I disagree that Iraq will ultimately fragment into multiple states.

Can you explain why? I’ll tell you why I think so.

The modern boundaries of Iraq were the invention of Winston Churchill. They were enforced by the British and later by Saddam. Just as eastern Europe splintered along cultural and ethnic lines when the authoritarian Soviets were no longer around, it seems likely the same will eventually happen to Iraq. Why would a bunch of people who don’t like each other wish to live together unless someone is forcing them? No matter how benevolent your intentions, in the end you will become authoritarian if you are having to force people to cohabitate against their will. The Bush administration knows this, which is why it is very reluctant to discuss a full withdrawal, since a unified Iraq is essential to its plan for making an American satellite nation. But then the more authoritarian you become, the more people will resent your presence and the less you can appear benevolent in your intentions.

Then there is the fallacious notion of “nation building.“ Since Saddam’s Iraq is often compared to Hitler’s Germany, I’ll use this as an example. Following both World Wars, the defeated Germans were forced to change government leadership, but in both cases the bureaucratic infrastructure survived. A thing that is common to every government--be it democratic, socialist, communist, monarchial, theocratic, etc.--is that there is some sort of administrative bureaucracy. Unfortunately, one of the first things the US government did after occupying Iraq was to level the administrative infrastructure. This made everything about a thousand times harder, because it is easier to accept regime change if you still have the same postman, DMV clerks, or local probate judge.

Can you explain why? I’ll tell you why I think so.

The modern boundaries of Iraq were the invention of Winston Churchill. They were enforced by the British and later by Saddam. Just as eastern Europe splintered along cultural and ethnic lines when the authoritarian Soviets were no longer around, it seems likely the same will eventually happen to Iraq. Why would a bunch of people who don’t like each other wish to live together unless someone is forcing them? No matter how benevolent your intentions, in the end you will become authoritarian if you are having to force people to cohabitate against their will. The Bush administration knows this, which is why it is very reluctant to discuss a full withdrawal, since a unified Iraq is essential to its plan for making an American satellite nation. But then the more authoritarian you become, the more people will resent your presence and the less you can appear benevolent in your intentions.

Then there is the fallacious notion of “nation building.“ Since Saddam’s Iraq is often compared to Hitler’s Germany, I’ll use this as an example. Following both World Wars, the defeated Germans were forced to change government leadership, but in both cases the bureaucratic infrastructure survived. A thing that is common to every government--be it democratic, socialist, communist, monarchial, etc.--is that there is some sort of administrative bureaucracy. Unfortunately, one of the first things the US government did after occupying Iraq was to level the administrative infrastructure. This made everything about a thousand times harder, because it is easier to accept regime change if you still have the same postman, DMV clerks, or local probate judge.


Yes, I am quite aware of the history regarding England's misguided, and typically British arrogance, role in carving up the Middle East and the establishment of Israel (the first country of choice for settlement was actually northern Africa). They failed to heed the warnings of advisers that were well versed in Middle Eastern dynamics. The U.S. is following the same pattern because, like all historical dominant countries, their policies and actions are justified by proxy..... their the dominant leader.

Regarding Iraqi: you fail to factor in the cultural aspect in your analysis. Although having a continuous administrative/political infrastructure is important; maintaining cultural and regional (e.g. Middle East) autonomy is even more important. Case in point, India suffered the same dominance under England's rule. However, despite their ethnic/religious differences, they formed an alliance to oust the British. Also, if you have kept abreast of international news, you will know that the ethnic/regional factions in Iraq have already begun forming such an alliance.

All regional countries resist forced dominance, no matter how one may choose to deguise it. Another case in point: U.S. resistance and subsequent independence from British rule; which all Americans celebrate to this day as "The 4th of July".



ShinKen, I may not have satisfactorily explained my reasons; primarily due to the fact that, as you already know, this is a very complicated subject based on one's knowledge, information and first-hand experiences that requires more time, and WKRG word count, than allowed.

My knowledge of Indian history is pretty much limited to the movie “Ghandi,” but I recollect that after the British packed up and left, India divided along Hindi/Muslim lines leading to the creation of Pakistan.

I was vague in my post, implying that Iraq would fracture first, then the US would leave, but I concede that it would likely be the reverse.

I think we have ended the trend of centralizing authority that has been prevalent since the 17th century. This trend began with the incorporation of the various small states of Europe into the present day large nation states. This trend peaked in the 19th century with the unification of Germany, Italy and the US (I say the US because the Civil War established that the individual states would be trumped by Washington and could not challenge Federal authority again with the threat of succession.)

The assumption of many people is that the trend of centralization will continue to its inevitable conclusion: a one world state. The neoconservatives of the PNAC variety are working hard toward an American hegemony in world affairs based on this expectation.
In fact, I think the opposite is likely. We will see more collapsing of states as the Soviet Union collapsed.