happy selling us as much oil as we wanted to buy before the war. By choosing war, access to the oil fields has been undermined by the chaos.

Whether you stand on the no-blood-for-oil moral highground or somewhere farther down, no national good was served by committing so much blood and treasure to the destruction of this war. Worse yet, continuing the war serves little else than Bush's ego now.

Regarding partition: Agreed, the Iraqis need to work that out for themselves. We need to be humble about what we can't control.

I ask this question without irony. I accept Professor Cole´s greater knowledge in this matter (would that he or other´s like him were in charge of policy), and though I am a regular reader of his blog and other good sources of information, I can´t seem to find a convincing alternative to partition.

If we accept the premise that violence is fueled in part by the american presence, then removing that presence should reduce violence. But no knowledgeable observer believes the american presence is the only thing fueling the fire. (Let me add that I think the invasion was the stupidest thing any american president has ever done. More so than the Vietnam war, which is saying something.)

So let us say the american army leaves. Then what? Are the several factions, parties, militias, and venal power-grabbers going to stop blowing each other up? I doubt it.

So, if not partition, then what? Again, my question is sincere and not meant to be ironic or sarcastic.

American Empire hopes and desires will require a much greater

willingness to pull up troop counts for Iraq militarism incursion

then seen so far from the "cheap and easy plan" the Bush2WH has

signed on to. For that matter the fiscal amounts needed to pony

up the attack,occupation and subjugation are in direct conflict

with Bush2WH "cut taxes" and non-warfooting of American economy.

So what does Bush2WH want? War and economic colonization? Easy

time domestic policies? What? It is doubtful any Bush2WH strategy

is ever far from winning elections. So unable or unwilling to make

hard decisions about American Imperial desires in ME Americans were

led to current rout and debacle. What is The Decider talking about

these days in US? He wants more tax cuts and trys to smear the DEMS

as being tax increasers. Of course he doesnt talk about AIT* which is

the big shitpile he skirts around ever so carefully. G.W.Bush is a

liar. And sadly his little "war" in Iraq was and is a big lie as well.

* AIT is Alternative Income Tax...the "IED" of Federal Tax Code.